My Year in San Francisco's $2M Secret Society Startup - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/my-year-in-san-franciscos-2-million-secret-society-startup <comment><USER2> What an interesting article. To me, it illuminates two things: the desire for that child-like sense of depth and mystery that many of us still look for in our everyday lives, and the tendency for Silicon Valley money to turn everything it touches into a slide-deck-laden commercial enterprise.

Sadly, as much as I love the idea, I see the same thing happening with venture-funded cooperative living arrangements.

When I was studying in Berkeley, I lived in a student-run co-op house. We were the wardens of our creaky 1920s manor: we did all the cleaning, made repairs, painted (and mural-ed) the walls, did some remodeling, picked out the furniture. Even membership was decided collectively. As a result, the community we had was an emergent property of our environment, and it created friendships that have lasted for the past decade. Sitting in the overgrown backyard garden or watching the glimmering city lights from the roof, I felt immersed in a world of beauty and mystery for the first time in many years.

Lately, I've been seeing a lot of co-living/"nomad house" startups being posted to HN. You see photos of beautiful houses all around the world; fancy toys in full-size entertainment dungeons; attractive young people all working on their latest business venture. But I can't escape the feeling that all of this exists in that same corporate Neverland described in the article. Venture capital runs through the blood of these communities. They exist to make money. They don't own the houses. They don't get to decide their own fate. It's all a petri dish carefully designed from an office building somewhere in the Financial District.

As a result, when a true community does manage to take hold in this sort of artificial ether, it becomes all the more agonizing when corporate decides to pull the plug on you. If only the incentives were aligned; if only corporate didn't "really needed to monetize" the venture...

Maybe these sorts of spiritually-significant projects (and I do include the Latitude Society in this) simply don't work when run as a conventional business. And yet, there's clearly a deep desire for them to exist.

<comment><USER3> Don't fool yourself, the student run co-ops are no different from the venture capital that runs any other co-living/"nomad house" you speak of.

Because, in a way, the student is the "start-up" and the money paid for tuition is "venture capital," put up in hopes to see an ROI, in terms of money or societal contribution, from the student.

Speaking as a former UC Berkeley Cloyne co-oper, I've seen a handful of former co-opers try to transition the "magic" of the USCA into normal life. They failed because the reality is that American society doesn't it lend itself well to collectivism and the lack of capital needed build a functioning co-op.

Sure the student co-ops ran great when everyone is unattached, uninhibited, young dumb, full of cum, and fueled by venture capital (e.g. student loans, scholarships, etc). But once you pull all that out, the wheels fall off the cart pretty quick.

<comment><USER2> I'm not holding up the co-ops as some sort of paragon, but I think they're clearly a stepping stone in the right direction. At the very least, the cooperative business model has allowed them to (more or less) self-govern and adapt to a rapidly changing populace over the course of many decades. In my experience, they also have a much more diverse population on campus than the dorms or greek houses. While it's true that the largely student constituency is what's currently funding the co-ops, the BSC has always been a separate institution from the university; were Cal to suddenly shut down, I have no doubt the BSC would still find plenty of people to fill their seats, if for no other reason than the alluring economic prospect. The institution itself, as it's currently structured, does not require an outside source of funding to prop it up: the business is a closed loop, and the incentives are aligned. (Correct me if I'm wrong... I don't know how much the BSC relies on donations, etc. to survive.)

> _Speaking as a former UC Berkeley Cloyne co-oper, I 've seen a handful of > former co-opers try to transition the "magic" of the USCA into normal life. > They failed because the reality is that American society doesn't it lend > itself well to collectivism and the lack of capital needed build a > functioning co-op._

True, but many others have succeeded. I know for a fact that there are a ton of graduate and post-graduate independent cooperatives in Berkeley. They're not exactly common in the US, but you can find them if you look around. (And it's not like the concept is new: the Rochdale Principles are almost 200 years old.) To be fair, it probably takes a dedicated and idealistic group of people to make it work; I'm sure many BSC co-opers never really held a deep-seated belief in cooperative living.

<comment><USER3> > The institution itself, as it's currently structured, does not require an > outside source of funding to prop it up: the business is a closed loop, and > the incentives are aligned.

This is categorically untrue. The BSC receives large subsidies from Cal in different forms. To my knowledge the main form is through Cloyne Court, which is owned by the university and leased back to the BSC for a dollar a year (seriously). Meanwhile, the university still pays things like property tax, insurance, and some other expenses on the building.

