I was driven mad by the Chinese education system - <AUTHOR> http://en.chinaelections.org/NewsInfo.asp?NewsID=19911 <comment><USER3> I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the Chinese education system, coupled with discipline through fear works. I competed at last year's International Physics Olympiad (Viet Nam), who won? China, as usual.

China starts preparation for the competition when their participants are just 8; they work ~16 hours a day on physics problems. The result? Winning with ease. You have, I all presume, read Gladwell's latest book. The Chinese education system squeezes the 10,000 hours required for expertise in before the children are 18. I'm currently [one of] the best physics students in the UK and I'd pay anything to have had an uprising like that, instead mine was consumed with PC games, and posting on forums.

The evidence I have shown can only be used to defend the proposition that: "The Chinese education system is best for those students with a natural skill in certain areas; i.e., physics". It might be argued that while it has these benefits the negatives - I reference the article in question - might outweigh the former.

I hate to go all reprogenetic on you. But my argument would go something like the following:

(1) A productive society is one with experts. (2) Expertise is only accomplished with relentless practice. (C) The most productive society will be accomplished if citizens are made to constantly work at their discipline.

There will, of course, be a transition stage in which those that lack real expertise are weeded out; but, I'm ashamed to say, that seems the most productive society.

Until then I will carry on working on my physics/philosophy 16 hours a day - <USER2> only wish I'd been forced to start earlier.

<comment><USER4> Doing well in the Physics Olympiad is not the same as doing well in physics.

In the Physics Olympiad, you solve simple problems based on well-understood formulae. In physics, you create new knowledge. It may be telling that China has won only three physics Nobel prizes, and all three of the winners got their PhDs in the US.

I admire your dedication to working hard on physics, but I think that creative, effortful practice is the key, not relentless drill.

<comment><USER3> Thank you wwalker3 for your keen response; however, I going to have to both agree and disagree - cliché through it is.

Doing well in the Physics Olympiad is a prerequisite to doing well in physics. Yes, I agree, creating knowledge requires a creative flare; however, I don't believe such heights can be achieved without first going through "the relentless drill". I'll use to example of literature to better illustrate my point. No doubt Hemingway's precision and restrain in writing was a creative leap; but that was founded on years of drilling; years of practicing alternative styles; years of relentless practice. Only then are creative insights possible.

First comes the drill; then comes the "creative, effortful practice".

<comment><USER5> Your point is well taken, but "creative, effortful practice" also requires a foundation of creative and critical thinking. Like physics, critical thinking is a skill that should be learned and practiced, preferably from a young age and alongside your other training.

One of the deficiencies in the Chinese educational system is that critical thinking simply isn't taught. The SOLE focus is consumption and rote regurgitation of material. I'm currently attending a top university in Beijing, and one thing I find strange is the incurious nature of many of the Chinese students. They've simply never been taught how to question things or contextualize knowledge.

Sure, there are a few highly creative thinkers, but they've had to be entirely autodidactic.

<comment><USER6> _and one thing I find strange is the incurious nature of many of the ... students. They've simply never been taught how to question things or contextualize knowledge._

 _Sure, there are a few highly creative thinkers, but they've had to be entirely autodidactic._

This sounds like every student body I've ever encountered anywhere in the world. Do you think the problem is worse in Beijing (what university?) than at Berkeley or Stanford?

<comment><USER5> Full disclosure: I'm an American attending Beijing Normal University, but I have friends (both foreign and Chinese) at Tsinghua and Beida (Beijing University).

I'll agree with you that most people, everywhere, are incurious. That's not a China problem, it's a human problem. It's particularly striking, though, at schools like Beida, Tsinghua, and BNU.

The students at those schools are, quite literally, the best and the brightest that China has to offer. The selectivity for those schools is astounding, and your exam scores have to be off the charts. EVERYBODY wants to attend those schools, so every person at those schools had to beat out tens of thousands of competitors. They're wicked smart, definitely smarter than me and probably smarter than you. Driven, too. Think MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Harvard, and then turn it up a notch.

Despite the aggressive intellect of these students, I often get a feeling of... intellectual passiveness. I've got to be careful here, because I don't want to give the impression that people here are stupid or inferior. They're not. It's just that in conversation I often feel like I'm talking to someone who's never properly learned how to question things. That's surprising, especially when I'm talking to someone who is obviously both brilliant and ambitious.

There's always exceptions, and the cream will always naturally rise to the top. I'm sure people can produce a ton of counter-examples. Things are also (slowly) changing, as the internet is producing a new and vibrant intellectual forum. However, I think that any intellectual "spark" still has to be self- produced. The Chinese educational system is hostile to it, even at the higher levels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You know, I went to a top-tier private school in the US, followed by a top- tier private university, and I never understood the obsession with getting As in everything. I certainly wasn't, especially once at university, but I didn't feel like less of a person.Even in the US, there is a stereotype that Asian parents drive their kids in a similar manner, although I have never heard of them treating them like property like this father does. Then there's the cram schools in Korea and Japan. I have to wonder why that, culturally, seems to be linked to Asians?

Culturally, though, this is the most disturbing part of the article: _One day I brought in a book, The Collected Stories of Guy Maupassant, and it was confiscated. The head teacher said this book was useless in improving my grades and that these kinds of books only lead students into decadence and depravation. The next day after class I was flipping through a book of short essays and it too was confiscated. The head teacher would not even let me write small articles on my own because she believes that it is a waste of time to write anything unless it is required by the literature teacher._

One message I was always sent during my education was that the point of education was to become a whole person, not just to make money; literacy and humanism were an integral part of that. (I think a couple of Asian kids that I went to school with ended up in the humanities against their parents' wishes because of this). That attitude seems to be quite common among hackers as well. The shells of people that the Chinese system will turn out, if this is any indication, scare me.

<comment><USER5> < I have to wonder why that, culturally, seems to be linked to Asians?

I can't speak for other Asian countries, but I know China. From what you wrote, your experience and the experience of Zhang Rui (the high school student) couldn't be more different. I've recently had the wonderful and depressing experience of teaching in rural Chinese high schools, and it was an eye-opening experience. The pressure and stress on those kids is simply astounding.

Unfortunately for Zhang Rui, there is probably no more important single event in his life than taking the University Entrance Examination (高考, or GaoKao). There are really only two life paths before him, depending on his score.

If Zhang Rui gets a decently high score, then he can attend a large university in a city like Beijing or Shanghai. He will receive an urban residence permit, and a small stipend that he can use to live as a student. He'll receive a degree without much difficulty, and he should be able to get a good job. He can become a professional, he can go into government, he can become a writer, he's got a lot of options.

If Zhang Rui gets a low score, then he has few or no options. He lives in a remarkably poor region, even by Chinese standards, and his father is probably a peasant farmer (or something close). He's probably also got a rural registration, so he'll never be legally allowed to leave his village. He can either follow in his father's impoverished footsteps or become an undocumented migrant worker, sweating in a factory or hand-mixing concrete on a construction site.

Those are the choices. Zhang Rui might be able to skip university and still lead a full and interesting life, but the odds are hugely against it. He'll have to fight the system until the day he dies.

This is the harsh reality that Zhang Rui is facing, and it helps to put everything into context. His father and teachers know all these things, and so it's likely they've boiled it down to a cold binary decision: either little Zhang gets into university and brings the family out of poverty, or he's another worthless peasant stuck in Anhui. The only thing that matters is the score on the GaoKao. It's horrible, but not uncommon.

I sincerely hope that Zhang Rui overcomes the system without losing his soul (or his life). He sounds creative, strong, and insightful. China could use more voices like his.

<comment><USER8> Are some people in China really not legally allowed to leave their villages?

<comment><USER9> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system#Household_registra...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system#Household_registration_in_mainland_China)

They can leave but can't legally hold a job without the right work permit.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the link, rms. It's a good summary of the situation.

For the Americans here, you can get a quick "gut" feeling for the hukou system by thinking about the illegal Mexican immigrants in the U.S. Sure, they can go to any city and find low-wage blue collar work. The odds are also pretty good that they won't be deported. However, they're always going to be stuck at the bottom of the heap.

The situation is practically identical for people here in China with an "agricultural" residence permit. They flock to the cities by the tens of millions to (illegally) work in factories and do construction work. I see them every day. It's better pay than plowing fields, but they'll forever be working dirty, dangerous, low-paying jobs. If they do manage to climb up somehow, they'll live in constant fear of being discovered.

Going to a university gives you an urban registration, which is arguably even more important than the degree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My favorite theory about why the West and China diverged starting in the 16th century is that entrepreneurial capitalism thrived in the West. The ambitious acheived success by finding a competent master, learning a trade, and then making stuff people wanted, whether that be clocks or caravels. In China, the ambitious were sucked into the civil service exam system. They were judged by arbitrary tests rather than by producing useful things. The result was centuries of stagnation.

<comment><USER11> > The result was centuries of stagnation.

One of the factors, yes, but making such an attribution overlooks a lot: the Tang is often regarded as a renaissance in China. It follows the Sui, when the imperial exams started. General characteristics of each of the dynasties, and each of the rulers, have large effects on the policies and the culture of the era.

Simple example: if Bush was an emperor, and held power for a few generations, it isn't far fetched to see a dark age of bio research.

<comment><USER12> "if Bush was an emperor, and held power for a few generations, it isn't far fetched to see a dark age of bio research."

The total federal research and development budget increased under Bush. The objection that some people have is his moratorium on _federal funding_ of embryonic stem cell research.

This is a small part of all bio research that is morally contentious. I doubt your assertion of seeing a "dark age of bio research" is warranted.

<comment><USER11> I do admit a great bias in favor of stem cell research and consider it the new frontier. But "morally contentious" is highly subjective, whereas the applicability of bio research is not. That is also to say that you have more wiggle room in interpreting what is contentious research, whereas research results have no wiggle room (well, there is for bio, but there is always the option of disproving something).

Which means that it is easy to muddle the issues by drawing hazy borders around themes that vary from person to person, which is likely a source of impediment for bio research. Therefore, it isn't far fetched, at all. Funding is certainly good, but restricting what areas can be done, or even having a say in it, when it comes to pure research, is not helpful.

But, I am not very educated about these policies and you do make a good point. This is just a mostly personal interpretation of it, which I believe has a good likelihood :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> He seems to have more problems with his relatives than the education system. However if this sort of treatment is culturally prevalent I can see this easily holding back the whole country - humans are fragile and fine instruments and perform at peak only when maintaned with utmost care.

<comment><USER14> miniature versions of this happen in american high schools (especially magnet high schoos), where the children of recent immigrants will have to deal with a parent being angry if they do not get A/A+'s in their coursework.

<comment><USER15> Again it usually happens when parents are not well educated. They only realize the importance of education, but they're not educated enough to evaluate their children's progress, so they often have to rely on the not always reliable association of good grades with good progress.

<comment><USER16> Both my parents have post-graduate degrees and have told me one thing repeatedly:

Shamiq, we know how important it is to learn, but the only way anyone is going to look beyond your skin color is if your scores are so superior, if your skills are so superior, if everything is so much better than the number 2 that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they don't hire you.

But the main focus has always been grades and scores.

<comment><USER17> _Shamiq, we know how important it is to learn, but the only way anyone is going to look beyond your skin color is if your scores are so superior, if your skills are so superior, if everything is so much better than the number 2 that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they don't hire you._

If you don't mind my asking, where do you live?

<comment><USER16> Currently in Evanston, IL. Before that in Texas.

<comment><USER17> Do you feel that people in IL or TX are still that racist? Or are you old enough that when your parents were saying that it was a long time ago? I haven't lived in either part of the country but I'd be surprised if it's really still like that.

<comment><USER16> Both my parents and I are immigrants, and where they came from they were the minority. As such, they personally encountered and had to deal with both racism and xenophobia. It's more subtle in their professional fields, but not nonexistent.

Parts of Texas are still horrible, but Northwestern is amazing when it comes with dealing with diversity.

I have carried with me the work ethic springing from their statements, but tend to ignore the ill will that inspired it. It's useful to learn how to work hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's really depressing to read articles like this, partly because it does seem like there's no way out when you're in the middle of it, and partly because there are significant parts of the American educational system that are really little better. I did not have abusive parents or extended family members, and I did not have to endure the suffering that this author did in a far-away boarding school, but I certainly can relate to the notion of school being a prison. The idea of teaching to tests is really damaging, and it's unfortunate that the past eight years in the United States anyway have focused educational policy on testing scores alone.

<comment><USER19> Test scores are like democracy, they're the least bad option. There's simply not a better way to measure progress, or one more accurate to life.

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment. Surely there must be a better way to show proficiency in something besides testing (in the conventional sense).

Besides, the US isn't a Democracy, it's a Republic, albiet a democratic one. The founders really hated the word and made sure it wasn't in any of the founding documents.

"Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

-1928 U.S. Army Training Manual

<comment><USER11> There are better ways, but when your objective is to be quick, at the expense of accuracy, tests are the "generally accepted" method.

If you don't want to sacrifice accuracy, I think the answer lies in neuroscience :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have always believed that to be successful intellectually, you should be driven by curiosity rather than fear.

<comment><USER22> I really liked your quote, I have just quoted you in my new blog post about the same topic. [http://geeyk.com/what-is-wrong-with-chinese-and-indian- paren...](http://geeyk.com/what-is-wrong-with-chinese-and-indian-parents/)

ps: I didn't link here to drive traffic to my blog post, The comment i have written on here is the same i have posted there. :)

<comment><USER21> Thanks!

For posterity's sake I should probably clarify that I haven't _always_ believed it. It's just something I started saying to myself a year or so ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> In Finland, we have the exact opposite. When tuition is universally free (actually you get paid to study, because government has allotted a student benefit for 55 months in third tier studies for everyone) from 1st grade to doctorate studies, some tend to wander - even for years - doing community work in student unions, or change majors, read another MSc, searching themselves...

Just too many choices and the only opportunity cost is lost time. But it seems to work, at least according to PISA studies.

(we do have entrance exams for universities, and getting private tuition is quite common when people try to get accepted into Med or Law studies - but not for most fields)

</comment><comment><USER22> After reading this article, All I can say is Indian education is very much identical. Some kids here are pushed even more than this Chinese kid; a kid sister of my friend goes to private tuition so that she could pass the entrance test of another private tuition which takes in less students and trains them to write and pass the entrance exam of a reputed college in India (so in simple words, she is going through two levels of tuitions to get into another tuition which she might go 4-5 years later).

Every other week I read in newspaper that a school or college kid killed himself/herself because they failed or got lesser marks than their peers. The most recent I read was a girl killed herself because she got 4 marks lesser than the topper of her class. It is scary and it is only getting worse day by day.

I have actually thought a lot about the reason "Why Parents are pushing their kids to the wall", it is certainly not job uncertainty (there are plenty of outsourced jobs here and you can see almost anyone who is slightly not retarded getting one). The only answer I got was "Most of the parents in third-world countries lack good Identities" because they are in some jobs which are not very happy or proud of and the only way for them to escape from their 'past or present' is to change their future which they think is in the hands of their kids and not theirs. They constantly hear of stories of kids who studied well, got a job in some company and bought his parents house (which if he/she is lucky enough to hold on to the job might own it in next 20 years). As I have seen most of the pushy parents are highly incompetent who actually believe that their life is over, they can't change it because they missed opportunities when they were young. A real person would go achieve what he wants at any age irrespective of anything else but pushy parents are not that because they are betting on their kids and that is much easier.

The other part of the problem is housewives (I am not sexist); this is a group which actually doesn't have an identity. If you have ever been near one, most of their sentences start with "My son/daughter is…" most of these sentences end with an achievement of their kids which are incidentally better than other housewives kids. Now the housewives who were humiliated in the conversation go home force their kids to do well in whatever they do. It is certainly not limited to studies; it can be anything jumping a fence, throwing a ball or anything else. At the end of the day, their kid has to be better than other kids. It is kind of like playing a MMORPG where they want their avatar to be better than others and they want their avatars to level up faster so that they can fight bigger battles. So the problem is certainly not the education system, it is actually the society (housewives and people who are not happy with their jobs). So my solution would be think about the kids later, create jobs for housewives (idle minds are devil's workshop, they are the clear example of it). Keep the housewives busy and you would automatically see an improvement in kids who are back to being creative and independent like they always were.

Sorry for 600 words long rant, I am just pissed with how things are going on here right now. It actually took me an hour to write this. :)

<comment><USER24> With all due respect, your views and analysis are only relevant to the urban experience.

"anyone who is slightly not retarded" does NOT land up a job in non-metros.

Just visit a tier 2 city like Nashik (I am not even talking about proper rural areas) and see the employment opportunities there. At such places success stories abound of sons and daughters of lower middle class workers who cracked some competitive exam or another have landed, and naturally students are inspired to work harder.

Go little deeper and in the rural areas, the socio-economic conditions there are such that kids who can attend schools and colleges consider themselves privileged. And these people do uplift the economic situation of the entire family.

The point I am trying to drive here is that the parents are generally right to emphasize the importance of education to their children. Of course, obsessive behavior as demonstrated in this article is wrong.

The inherent problem which leads to this is two fold: lack of seats and unscientific content in education.

Lack of Seats There is an utter shortage of seats in all educational centers in India. This leads to higher "cut off" grades leading to obsessive competition. The very idea that grades are the blanket deciding factor to deem a student fit to attend a certain school is very poor and it needs scrutiny urgently.

Unscientific content The Indian education, in its current form, discourages creativity, emphasizes solely on memorization capabilities (I have some friends who are now managers at Big Four IT companies who memorized essays for English exam and sums for Math exams and got super grades) and is highly politicized. It is geared to train students to be doers and not thinkers, it does not light the burning curiosity that I feel is very important to really learn anything (be it math, sciences, even history, etc)

IMHO, there is an need to modernize the educational system which should solve many a problems.

It is a mammoth task; grading system, content, creativity, the "tuition problem" to name a few obstacles. We can start out by accepting the problems.

Again, all due respect to your views. I can relate with them and probably would have completely supported them had I not had the opportunity to visit what some call the "real India" :)

<comment><USER25> Well written. The 'real' India is indeed far bigger than 'non-retards' working in IT industry.