Because of this sweetheart deal, Cloyne is a huge profit center for the BSC and the funds are used subsidize unprofitable houses (mostly all the smaller ones). CZ runs a small profit, but no where near as big as Cloyne. If the BSC lost Cloyne, the entire BSC would either fold, or have to raise prices so dramatically it would eventually fold. They would definitely close all smaller houses like Davis, et al. Also the land for Rochdale village was a subsidized deal as well, which helps those stay profitable.

But my point is that the success of the BSC is due to "venture capital" in the form of students "investing" in their education. And the fact that undergrad and grads at Cal for the most part are very like minded and in similar "stages" in their life which makes co-habitation relatively easy. Which is why I say that when you look a few levels deeper, the BSC not a replicable model outside of academia.

However, I agree with you that the BSC is fucking awesome for all the reasons that you stated.

<comment><USER4> Speaking as a former Cloyne resident and former employee of the BSC, I would say the BSC works in spite of the fact that it is (mostly) run by students. Nearly all of the houses have a transitory nature to them - some of them rarely have students stay for more than a year at a time.

The BSC is more similar to the corporate co-living/nomad house than archagon realizes. Even though the BSC is a non-profit, it treats students like they are expendable. [1] The students don't own the house, they don't get to decide their own fate. It is not actually a true cooperative, employees of the BSC will be the first ones to admit that.

[1] See Cloyne's fate

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ahoy! I just stumbled on this. I was the Director of Technology for this set of local bizareness for its last two years. I won't say "I'm happy to answer any questions" because I may avoid some. If you want to ask, maybe hit me up, Especially the tech, especially if you got to play and have a good idea of what we were doing.

Also! I think I'm signed up to give a talk in May at ADG. If you're interested in this sort of world-building, and the hacker side of it; maybe come to that? My talk isn't on the shedule yet, but it's penciled in (and Definitely go to Catherine Herdlick's if you can!) [http://www.meetup.com/Adventure-Design- Group/](http://www.meetup.com/Adventure-Design-Group/)

<comment><USER6> Thanks for stopping by! What was the most memorable moment of the whole experience for you?

<comment><USER5> As far as the experience goes, one of the things I'd say over and over is that if you noticed my work, I did a bad job. I was building the automation, electronics, mechanics, and hardware and software systems to make things tick. I was typically working with about two other hacker-types. sometimes hardware and audio folks, sometimes web and software folks.

So there was this beach on the top floor of a building downtown. When you were invited in, a whole day would pass in the scope of twenty minutes. More than anything, it was a place to think. And through some very clever crafting with about a dozen RGB floodlights (and previous work deconstructing how to work the Philips Hue API) we made it simultaneously look like an office/gallery, that would pass from dawn through early morning, noon, afternoon, sunset, evening and the sort of blue-midnight you only see on television.

I didn't really "do" the experiences, I always knew what was behind the door when I opened it, and often times I was "doing" it for QA purposes, but that part of that room will probably stick on me like a soft spot for a very long time.

<comment><USER7> > if you noticed my work, I did a bad job.

Partial counterpoint: I didn't notice the cameras in the sandbox, so I happily covered them up by accident. It just "felt right" to me for whatever reason to decorate the corners. Oops.

<comment><USER5> For those who don't know: He's talking about the in the aforementioned "beach" room, which had a different name, meaning, and story. MrEricSir appears to be one of the top google results for "The Latitude Book 2" if you care to explore.

There was a hexagon shaped table with a sandbox. In each corner of the sandbox there was a digital camera (connected to a raspberry pi) that would photograph the sandbox throughout your appointment and then send the pictures to your personal account on our website. When you went back to the website to confirm that you had completed your experience, you were presented with a handful of sandcastle-POV photos that were just for you.

Yeah, I heard that a couple of times. That's part of why there were 6 cameras, with the hope that two or three would be working + get a decent shot.

Still, I'd say from a design pov, that _totally worked_. People behave different when they know they're being watched or evaluated. This was meant to be a private space for you, and the photos of that thing were meant to be a pleasant surprise.

<comment><USER8> That's awesome. I was an early tester on Book 2 and I really wanted to take photos, but I didn't because I wasn't sure if it was against the rules. Really glad to hear that you added this detail so carefully!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _One member wrote later that "I was stunned, flabbergasted, to learn that a > significant number of people don't even bother taking that step. A friend > sits you down, asks of you absolute discretion, and then gives you a > mysterious card that, if activated, literally opens a door to a new world of > adventure, and you DON'T EVEN USE IT? C'mon, people: Be better."_

Maybe they could smell it was a lame transmedia project that was trying too hard to copy _Eyes Wide Shut_. I mean, any real-deal secret society is going to have rules that—when broken—result in membership revocation via way of tragic suicide. It's just not an authentic secret society experience without that constant spectre of death looming over each and every member.