And as was discussed in this forum a few days ago, teachers have the most important role to play in imparting good education and encouraging creativity and learning over marks. They can actually make a huge difference even with this current system.

<comment><USER26> In reality very few teachers inspire. In my 16 years of education hardly three people inspired me. Do teachers here understand their roles and responsibilities? Bad teachers want the students to opt for private tuitions, which is again run by them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It is sad but this mentality seems to have spread to the U.S. at least in the form of Chinese grad students. It isn't very intellectually stimulating to discuss chemistry with someone whose idea of being great in Organic Chemistry is having memorized Org Chem textbooks in English before he could speak English. What is worse is that professors admire the amount of work Chinese students put in compared to their American counterparts. I feel a lot of pressure to work mindlessly and without any creativity. I think that this model of education is not sustainable and will damage American higher education in the long run.

Sometimes I feel out of place in graduate school in an engineering department. I'm the only person I know of here who reads Faulkner and listens to Coltrane in his spare time. I get the feeling that if I told my adviser that I was teaching myself French on the weekends, he would consider it a waste of time. Not that reading Faulkner helps me learn Quantum Chemistry, but I feel like a well rounded education will help me make breakthroughs later in Quantum Chemistry. But I'm finding that dissatisfaction with the slavishly work hard in one chosen area is the minority opinion and it is hard not to be disheartened by this.

</comment><comment><USER9> [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&...](http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinaelections.org%2FNewsInfo.asp%3FNewsID%3D142748&sl=zh- CN&tl=en)

Machine translation so you can see the comments... thoughts seem to range from "it's your parents fault" and "your parents are right, you can rest after your education" to "when you kill yourself take your teacher out with you."

</comment><comment><USER28> Can anyone translate, or at least summarize, the comments from the original article in Chinese? I tried using Google, but none of them made any sense except the first one (which was apparently written in bad Chinese by an American)

</comment><comment><USER29> Parents should push their children to succeed through positive reinforcement and good example, not through fear.

<comment><USER30> Ugh. This is why I hate the grading system. The basic premise the entire system relies on is _fear_ of failure, which, to me, seems to be completely counter-productive to learning. When I am actually learning something, for instance programming, I don't learn by marginally getting better and going to a slightly higher level before, still succeeding at every step — I learn immersing myself in something completely over my head that I don't understand, and absolutely, miserably failing. When I finally get it, not only is the experience extremely gratifying, but I actually _learn_ it; it's very difficult to forget something you now understand that only moments ago looked nearly impossible. In school, doing this is not only discouraged but nearly impossible — fail a class for even a few weeks and it will be very difficult to get your grade up and be able to get in any more honors classes; essentially, through the grading system you're labeled satisfactory (A/B, depending on your standards), average (C) or a failure (F), even though the only way to learn is through your mistakes.

I think a good indicator of how well you're learning something is to ask yourself, "If I asked myself about this subject 6 months ago, would I think I was an idiot?". In school, I can think of maybe 3 subjects that's true in, but not by much. With something I'm teaching myself through failing, like programming, I would probably think I was an idiot less than _one_ month ago.

<comment><USER8> I wasn't motivated by fear. It was more like trying to be high scorer on a video game. Which is also somewhat of a stupid motivation, but probably not as stupid.

I think the problem is not grades per se but the difference between what they're supposed to measure and what they actually do. That difference can be small (I can remember college classes where it was), but it takes an effort.

<comment><USER31> Who needs grades anyway? Do employers need grades?

I think the purpose of grades is primarily for bureaucrats to compare schools.

Teachers are the ones being paid. Grade them, not the pupils. Children need to know which classes are worth attending.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This article is by a kid who is still in this situation. I can't speak or write Chinese, but if someone can reach him via the comments on the original article, please tell him to leave there and explore the world. It's much bigger than the silly schools he's in and there are plenty of opportunities for him to become successful.

<comment><USER32> You really have no clue. This poor kid probably doesn't have the money for a train trip to Shanghai much less to explore the world. He has no ability to work other places inside China and nobody would hire him where he'd make any money where he is. He is trapped and a Chinese university degree is the only way out.

<comment><USER20> Hey, that's just plain insulting! FYI I've been all over China - I spent 2 weeks there with a sports team in 2005 playing all over the country - literally east from Beijing to as far wast as Urumchi, which nearly hits the Russian border - in fact, Russians came down to watch the team play.

Have you ever been to China? I have. I know what it's like.

The kid obviously has internet access - isn't that something? There are so many possibilities inherent in that alone for him there, heck, even for something as simple as a solid friendship to keep him grounded. What gives you the authority to declare his fate?

<comment><USER32> I've been living in China for years, have Chinese friends and employ Chinese people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This goes beyond madness into the realm of Sparta.

</comment><comment><USER6> Education is a laudable value, but cruelty in service of a laudable value is still cruelty and still reprehensible. Also, grades are not a great way to measure learning.

I wish more of the rural poor in the US would tell their kids things like, "You should also learn from your cousin, talk to him more--then you will develop your mind." There are a minority who do, a large majority who don't care. I wish the stress I remember from US high schools had been from wanting to do better academically instead of fear of physical brutality from the other students.

If this guy's family is typical, China is going to do really well academically in the next few decades unless their government screws everything up again. And it's going to have to deal with a lot of traumatized young graduates.

</comment><comment><USER34> I had something of an experience like this in the US system. My mom was overly concerned about my grades because, in her view, the only way to get a good education and "be successful" was to test into the top math+science classes, as that was what my older brother did. (She wasn't able to admit that until last year after I finished college and got a job. My brother is finishing his PhD and now realizes that he doesn't want to research math the rest of his life, he just liked studying it.)

Fortunately, the pressure was far less in my instance, and I ultimately found a satisfactory compromise in college between my own goals and "successful" goals, but the bitter feelings are the same. Learning isn't helped by making it a threatening experience.

</comment><comment><USER35> One of the proudest moments of my high-school life was when I decided _not_ to study for a test... with a teacher I liked and respected. I still remember his disappointed look at my grade. But it was something necessary, something to drive home the point that grades are not important.

</comment><comment><USER36> No matter the education or the business, I think what the Chinese should pick up again is conscience.

</comment><comment><USER37> Funny thing is that you can then turn around and hire this top grad for 7000 rmb a month after college. Top grades are not a guarantee for high paying jobs. 7 million university grads per year.

</comment><comment><USER38> _What can I do now?_

Learn how to program, drop out of school and start your own startup. At least that's what the kids do here in America.

<comment><USER11> That's almost like saying, when a fish is suffocating because his pond has become deprived of oxygen, "stop eating plankton and start eating rodents; that's the way we lions roll here in the jungle."

In all seriousness, I can guarantee that this is far from an isolated case. If he is 10th or 12th in his class, just how many are there, between him and the 1st, who basically live with the same thing, but either don't write about it, or worse, write about it, but never get heard?</comment></comment>


Palo Alto considers subsidized housing for salary up to $250K - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-rent-idUSKCN0WQ0CB <comment><USER3> In most of Palo Alto, it's against the law to build anything but the most expensive kind of housing—single family homes with big yards. People who already bought in get to enjoy their walled-off neighborhoods at the expense of families with less money. It's nice that they feel bad enough about it to do something, but instead of legalizing cheaper housing on less land, they're trying to fund a lottery as a totem to make themselves feel better about the artificial affordability crisis they've created.

<comment><USER4> Why is it "at the expense of" others, to own a home now?

I've been trying for years to understand the concept of "everyone should be able to live everywhere" but I just cannot wrap my head around it, or it's cousin, "I shouldn't ever have to move, regardless of geopolitical changes".

Why are people so attached to any particular place that they'll suffer immensely to keep that particular place theirs?

<comment><USER5> Well, on a purely economic basis, many of those homeowners, including investment funds, are paying < 0.1% in property tax and sitting on properties that are worth millions in value. As an example, the homeowner of one property with a market value of $7M was paying 0.04% in tax.[1]

Property taxes help pay for streets, police, ambulatory services, schools and maintaining parks. These essential services are paid for "at the expense of" renters and new homeowners. Of course, this deeply vested interest group also manifests itself in roadblocks for new developments that would mitigate the drastic increases in housing costs.

[1] [http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1536-Bryant-St-Palo- Alto-C...](http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1536-Bryant-St-Palo-Alto- CA-94301/19497046_zpid/)

<comment><USER6> Oh. So it is somehow the homeowner's fault that the property values have increased around them?

<comment><USER5> Not their fault, but it is their gain. One of the other posts here mentions a few solutions that wouldn't force retirees or those on fixed incomes out of their newly valuable properties. The coastal areas of California are unique in the US in that vast discrepancies exist between market value and what long- time property owners pay.

      - Apply market-rate taxation only for values over a certain threshold, say $1m+ and non-owner occupied
      - Defer tax payments until the property changes hands (aka they sell the property or pass it on)
      - Reverse mortgages

<comment><USER7> It's completely messed up that a change in regional average property value could cause a change in total tax revenue. This causes a city's tax income to vary wildly. Cities take on obligations (bonds, salary increases, pensions) in good times and then hit disaster in bad times.

We fight this in a stupid way. We limit tax increases for a property, with a reset upon sale. This discourages people from moving closer to work, causing our roads to be clogged with commuters.

The right way is to say that assessed home value relates to the total portion of the city budget that your taxes must support. Your tax bill then wouldn't change unless the city budget changes or the relative value of your property changes. Subjecting the total city budget to voter approval is OK.

Basically the problem is millage rate. The dollar value of your property should not directly (by simple multiplication or division) translate into a tax amount. It should instead translate into a portion of the total. That is, it should represent your share.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > _The plan is a among a series of proposals being mulled by the Palo Alto > City Council to provide affordable housing to those considered middle class > in the area - families making between $150,000 to $250,000 annually._

As a point of reference, starting salary for a teacher in the Palo Alto Unified School District is $57.5k. Someone who has taught in the district for 30 years with significant post-credential grad school makes double that.

<comment><USER9> There's an implied assumption that a "family" will have two incomes.

<comment> jon-wood And because of the way the free market works despite the average family working twice as many hours as one in the fifties they're no better off, and in a lot of cases worse off, in terms of what they can actually afford. And kids never get to see their parents.

I don't know what the solution is long term but I have a feeling someday this experiment in free market capitalism is going to be considered in similar ways to the USSR's experiment in communism a few decades from now.

<comment><USER10> When people have the opportunity to earn more, they do, no matter how hard it is for them. Then they find things to spend that extra money on that they wouldn't otherwise have spent it on, like a house in a more expensive neighborhood and they end up still not having much money. It's just a personal choice. Ask if your wife is willing to not work, buy a house in a cheap town, buy a used Japanese import car and carry on living a comfortable 50's lifestyle if you want. But you won't want because you'll see all that money waiting for you.

<comment><USER11> _When people have the opportunity to earn more, they do, no matter how hard it is for them._

Citation needed.

It really depends on how you view the world. If that view is all about money and consumption, then, yeah, you probably won't leave money on the table. There are, however, competing worldviews that offer different versions of the good life, and in my experience, there are plenty of willing to leave money on the table because of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Consolidate bay area government (ABAG) and come up with a comprehensive and cohesive growth plan (housing, transportation, taxes, zoning, etc.) Piecemeal reactive and Nimby policies are antithetical to the needs of the area. Forget about 1960s idyll. It's the 2010s, act like it. The area doesn't have to do growth Chinese-style, but we could to growth Singapore-style/Korea-style with North American values (i.e. less patronizing and more community involvement, up to a point)

<comment><USER13> I think that train already left the station as Apple, Google and Facebook are building new sprawling campuses. There's unlikely to be any significant infrastructure growth without dense business districts.

<comment><USER14> What does this mean? The large tech companies are no fan of NIMBY policies, they know the insane housing prices make it harder to recruit.

Google in particular has expressed interest in developing high-density housing (by south bay area standards) in Mountain View now that the area around its campus has been rezoned to allow housing.

<comment><USER15> He's suggesting the corporate campuses needs to be condensed too. I haven't been in the Bay Area for years, but when I was there last at least, it was noteworthy given the property prices, how much low-rise commercial property there was. Frankly, a lot of the problem would be solved with a few highrise districts.

I live in London. My road here has much smaller plots than a typical Palo Alto street. Yet the my road with 660 houses, takes up ~40,000 square meters of land (including the road and gardens). Near our local rail station they're building a few developments that will include at least one 55 story tower. Combined they will house about as many people as our road on maybe about 1,000 square meters of land. High density can solve a lot of problems if done right.

<comment><USER14> But that, too, is a symptom of NIMBY policies that push sprawl. Google would love to have fewer, taller buildings (if nothing else, it'd make their shuttle system a lot easier to manage), but Mountain View won't let them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Palo Alto property owners rejoice; subsidizing demand is a sure-fire way to drive up prices.

<comment><USER17> Exactly. Here in the Netherlands, housing is also subsidized: you can roughly subtract the mortgage's interest from your income before tax is calculated. The only result is that houses are more expensive.

<comment><USER18> The purpose of that system is to have more people owning their own home and fewer people renting. It assures that there is a cap on how much of the housing is owned by companies for the purpose of renting it out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why won't they just implement a land tax, and reform zoning?

(Of course, because these two sensible policies would not be in favour of landowners. Subsidies demand is.)

<comment><USER20> Land tax penalizes retirees is why.

<comment><USER19> Not really.

Two solutions: either rely on the private sector to provide `reverse mortgages'. Or let the government offer the same product, ie allow people on low income but with lots of land value to defer payment until death or sale.

In addition, phase in land tax over a decade so that people have time to adapt. If you phase out other taxes at a similar rate, you will even get a great increase in land values.

(Basically, land in a jurisdiction that charges less eg income taxes or sales taxes is great for doing business on. So people will bid up its price.)

<comment><USER20> "phase out other taxes" is the gaping hole in that argument.

Property isn't just a market - its peoples homes and communities too - <USER2> the other gaping hole. Why should Grandma need to move away so some Unicorn startup can move in?

<comment><USER19> Why should some old people who managed to get lucky a few decades ago be allowed to sit on some of the most desireable real estate on the planet and not pay the community for it?

Anyway, grandma is a red herring.

> "phase out other taxes" is the gaping hole in that argument.

See eg [http://www.georgistjournal.org/2012/10/16/the-unplumbed- reve...](http://www.georgistjournal.org/2012/10/16/the-unplumbed-revenue- potential-of-land-part-3-atcor-all-taxes-come-out-of-rents/)

When taxes fall, real estate prices rise by enough to make up for it. Capturing that rise is simple with a land tax. (See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem) for how that's a rather orthodex statement. Nothing outside the mainstream of economics here.)

The whole process is very economically efficient. Swap taxes on elastic economic activity like work or investing for taxes on inelastic land.

<comment><USER21> Why should some young people who got lucky in a unicorn startup get to push out some old people that helped build that community?

<comment><USER20> Right, this is why gentrification gets people's backs up. You're not just buying property as a physical asset, you're buying into the community that made that area desirable/up-and-coming/trendy/call it what you will. If they hadn't been there, you wouldn't want to be there either. But a piece of community isn't something you can own without contributing back to it, and if you don't, it destroys it.

<comment><USER19> Gentrification is awesome for landowners. Makes their investment go up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The middle class STARTS at 150K?

<comment><USER23> Yeah, I think this is a bit exaggerated. Housing is a lot more expensive in Palo Alto/Silicon Valley than the rest of the US - but not that much.

<comment><USER24> Single family homes with 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1,500 sq ft, 2000 sq ft yard, built after 1980, recently sold prices on zillow:

Palo Alto: Averages roughly $4,000,000.

[http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Palo-Alto- CA/fsba,fsbo_...](http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Palo-Alto- CA/fsba,fsbo_lt/house_type/26374_rid/3-_beds/2-_baths/any_days/1500-_size/2000-_lot/1980-_built/37.484257,-121.973992,37.279106,-122.297059_rect/11_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/)

Austin, Texas: Averages roughly $400,000 (10x less)

[http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Austin- TX/fsba,fsbo_lt/...](http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Austin- TX/fsba,fsbo_lt/house_type/10221_rid/3-_beds/2-_baths/any_days/1500-_size/2000-_lot/1980-_built/30.737704,-97.13974,29.846004,-98.432007_rect/9_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/)

Orlando, Florida: Averages roughly $400,000 (10x less)

[http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Orlando- FL/fsba,fsbo_lt...](http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Orlando- FL/fsba,fsbo_lt/house_type/13121_rid/3-_beds/2-_baths/any_days/1500-_size/2000-_lot/1980-_built/28.707753,-80.91362,28.253888,-81.559754_rect/10_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/)

Chicago, Illinois: Averages roughly $800,000 (5x less)

[http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Chicago- IL/fsba,fsbo_lt...](http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Chicago- IL/fsba,fsbo_lt/house_type/17426_rid/3-_beds/2-_baths/any_days/1500-_size/2000-_lot/1980-_built/42.026088,-87.4086,41.641361,-88.054734_rect/10_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/)

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Averages roughly $400,000 (10x less)

[http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Philadelphia- PA/fsba,fs...](http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Philadelphia- PA/fsba,fsbo_lt/house_type/13271_rid/3-_beds/2-_baths/any_days/1500-_size/2000-_lot/1980-_built/40.200117,-74.794922,39.804579,-75.441056_rect/10_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/)

Seattle, Washington: Averages roughly $1,000,000 (4x less)

[http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Seattle- WA/fsba,fsbo_lt...](http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Seattle- WA/fsba,fsbo_lt/house_type/16037_rid/3-_beds/2-_baths/any_days/1500-_size/2000-_lot/1980-_built/47.787094,-122.021714,47.439002,-122.667847_rect/10_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/)

Palo Alto is definitely _much_ more expensive.

<comment><USER7> Even your cheapest examples are expensive. It's about $150,000 ($100,000 to $250,000) in Palm Bay, FL. That's normal peaceful USA, with tech jobs and even kind of near the beach, not some decaying hellhole.

So make that a factor of 30, without even looking at bad places.