In all seriousness though, I enjoyed the article, and it's neat that most of the compelling narrative in the society ended up being user-generated. You also have to give its creators credit for trying something that far out in left field.

<comment><USER10> I wonder if people forget that there are plenty of legitimately secret societies like the sort you described (in just about any sufficiently large city in the world). They're called criminal enterprises. With few exceptions, I don't think most people on HN would enjoy being part of them. However I can certainly think of a few pleasant ones that reminisce the cryptic business card. Then I read on a bit further and realized we were just talking about a game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I never got an invite to this. I started working in the city two weeks before the shut down, so perhaps this is for the best.

But I have gone to:

A game of space ships on the frontier and brown coats, using Nerf Guns, run in a Dungeon.

A game of cosmopolitan monsters with a 20+ year history of play in countries around the world.

A private performance space, where I've met amazing friends: amazing people, magicians, performers, stars of world renowned shows, artists, gamers, cyber security wizards, and more.

Community organized get togethers for Metafilter users.

Secret Meetups for Ingress Users.

I'm sure there are more things that nobody has invited me to, I mean there is underground, and there is the center of the earth, but I would imagine that Latitude is only the tip of the iceberg, a single cavern in a vast but hidden space.

<comment><USER12> In my younger days when I lived in SF, I felt that most of the fun in the city was in it's subcultures and underground societies. The city officially closed very early 11 or 12, and then the "other" took over. I'm glad that it's not dead yet.

<comment><USER13> Same thing with the music scene in the Bay Area. There are tons of underground parties happening behind plain doors and in warehouses all over if you're part of the announcement groups on Facebook / group chat programs / info lines. Breaking into it isn't too hard but can take a few weeks of effort. The best way is, of course, to talk to someone already part of that scene and have them show you around :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's sounds like a well-produced LARP. Like Escape Room.[1] It wasn't really a society. It was a startup pretending to be one.

With today's high real estate costs, it's hard to do anything like this in the physical world. People no longer rent storefronts as clubhouses, or set up social organizations which own their own buildings. Hacker Dojo morphed from a hacker space to a commercial co-working startup for that reason.

[1] [http://realescapegame.com/pzrsf/](http://realescapegame.com/pzrsf/)

<comment><USER15> _Hacker Dojo morphed from a hacker space to a commercial co-working startup for that reason._

This is false. Hacker Dojo is a non-profit, and many members and those on the board are passionate about its future. The Dojo has the best rates in the Bay Area ($100 for non-work hours and $195 for 24/7 vs. $300 avg for SF/SV). There is a maker-space with a laser cutter on the way, and an electronics area that Woz only wishes existed back in his day. There are several events each day, including tech meetups and educational classes.

Dojo rents out some of its space to bootcamps and startups. Why? To meet its fundraising goals. In May, Dojo will move from Mountain View to Santa Clara; however, several members are interested in buying a building in the next couple of years assuming commercial real estate experiences a down market. I assure you, there is nothing "commercial co-working startup" about it. It is and will continue to be a community-focused non-profit. The board members wouldn't allow otherwise.

<comment><USER11> Wait, what happened to the Laser Cutter that was there, that Carlos was training people on?

<comment><USER16> Yea! And where's Carlos? I want to go surfing or maybe have a beer w/ that guy. Carlos, I hope you're there for my first Burning Man experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hi! I'm the article author. AMA :)

<comment><USER17> What a great article! My head is buzzing, but to start:

1) You mention that some people never used the invitation or used it but didn't complete the initiation. "Why were some of us drawn in like moths to a flame, while others reacted zero?" You also mention some trepidation during your own initiation ritual. What made you go through with it? I'm a healthy young male, and I feel nontrivial trepidation at the thought of going somewhere unknown, alone, knowing I'm being watched, not knowing if I can get out, surrendering my phone and wallet, seeing the glass of who-knows-what...I imagine these fears would reasonably be stronger for many others. Is it reasonable for the society to ask such trust from people who haven't yet interacted with it? Presumably the danger and the fun are intertwined. Is that necessarily a good thing? Does it have negative filtering effects on society membership?

2) What happened if someone going through the initiation ritual didn't play along - didn't go down the slide or leave, didn't move on from the library at the appointed time, hid their phone then tried to record the Fable, etc?

<comment><USER8> Thank you! :)

1) Honestly, it never occurred to me to not go through with it, even when I was nervous. :) I guess I was just really pulled in by the beauty and drama of it. As I wrote in the article, there were many people who didn't go through with their first appointment, so the secretive appointment was certainly a filter. Whether it was a negative filter, I couldn't say.