<comment><USER24> Nice, that's a great deal! What's the percentage drop in salary an experienced software engineer would have if moving there?

<comment><USER7> It's really hard to say, but certainly nothing compared to the savings. It depends on what you mean by experience. :-)

Glassdoor says that Harris pays $113,051 for a "Software Engineer IV". Most Harris jobs are in that area.

Payscale says $96,955 for a "Senior Software Engineer" in Melbourne, the next town over. Hmmm, Palo Alto is only $135,305 for this. That's less than 40% extra, but you're paying 3000% extra for the house.

Note that overtime is not normal for the area. You work 40 hours. Spend the rest of the time with your family.

Also note that everything else is cheaper too. There is no state income tax. The sales tax is 6.5%. Power is about $96 per month for those using 1000 kWh per month, and $137 for those using 1400 kWh per month. You'd pay 20% more in Palo Alto. Gasoline is dirt cheap: it's only $2.14 in Palm Bay, but about $3.05 (large variation) in Palo Alto. I could go on forever really, but it gets silly comparing everything from nail polish to turnips.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The noob question cause I feel like I don't understand the issue: Why are companies not pushing for remote workers? Are the downsides overweighing the positive or is it a cultural thing?

<comment><USER26> Spontaneous interaction is just a huge boon for productivity. That's how I've ever understood it.

<comment><USER27> That's the propaganda line, anyway...

I'd much prefer deliberate and well-planned interactions, with plenty of distraction-free time in between to actually get some work done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Good idea. Too little too late. I suffer horribly with my small family and two good jobs. One job basically pays for the taxes. And housing is so expensive I cant get over the hump to get a mortgage to see any tax benefits. Its really crushing to not be a landed gentry here. We rent is a good school district and have a kind landlord but we cannot build housing equity besides having good jobs.

</comment><comment><USER29> This seems like a bad idea (gut check). Won't the availability of public money for private housing help to drive prices up?

Everything I see seems to indicate that the price of housing expands to fill the amount of money available.

Cheap interest rates managed to change the base price of homes such that the mortgage payment is roughly the same. Now it is individuals & condo developers collecting that difference rather than banks.

Or am I totally off base here?

Increasing property taxes shifts the burden of ownership to the people who have money... though suppose that would get passed through to renters as well.

<comment><USER30> > Everything I see seems to indicate that the price of housing expands to fill > the amount of money available.

This applies to many many other areas too. The price of anything in short supply expands as far as possible to change consumer surplus into producer surplus.

If it were apple juice in short supply more people would start selling apple juice and eventually the price would fall. Presumably in Palo Alto you can't just throw up more flats/houses in 6 months and put them up for sale though

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This lead to the sellers accounting for the subsidy and increasing their prices accordingly.

<comment><USER18> They are building new housing and renting it out below market price. You don't get a check in the mail.

<comment><USER32> unless they build enough to curb demand to equal supply, i dont see the housing costs decrease significantly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Folks, this was dismissed as misinformation to public by the city.

</comment><comment><USER34> NYC needs this too.

<comment><USER35> I have some co-workers from NYC (Queens/Brooklyn) and from what they were telling me; Only Manhattan is really crazy, not all of NYC? I'm not sure how accurate that is as I've never lived in NYC.

<comment><USER36> NYC is in a much better situation than SF or Palo Alto. A lot more choice here, both in and around the city. You do have to be OK with apx 1 hr commute.

<comment><USER37> I don't understand why people are content to absolutely waste 12% of their waking hours commuting to and from a job. Boggles the mind.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Large-scale quantum chip validated - <AUTHOR> http://news.usc.edu/#!/article/52818/large-scale-quantum-chip-validated/ <comment><USER2> This is "validated" in a pretty weak sense.

I think the paper is (perhaps a slightly different version of) this one: [http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1739](http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1739) in which the researchers found evidence that favours the hypothesis "the D-Wave device is doing quantum annealing" over the hypothesis "the D-Wave device is doing classical simulated annealing".

That's very interesting scientifically (though it's not clear to me how far they've ruled out _other_ basically-classical processes) but it's important to notice what it isn't.

It _isn 't_ evidence that D-Wave's device can perform the operations usually denoted by the phrase "quantum computing". (So far as I know, no one thinks it can.) So, e.g., there is no known way to use it to break RSA encryption, no matter how well it does the things it does.

It _isn 't_ evidence that there is any problem D-Wave's device can actually solve faster than a classical computer.

It _isn 't_ evidence that there is any _useful_ problem D-Wave's device can actually solve faster than a classical computer.

See [http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on- comparison-w...](http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison- with-classical-computers/) for some comparisons between the published performance figures for D-Wave's device and simple software running on (one core of) an ordinary laptop. The laptop comes up faster every time, even solving _the exact problem D-Wave 's device is designed to solve_.

That doesn't rule out the possibility that there may be other instances of that problem that D-Wave's device solves much faster than anything you can do on a laptop (but no one seems to have found any) nor the possibility that some future version of D-Wave's device may be much better because it scales better (though Alex Selby's figures aren't particularly encouraging on that score). But claims that D-Wave, _now_ , have a useful quantum computer don't look very plausible.

<comment><USER3> > I think the paper is (perhaps a slightly different version of) this one: > [http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1739](http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1739) in which > the researchers found evidence that favours the hypothesis "the D-Wave > device is doing quantum annealing" over the hypothesis "the D-Wave device is > doing classical simulated annealing".

> (though it's not clear to me how far they've ruled out other basically- > classical processes)

According to my colleagues at IBM Research, not far:

> A pair of recent articles concluded that the D-Wave One machine actually > operates in the quantum regime, rather than performing some classical > evolution. Here we give a classical model that leads to the same behaviors > used in those works to infer quantum effects. Thus, the evidence presented > does not demonstrate the presence of quantum effects.

[http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4904](http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4904)

<comment><USER4> The USC group has a response to Smolin and Smith which explains how some quantitative features are still best explained by a simulated quantum annealer: [http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5837](http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5837). So there's still some potential for evidence of quantum effects (though "maybe doing something nonclassical" is a far cry from all the marketing talk, especially since annealing with stoquastic Hamiltonions with a fixed topology is already a far cry from any known-to-be-useful quantum computing model).

<comment><USER3> Ooh, thanks. I think John and Graeme have been working on a second version, presumably in response to this. The battle continues...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The D-Wave is a quantum annealer not a multi-purpose quantum computer.

</comment><comment><USER6> There's something i don't get with this debate around "is this quantum or classical" : i thought quantum computing meant breaking NP complexity. So, in order to determine if it "is" quantum computing, one would suppose that any big dataset would easily show the difference in computing time...

Now, if i understood correctly, the problem is that the algorithms compared (aka annealing) are of statistical nature, so we're not actually comparing "fully" NP complete algorithms, and so the expected difference is not as a big as between an O(n) and an O(x^n)) algorithm.

Could someone here confirm if this is correct ?

<comment><USER7> Quantum computing means breaking Bounded Quantum Polynomial, not NP. Integer factorization is in NP, and also in BQP; but some problems can just as well be in NP and not in BQP. And NP-complete is not a subset of BQP, as far as anyone knows.

<comment><USER8> Strictly, we don't actually know BQP is more powerful than P, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been thinking this for a while and have really come to believe it recently, but I'd be amazed if the NSA didn't have quantum computing down, either at scale or about to get there. Historically they've been, and similar organizations are perceived to be, 5-10 years ahead of public technology, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that all PKE is broken as far as the USG is concerned.

I've heard from someone who'd know that a big driver of Google's purchase of the D-Wave was that, "if there's going to be a crypto breakthrough, [Google] would like to know about it early."

<comment><USER10> You know, it's not impossible, but as someone who works in a field peripheral to quantum computing I would be surprised. There are two types of problems in science, the attrition kind where if you throw enough people and enough money at it you'll get it to work and the breakthrough kind where nothing will happen until some a-ha moment. I suspect quantum computing is more of the latter right now; there are just too many outstanding issues for a large-scale device. But who knows, I may be wrong.

Regarding D-Wave specifically, there's plenty of commentary around on what they're doing...

<comment><USER11> > There are two types of problems in science, the attrition kind where if you > throw enough people and enough money at it you'll get it to work and the > breakthrough kind where nothing will happen until some a-ha moment.

Thats interesting. What camp would you say flight fell under?

<comment><USER12> Considering that it only took two guys to research,design, and build it I would say the latter with a lot of grunt work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does this mean that I need to throw away my 2048-bit RSA key? Is 4096 bit at all safer than 2048 from quantum computing?

<comment><USER13> No.

No speed up when compared to a classical machine (for much cheaper) emulating the exact same procedure:

[http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anyone know how they program these?.. something like QCL? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_programming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_programming)

<comment><USER15> It doesn't run "programs" like a Turing or von Neumann machine does; it's not even a universal quantum computer. It solves certain specific instances of an optimization problem which, in the general case, is NP-hard.

<comment><USER16> Just to clarify, it's like a quantum ASIC?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As noted in the other thread on this story[1], this claim has already been debunked by other physicists[2].

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5957232](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5957232) \- comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5957686](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5957686)

[2] [http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4904](http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4904)

</comment><comment><USER18> What's the coolest use-case for a quantum computer of the future?

<comment><USER19> I think if this really takes off we'll have a "quantum card" like a video card for a PC

<comment><USER20> And for what use? (sincerely interested).

<comment><USER21> Same use as a graphics card... to show off and play games.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


My girlfriend launched her own bitcoin site - <AUTHOR> http://bitcoinbit.ch/

<comment><USER2> You know.. I can imaging her getting some coins. Some dudes just enjoy being abused.

Personally I think it's lame, but if it works, congrats!

</comment><comment><USER3> \- Well Done. I like this</comment>


Developing software for multiple mobile devices - <AUTHOR> http://martinfowler.com/articles/multiMobile/

<comment><AUTHOR> I am especially interested in the Native Veneers approach. Is this easy to do with PhoneGap or other similar tools ?</comment>


Node vs. Go: when to use what? - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/heysphere/node-vs-go#node-vs-go-when-to-use-what <comment><USER2> I don't see how wanting to "prototype something and move fast" is a good reason for choosing NodeJS over Golang. It is fairly easy to build a highly performant backend service in Golang using just the standard lib. See for instance this wiki page: [https://golang.org/doc/articles/wiki/](https://golang.org/doc/articles/wiki/)</comment>


New Normal: Majority Of Unemployed Attended College - <AUTHOR> http://news.investors.com/article/611887/201205171857/most-unemployed-are-college-grads-dropouts.htm <comment><USER2> For some people a college degree can lead to a crippling level of entitlement, and unwillingness to do the kind of work they hoped to escape by attending college. A college degree doesn't preclude someone from waiting tables, cleaning up messes and answering phones. Though many graduates seem to be confused about this.

For unemployed colleges grads -- here's a rudimentary formula for success. Start a free website with Weebly and call it IWillMopItUp.com. And let people know that you will mop up their mess for $20 and hour. Pretty crappy right? Yes, but it epitomizes the can do attitude and whatever it takes mentality that matters in this difficult economy. The bottom line is that very hard working smart college grads still have opportunities, but the first step is them getting over the fact they went to college.

<comment><USER3> You know close to 50% of new grads are unemployed right? This is millions of kids a year who were told to get educated and now have no job waiting for them when they do. Acting like millions of kids should just get a job mopping floors and drop the entitlement is super ignorant and borders on dangerous.

I would put a lot of this blame on the fact that tax cuts for the rich that were supposed to "raise demand for workers" have just transferred money from consumers to corporations. We ignored that the lower and middle class constitute the VAST majority of consumption (which actually does create jobs, unlike some rich guy just having more money) and now the upper class has such an imbalance of wealth there are millions less people who can afford to buy their product.

Deciding that millions of new graduates aren't getting jobs because they are lazy is one of the more ignorant and lazy arguments I've ever seen.

<comment><USER4> I think the OP's comment held a seed of wisdom, even though it wasn't properly expressed.

The point I got from his post was that recently graduated and unemployed kids should stop waiting to be offered jobs that obviously don't exist anymore, and bring out the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country great (a long time ago).

The point is not to mop floors for $20, but to create a website (essentially a business) that solves somebody else's pain. That is the essential idea. Find a pain, fix it, charge enough to make a profit and move on to the next pain point that needs fixing.

<comment><USER5> What's the success rate among entrepreneurs? Don't most small businesses tank within the first three years? Does this really help if "millions of kids a year" are entering the workforce?

That said, looking at my (much) younger cousins and their friends, it strikes me that the latest generation of 20-somethings are already impressively entrepreneurial. However, I don't see many of their businesses scaling enough to support a family, much less employ scads of others.

<comment><USER4> Most successful entrepreneurs failed at least once until they made it. I can only speak from experience, the startup founder that I worked for had three failed attempts before he made it (relatively) big.

My other point was exactly that. Most small businesses will fail, but the ones that succeed will be the job creators (I hate that buzzword!) and hire the ones that didn't make it.

After having worked for a startup myself for a while, I am now ready to try it on my own. If I fail, there's always other successful startups I could work for. If I succeed, I'll need good employees, and someone who tried and failed (but learned from the experience) would be a prime candidate.

<comment><USER6> Don't most kinds of business require some capital to start?

<comment><USER7> Less capital now than ever. Local service businesses like "Mop It Up" would cost almost nothing to operate. The barrier to entry is simply that the work is undesirable. This makes it valuable.

<comment><USER8> I don't think your conclusion at the end is true. Most undesirable work is in fact _not_ valuable, in the sense of being paid well or easy to get, because, at least if it's also unskilled, there is a large supply of labor relative to demand. Stuff like janitorial work does not pay well and has no shortage. Similarly with McDonald's: they typically get many more applications than open positions, and not because they're paying $20/hr.

<comment><USER4> There was a story (I think it was on reddit, not HN) of an entrepreneur who bootstrapped a local cleaning business in something like three months, by hiring his maid as his first employee. The guy does not mop up himself, but runs an incredibly successful business with a web-based reservation system. The rest of his job is people and asset management.

So even with janitorial work, an educated graduate can turn it into a profitable business, without actually doing the cleaning himself.

Edit: his site is <http://www.maidsinblack.com/> and he does a great job of documenting his startup experience step by step on reddit. If I find the thread, I'll post it here.

<comment><USER6> That's one guy. There are millions of unemployed people.

Anyway, this kind of business would have been possible in the past with local newspaper ads and the Yellow Pages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Pace comments that STEM majors are not part of the trend, consider this: I started my undergrad education following the dot com bubble years and was dissuaded to pursue compsci. I went into civil (structural) engineering instead. Over half of my civeng classmates would go to postgrad education -- in engineering, law, whatever -- precisely because of the inability to find a job in civil engineering. About a third of my Master's class (structural engineering @ Berkeley, a top school in the field) couldn't find a job upon graduation. I landed a job purely by accident (with a 3.75 GPA), where a better qualified classmate of mine took another year to find one. I haven't kept track of what happened to the rest.

<comment><USER10> Exactly. The STEM vs. liberal arts distinction is overgeneralized and divisive; there are definitely STEM majors out there who are having job issues as well. Not all STEM fields have the same employment opportunities.

This problem should concern all of us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Should note that it's "attended college" but not necessarily graduated, and that makes a huge difference.

<comment><USER12> This is hugely important, and seems to have been glossed over. "attending college" != "graduating from college". College is, for better or worse, a binary signal. You either graduated or you didn't.

When you apply for an Engineering license, the Engineering board doesn't care that you completed 100% of your Engineering courses but never received a degree because you forgot to take History 101.

Because of this, it's even worse in that it's a sunk cost. Better to go ahead and drop out earlier rather than later, because not only will you not have a degree, you'll have wasted that many years for no measurable improvement in hiring potential.

<comment><USER13> You won't have wasted "that many years" if you took courses that taught you something useful, even if you did not graduate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Education bubble is slowly deflating. Drawing analogies to housing bubble:

        People would "flip" their college education for a high-paying job

        Easy loans made it possible for everyone to participate

        Education prices inflated faster than core inflation, setting a higher hurdle for students

        There are fewer jobs at palatable salaries (various reasons)

        Now we have boatloads of students saddled with an education that they can't pay off

You can be as nuanced as you wish (e.g. english major as subprime loan) but the aforementioned discussion is sufficient. I expect to see a sharp correction soon.

<comment><USER3> The worst part is that just like in the housing bubble, where lenders went into strawberry fields and offered home loans for 300k houses in california to undocumented immigrants making 10/hr and then asked for everyone else to bail them out because they are shocked the person wasn't able to afford the loan.

Same thing applies here. You recruit a bunch of people who have no business being at college and certainly can't afford it, convince them that they NEED college and should take on student loans, they struggle, graduate and have no real marketable skills. Bank that made the loan hassles the student and when millions can't pay them back, I'm guessing we have another bailout on our hands. Glad we learn our lesson last time!

<comment><USER15> If I had student debt I'd be thrilled not to pay it back. This country needs a general debt strike or perhaps a jubilee.

<comment><USER16> A debt strike would be the ultimate 'hack' of our current economic system.

<comment><USER14> The right play is to short Apollo Group and Nelnet (loans) and DeVry and other for-profit schools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm not sure how college debt works in the USA but in the UK you don't have to payback the debt unless you are earning over a certain paycheck (£15k p/a or so I believe). So if you end up unemployed you don't have to worry about it.

Also the debt is written off after a certain number of years and the monthly payment is always calculated at a relatively modest amount compared to your earnings and deducted straight from your paycheck.

It's not counted as debt for the purposes of getting a loan or mortgage either, so essentially it's not something you really have to worry about as you will never get getting a court summons or baliffs through your door unless you have deliberately defrauded them.

How is it in the USA? Are you constantly chased for the debt regardless of your circumstances?

<comment><USER18> _How is it in the USA? Are you constantly chased for the debt regardless of your circumstances?_

There are some exceptions, but generally student loans are something that you're stuck with. That's to say, you can't just shed them in bankruptcy proceedings.

<comment><USER17> I think it's the same in the UK regards bankruptcy but what happens if you become temporarily unemployed or can only get employment that is very low paid? Is it basically "fuck you, pay me"?