2) My partner had a descendant who tried to steal one of the books from the library, hahahaha. He got chased down by one of the Nonchalance employees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The first time I saw a game of MTG I was instantly hooked. 20 years ago on my way to class I saw some guys playing the game and I stood there watching for a while. I was invited to play and that was it. Played for a few hours, skipped class, walked away with a deck, skipped many, many more classes thereon.

Nothing had ever wrapped me in such a way, a delicious combination of fantasy, role playing, strategy, wits and beautiful art.

I played the game for many years and even now when I seldom run into my collection (now forgotten in a closet) I remember that first feeling and get a sudden urge to go build a deck. Yet the magic faded until it died, it did when I started to see the business behind it, the artificial scarcity, the product cycle, the content adjustments to target new generations of players, the manipulation, the rules aimed to sell more. The business killed the feeling.

I suppose the same thing happened to many Latitude members: they were exposed to a crude reality check (pay to play) which killed the fantasy.

It is a big question for all startups: how to not kill that initial true value once you need to monetize.

<comment><USER19> Would that pay-to-play feeling have been less bad if the cult had been a nonprofit?

<comment><USER18> A nonprofit? Makes no sense. A business is fine. The problem is when the business crosses that thin line and it becomes too aggressive in its profit- seeking. In MTG the game stopped being a casual thing and it became a competition (regulated and very profitable). To compete one needs powerful cards which become quite expensive due to its power and scarcity (which is artificial b/c many more could be printed). The original cult changed then, forever.

Social networks do the same. FB for instance, it did deliver value at the beginning. It was super useful and innovative to get and keep in touch with fam and friends. Then the brands came, then ads flooded. That killed the original value. I closed my FB account and no value was lost b/c nobody in my circle is using it anymore for that original purpose. In fact, I regained value (time and privacy). Now we share on Whatsapp groups (which I am sure will soon be flooded with brands and ads in order to make back the billions). We'll move our sharing to something else.

<comment><USER20> As another former MTG player, I think the scarcity is part of the experience, but I think they went way too far, because they are hunting "whales", which I was close to becoming but didn't because of a lack of money. The scarcity can be simulated without resorting to the money grabs they went for :( .

And it "works" for them, I think it's a huge part of the Hasbro money machine. As a game it was (is?) great, but the cost to buy in is way too great.

I guess I agree that your disappointment mirrors the one from the people at this "secret society" when they started charging a very costly membership.

[http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/whales-and-why-social- game...](http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/whales-and-why-social-gamers-are- just-gamers/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Between this and the Trump campaign's success I'm increasingly certain we are living in a Hunger Games prequel.

</comment><comment><USER22> The Longread from last September on The Latitude's expansion into a startup was pretty solid foreshadowing:

[http://blog.longreads.com/2015/09/24/we-value-experience- can...](http://blog.longreads.com/2015/09/24/we-value-experience-can-a-secret- society-become-a-business/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Attempting to scale a "secret society" has extremely obvious problems...

<comment><USER24> Freemasonry is achieving this pretty well. I can count the number of movies that make a reference to freemasonry on my fingers with a single hand.

In fact I am surprised it was not mentioned in any of the comments or the article.

<comment><USER25> I would not classify Freemasonry as a secret society. Freemasonry wants new members and while recruiting is (supposed to be) a big no-no, being visible (preferably while bettering your community) is encouraged.

The appearance of symbols in movies and other media are somewhat like rickrolling or "masons were here" tagging, intended for other masons. An allusion to the "We Are Everywhere" motto which is intended well, but ends up sounding ominous to outsiders.

There are appendant bodies within Freemasonry that certainly are secret societies. Even secret from most Masons. Some Googleable (eg. J-----rs), some not. I can answer more specific questions here, if desired.

They have their own legends, symbols, and modes of recognition. Some of these are as small as a few people, and some are worldwide.

Source: Am one.

Edit: I should mention that this is all from my perspective in the US. European Freemasonry works substantially differently and I'm not familiar with perceptions and processes there. Thanks cm2187

<comment><USER24> Things might be more transparent in the US, but in Europe, freemasonry:

\- only recruits by co-option

\- membership and activities are secret

\- medias pretty much observe a remarkable silence / lack of curiosity on their activities

Now I am not sure what are the exact criteria to call an organisation secret but it ticks the box to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> LARP'ing _Foucault 's Pendulum_ was all I couldn't help but think...and hoping it would get to the Rosicrucians.