<comment><USER18> On paper yes, but you can't draw blood from a stone. Loans can be adjusted if you can't make payments like any other loan, but your credit will be duly impacted by your inability to meet your obligations. The US doesn't have anything like what you mentioned the UK having for students in general. I think there exist some similar setups for people in particular professions, like teaching, for example, but even then I don't think their benefits are as good as the ones you laid out, but I'm no expert on how all of that works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Perhaps it needs to be made very clear, in case there are some that still are confused about why many people (who study non-technical subjects) choose to go to college (aside from many of the well-known ones like the promises of how it would lead to a 1950s style middle-class lifestyle; because their parents made them; because it's rite-of-passage; or because their friends are there), for /whatever/ major they choose (or are able to handle): it feels like they have to in order to even be in the running for jobs, because HR uses the _presence_ of a degree, _any_ degree as a first-line FILTERING mechanism. In down economic times especially, when you're getting 200 resumes for a job that could be done by someone with a 4th grade education, you need _some_ way to cut down that pile and that is one of the easiest ways to do it.

Viewed in that light, you can see why so many people are very, very upset by all this. Politicians, the media, their parents, their friends have all told them "get a degree or you'll be a [metaphorical] fry cook" and now it's "get a degree if you want to be able to even get a job as a fry cook." Rephrased, it's "a bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma", and so it becomes about the fact that you got the degree _at all_ that matters. If you don't, there are 199 people (who have the same (lack of) experience you do), but do have the degree. Theirs goes in the "scan again to filter for some other reason" pile, yours goes in the trash.

As far as the the ones who racked up debt AND didn't finish: they've got the worst of both worlds.

Forget about majors, forget about "putting in dues", and start thinking about a country and society (I'm talking about the US here) that tells you that you MUST go to college in order to get a job, forces you into debt to do so (not everyone is grant material - the recent stats say 90% of grads take on debt) and then tells you there aren't enough jobs for everyone (for the well known reasons, but I'd put automation at the top of the list these days. Recent stats say 3+ people are available for work for each job opening) and you'll understand why these people are mortified.

It's also clear where all this leads, to the dismay of many: a guaranteed income society. We'll be forced to accept that many, perhaps even MOST people will not be needed for work. There will be nothing for them to do, and nothing we can do about it. The people that do work will be the robot designers, maintainers, politicians, managers, personal service people, and some miscellaneous workers. Everyone else will be part of a "sports, arts, and leisure" society. That might be 50-100 years out, but it's coming, and no one should have any illusions about what that means. Our conception of our societies as defined by work will need to change, and we'll need to accept that people who do not work are not lazy, ne'er do wells or parasites, but that they are the result of the transition to post-work (and hopefully post- scarcity) societies. The calls for bringing back factory jobs, re-empowering unions, etc. are short-sighted and misguided; there's no turning back the tide, and we should adjust our thinking accordingly.

Finally, it should be clear that many right here on this site, and those that they work with are the ones helping to create this new world. An automated one, an easier one, and hopefully, a better one.

<comment><USER20> I used to think on similar lines, that at some point there wouldn't be enough work to do. But it's absolutely Utopian horseshit.

There is ALWAYS useful work to do sometimes there's just of shortage of funds or skilled workers to do it. Look at our aging infrastructure, fix our bridges, tunnels, roads, buildings, houses, etc. Care for our old and sick, learn art and design and make the world more beautiful, engineer spaceships, create amazing entertainment, etc. etc.

Don't confuse market inefficiency with a lack of useful things to do.

<comment><USER21> There's always work to do exactly because there are always people looking for work. It's not the other way around. Most jobs aren't necessary for our survival, so people who don't want to work shouldn't be forced to work.

It's not Utopian horseshit. Please be less dismissive of ideas.

<comment><USER22> If the whole human race sat down and wrote up a list of things we all wanted done, it would probably be even more than we could ever accomplish. Chances are, if you're a human being, you have something on that list, and you have the ability to help complete a task that's on that list as well.

Most jobs aren't necessary for our survival. OK, maybe people shouldn't be forced to work for their survival. But if they want much more than survival, they should do their fair share. And since I want much more than survival, I'd rather more people could pitch in and help out with that.

<comment><USER21> People would still want to work. But they'll start working on things they actually care about, because they won't be enslaved by their fear that if they quit their jobs they'll end up homeless or without health insurance. Right now so few startups dare to actually imagine new things because investors must be pleased and profit must be made. Plus, if we escaped the job-for-survival mindset, we would actually start focusing on automation. It's a mistake to think that automation hasn't come at the scale we expected because of unprecedented technical challenges. It hasn't come because the government has stopped throwing money on basic research. We need to focus on wild, idealistic, big-scale projects. And admit that the private sector isn't good at _radically_ innovating, because, to radically innovate, you need to have been failing for many, many years, and have someone sustain you throughout those years. The best the private sector can do is catch up and minimize costs, like SpaceX does.

<comment><USER22> It's utter first-world utopian horseshit to propose this kind of thinking, of all things, as a response to today's unemployment problems. It's like you don't even realize that there are third world migrant workers picking our fruit because every single one of those unemployed college graduates is, to put it bluntly, too spoiled and decadent to do the work. Or that the lifestyle of those unemployed college graduates is made possible by armies of Chinese factory workers.

I don't mean this as a personal attack on anyone. Frankly, I'm probably too spoiled and decadent to pick fruit all day too. But I'm willing to admit that's a weakness on my part, and I'm uncomfortable living in a world where I have to rest my weight on the backs of those who will gladly and happily do what I'm either incapable of or unwilling to do.

The one saving grace for us is that if we depend on people who do things we can't or won't do, then we can climb up the value chain and make them depend on us doing things they can't or won't do. Decadent as it may be to sit in an air-conditioned office and make stupid iPhone games for other spoiled, decadent first worlders to play, at least that guy living in the Foxconn dormitory and assembling iPhones all day might be grateful to us for making sure he still has work. I'm sure the guys who made "Angry Birds" boosted demand just enough to buy a few weeks breakfast, lunch, and dinner for maybe a couple thousand Chinese factory workers.

Pretending there isn't enough work out there and hence we should pay people to do nothing is just an excuse for cultural laziness. I can't imagine any social justice in subsidizing first-world people to contribute nothing and continue to live off the backs of third-world workers. Once those Chinese factory workers and Mexican fruit pickers are out of work because we can replace them with robots, then we can talk.

<comment><USER23> I bet the migrant workers you romanticise have a different view than being "stronger" than you and hence doing underpaid back-breaking work in bad conditions and no health coverage...

<comment><USER22> Romanticize? Not at all, I think they have a right to be outraged that they're practically supporting an idle class on their backs already. Nonetheless it's something I can't or won't do, and that's a flaw on my part.

<comment><USER21> It's not a flaw on your part. Stop being so moralistic. That kind of job is something that NOBODY needs to do. If we really tried, we could automate those jobs within a couple of decades or less. But we won't because those workers are possibly even cheaper than the maintenance of a potential automation solution, not to mention the R&D that would be needed to arrive there.

<comment><USER22> > That kind of job is something that NOBODY needs to do. If we really tried, > we could automate those jobs within a couple of decades or less.

OK, so let's all go without fruit for 20 years? No, that kind of job is something that SOMEBODY needs to do for as long as a couple more decades, and it's something that SOMEBODY has needed to do for the entire history of the human race. If somebody needs to do it, why can't you or I? Because we're so fucking spoiled and lazy that we get worked up over having to work in cubicles?

I get your argument. I think any good programmer is insulted by the notion of doing something a machine could do. And if it was between me and a machine, I'd happily sit on my ass and not worry about it, just like I happily sit on my ass and don't worry about calculating square roots. But it's not between me and a machine, it's between me and another human being who was born in less fortunate circumstances and goes out of his way for opportunities that I feel are below me. For someone in our position to sit around blithely talking about how automation can solve the problem "within a couple of decades", as if that's a solution to labor rights and unemployment today, is like one of America's founding fathers writing about the inalienable rights and freedoms of man while owning slaves.

<comment><USER21> Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that this is a solution for labor rights or unemployment right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Ugh, so depressing... go to college, rack up enormous amounts of debt, and hope to find a job so that you can start paying off the monthly minimums for the seemingly the rest of your life.

<comment><USER25> I know education is a common theme here on HN, and I always read articles like this. I still think education (esp. in US and UK) is ripe for entrepreneurial disruption, and I enjoy seeing what investors are doing in this space. The system is clearly broken, because incentives are out of proportion to costs.

<comment><USER26> I wouldn't be surprised if the system operated in the system's best interest, and not the student's. I only have anecdotal evidence, but from my own experience, the whole system was designed to keep you in the system for as long as possible.

This may have been exacerbated by stupid government targets to get, say, at least 50% of all pupils into university. And in at least some of those cases, you're only going because you're brainwashed into it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> English Canadians do not understand why young Quebecois are rioting over tuition price increases despite enjoying some of the cheapest tuitions in North America, even after the proposed increases.

This article helps explain why young people should be upset.

</comment><comment><USER28> I wonder how long before a politician promises a chicken in every pot, and a robot in every kitchen.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'll just briefly hit the major points of what I think is "wrong with the system" since this is obviously a huge topic.

First, public educations are a crap shoot. A high school diploma is a joke, it doesn't even guarantee basic literacy or numeracy. This is a big reason why white collar jobs have increasingly been forced to rely on other credentials. Despite vastly increasing per student spending over the years the quality of education hasn't improved at all and by some measures has gotten worse.

Second, student loan debt is out of control. It's too easy for people to sign themselves up for huge amounts of debt regardless of their future job opportunities. This distorts the market and creates an education bubble.

Third, society has turned its back on "dirty jobs". It's becoming less and less common for folks, especially middle and upper middle class young adults, to aspire toward jobs that involve manual labor. There's nothing wrong with construction, welding, automotive repair, culinary arts, etc. Trade schools are faster and cheaper than a 4 year college, and they typically leave a graduate with very solid prospects at gaining a fairly well paying job just out of school. If more people made that choice unemployment would be a lot lower.

Fourth, "vanity degrees" are far too common these days, partly for the reasons listed above. If you need higher education to further your career then if you pursue a degree with very shaky career prospects and you go into massive debt to do so then quite frankly you made a very bad life choice, and all of the people who helped you do it (your family and friends, your counselors, your loan officers, etc.) are partly to blame as well. Yes there is value to studying history, or English literature, but you should never for even a single moment fool yourself into believing that you are doing anything other than digging your own financial grave when you are indulging in those majors.

Unfortunately for a lot of middle and upper middle class 18-25 year olds there has come to be a great deal of pressure behind taking the same "acceptable" educational and career track. High school -> 4 year arts & science degree at a prestigious school -> white collar job. If you are in high school or college right now I urge you to challenge this. Look at your career prospects and finances seriously. Consider becoming a STEM major if possible. If that's not feasible consider switching to a trade school. And try to get yourself into the job market early even while you are in school to build up your resume and your skills. It's far, far easier to study history and English lit as a hobby in your free time than it is to build a well paying career on such things.

<comment><USER8> Unemployment rates for blue-collar workers are pretty high too, so I'm not sure that's a good solution---or necessarily a good career bet, unless you carefully target a subset of blue-collar work that you're pretty sure will continue to be in high demand.

Construction jobs, for example, are pretty much none to be had at the moment, and wages have been significantly falling in real terms for some decades. My grandfather made a middle-class wage as a carpenter working on house construction in the 1950s, but the crew that built my parents' recent-ish suburban home were all making minimum wage assembling factory-cut materials (and there's oversubscribed demand even for those jobs). Auto mechanic is not a particularly good job market at the moment, either. Skilled welding is indeed in demand, but it takes a substantial amount of time to build up the level of skill that's currently in demand (with the prevalence of machine welds, there's no longer a smooth on-the-job skills progression).

I'm not sure it's actually a better bet than getting an English BA and looking for an office job, though. Both have high unemployment rates currently, but blue-collar-worker unemployment rates are even higher than English-major unemployment rates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I feel really lucky that I dropped out of college without accumulating any debt, and that I was never unemployed during the recession. I wish that gave me some ability to advise other people on how to escape the debt+unemployment trap, but other than "be smart and tenacious and lucky", I don't actually know what to say.

</comment><comment><USER31> @Futurebot

You should get a degree if you can, period. Whether you work as a fry cook or not. Education is worth it. It has value, to you and to society, apart from its utility as a factor infiltering people for job positions.

No one wants to see the US become even more uneducated.If you want to get cynical about the job market (and young people dohave a right to be cynical about it), try thinking of it this way. Nodoubt most have heard the old adage, "You need to sell yourself." Anotherway to think of this is that "jobs" are really a question of convincingsomeone else (not necessarily an employer, but maybe a client) to pay you.That is always what it comes down to. This could be an elaborate processinvolving educational degrees, past accomplishments, recommendations,etc. or, in today's world, it might be something like the startupsdiscussed here on HN: You announce a bit of software and a website,and the thundering herd starts clicking. Some of the herd is willingto pay. If that percentage is large enough, you have a runaway success,something like Dropbox.Those who are paying you are not asking to see your resume. The onlypeople who cared that you graduated from MIT were the VC and their clientswho funded you. That is, if you were funded. Don't kid yourself. The mostimportant people you convinced to pay you werenot the investors. Theywere the customers. In the end what mattered is whether customers wereconvinced to pay you. How they arrived at that decision might actuallybe quite simple (and quite arbitrary).

Now, maybe using the web as your medium you manange to become wealthyovernight. But that does not reduce the long term value of your degreefrom MIT. The degree is not necessarily the cause of your success(e.g. maybe you cannot prove that it was). Wealth can be made withor without education. (That has always been true, otherwise smallbusiness, which is the majority of business in the US, would cease toexist.) Technology allows this to happen now in a way never before seenin history.

But...

Education has value to you and to society because education will makeyour life more interesting and an educated society is better than anuneducated one.These are tough times. But things go in cycles. If you skip education,and then years from now things get better, you may regret it. Get aneducation as early as possible (i.e. if you have the money, do it). Itwill benefit everyone in the long term.

Things go in cycles. It's hard to see this when you are young. This is because you have not yet lived through an economic cycle as a person of working age.

</comment><comment><USER32> it is not necessarily a bad thing that our general populous is more educated. What I am appalled at is the cost of higher level education and those who willingly choose private schools and copious amounts of debt.

</comment><comment><USER33> Wow. I can't believe it's this bad.

</comment><comment><USER34> "Ask them for work. If they deny you work, ask for bread. If they deny you bread, take it." - Emma Goldman

I fall into the "some college" category. I have no issue with mopping floors, unloading trucks, waiting tables, etc. What I have an issue with is the number of applications I've filled out without getting so much as an interview. Here's my view in a nutshell: I am not above being a dishwasher. I am, however, above begging to be a dishwasher. You can only fill out so many applications for employment at literally the lowest level before you start to wonder when stealing becomes justified.</comment>


I will pay you to learn python - <AUTHOR> http://www.iwillpayyoutolearnpython.com/

<comment><USER2> This is misleading -- it's actually a discount on the normal price of a Python book.

<comment><AUTHOR> not really. the normal price is $35, and you get $50 back. so you net $15. it's not a discount. you ACTUALLY are gaining.

<comment><USER2> > not really. the normal price is $35, and you get $50 back. so you net $15. > it's not a discount.

That's called a "discount". And you haven't said what the conditions are. You do realize, don't you, that people will either not take you seriously, or they will drain your resources by signing up under 100s of different names?

<comment><AUTHOR> did you even read the website. there are conditions on there.

workflow -

1) users purchases course for $35 2) user takes assessment after part 1 (python syntax) 3) user takes assessment after part 2 (web dev) 4) user shows off what they learned 5) user gets $50.

if the user simply buys the course, they get nothing.

this is a way of (a) getting more people to learn and (b) showing mastery of a topic by teaching and/or doing

why such skepticism? i am trying to give people an incentive to learn and to actually stick with something.

<comment><USER2> > why such skepticism?

Because of all the parts you leave out. What's your incentive to give away money? Presumably to improve your book. If true, that means purchasers are getting an alpha release, an unfinished work that they're going to help you write.

Young people won't be likely to understand this, but if they accept the discount, they're test subjects, not students. If they buy a Python book in a bookstore, they can first read years' worth of reviews to know what they're getting into.

> i am trying to give people an incentive to learn and to actually stick with > something.

No, you're field-testing an unfinished book with the aim of rewriting it. Want my advice? Tell it like it is. People are more likely to cooperate if you're not hiding anything.

<comment><AUTHOR> that makes better sense for where you are coming from. however, you are assuming it's an unfinished book when in reality, the book/course have been out for nearly a year. they are complete. we've had thousands of downloads.

your point is valid. but it's a fallacy based on a hasty conclusion. still interesting feedback though. curious how many others will come to that conclusion.

any ideas on how to reframe the wording of the website to reassure people my motivations for doing this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> so -

(1) you learn python and web development (2) you get to show it off. ultimate learning by doing (3) then you get $15 (4) there's also the possibility of me hiring you for ad-hoc jobs.</comment>


Private WhatsApp groups crawled by Google spider - <AUTHOR> https://www.androidauthority.com/private-whatsapp-1085998/ <comment><USER2> Big of true</comment>


The 4-letter-word word that makes my blood boil - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/marcuscreo/the-4-letter-word-word-that-makes-my-blood-boil <comment><USER2> Boy howdy do I agree with this. I've developed a visceral reaction to hearing this, especially coming out of my own mouth.

It surprised me to read that the author felt self-conscious about asking for clarification of details for fear of looking stupid. My experience from very early school involved teachers encouraging students' questions, even very basic or retrograde questions about the material. Personally, I carried that into professional life and never thought twice about it.

How many of you have been put in a difficult situation by a "just" user because you didn't speak up when they glossed over complexity?

<comment><USER3> Boy, you hit the nail on the head! I was really afraid folks would feel that I should know what they meant if I was a "real professional programmer", so it was tough for me to learn to push back. ;)</comment></comment>