The lessons about social networks made it all worthwhile, though, I guess.

</comment><comment><USER27> Is it just me or isn't this a case of a rich guy building his own cult? It either became too expensive or more likely he became bored with it and shut it down.

<comment><USER28> Eh I don't he really believed in it enough for it to be a cult. It's sorta like that, I guess, but a bit half-hearted or at least three-quarter-hearted for a cult. It sounds like it was a cult for some people (the ones telling that story to their kids every night, for instance).

Cults are fun, there's obviously a lot of demand for them among the atheists / logical workers of SF who have to live with so much boring truth all the time (e.g. the guy who says "I feel like much of my life is so focused on Doing The Thing that I don't take that kind of time very often. The feeling of warmth and excitement and sparkling eyes was really strong, and it formed a lot of my sense of what this group was and why it was meaningful.").

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Almost forgot to tell you all -- I wrote a followup and FAQ on one of my blogs here: [http://lydialaurenson.com/my-new-article-in-vice-about- san-f...](http://lydialaurenson.com/my-new-article-in-vice-about-san- franciscos-startup-secret-society/)

(For those who haven't seen my previous comments, hi, I'm the article author! Thanks for reading!)

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't know why but the author's experience and description of the scene reminded me a lot of Myst and how I felt the first time I ever played it. I envy anyone who is fortunate enough to experience even a portion of that IRL.

</comment><comment><USER30> Does this seem... incredibly lame?

<comment><USER31> Funny how polarizing it is. The elitism, faux secrecy and utter pointlessness of this just ticks me off (along with the other criticism mentioned in the article), but some people, including the author, seem to gobble this up like candy.

<comment><USER32> It's a power fantasy. There's an "in group" and through various mechanisms, it's perceived to be a concentration of power. Some people want to be on the right side of the line, while others actively distrust any organization that advertises the power fantasy behind a hidden agenda, or think it's childish, or both.

My view is that there's no harm in indulging this power fantasy if it's just a game, but when you try to merge it into your everyday life, you're playing with fire. Secrecy begets exclusivity and intentional power imbalance, and society as a whole needs less of both.

<comment><USER33> I am a huge cynic and probably one of the first people to agree with a post like yours, but I really have to disagree. I saw very little power dynamic going on from what I read. There was a level of mysteriousness in that some people knew a lot more than others, but seemingly a large part of this project was experiencing the discovery and exploration of the project. Hence the reason when the author asked a ton of questions, the guy replied "I could tell you, but do you really want to know?".

It was seemingly a large art project. Some people were "in the know" because projects like this require the full time work of several people. You exclude as many people as possible because it ruins the illusion that people enjoy. Your post may as well criticize Disney World for being a power fantasy because they don't allow park visitors behind the scenes.

<comment><USER34> "I requested that they deactivate my membership. But when I left, I became a security risk. People I knew made vague threats that I would regret leaving or talking about it. A roommate of mine stopped telling me where he was going when he left the house. Friends whom I trusted contacted me and played stupid about their own involvement in order to suss out what I knew."

<comment><USER33> That's an unconfirmed third hand story by someone who was obviously way too emotional about the equivalent of being kicked out of their D&D group. I would guess his/her friends ignored him/her because he/she was acting childish. What roommate ALWAYS tells the other where they're going? Especially if they started asking in a suspicious way? Or maybe the roommate stopped telling because he knew it was sensitive subject.

Frankly the way that account is told more than explains why people were distancing themselves from him or her. (S)he sounds crazy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The initial description of the library had me thinking of 'the Man Who Was Thursday', a book which includes its own absurd secret society.

Also, anyone interested in real-world social games might enjoy Journey to the End of the Night ([http://ichaseyou.com/](http://ichaseyou.com/)). It's not a secret society, but it shares some elements of roaming through your city, playing a game with strangers, and creating your own adventures.

<comment><USER8> +1 for Journey. It's awesome. The person who runs it, Thomas Lotze, was also a Society member and is quoted in my article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is Jeff Hull's follow up to the Jejune Institute, which I was lucky to have participated in and you can see a documentary on it called "The Institute".

</comment><comment><USER37> Just sharing my experience:

I wasn't in search of it, but I'm known as a creative and energetic guy that loves fun and am totally curious, etc. I am 100% the target market, except that I am 40. A younger guy involved with The Institute film gave me a key. I alone found it charming. I didn't take it seriously. For fun, I thought to invite some friends. I think 6? Every single one of them had a weird experience where people took it far, FAR too seriously. I, at one point, had to accompany a good friend and his young girlfriend, at night, in the rain, in a foreign city to them. When I was going up the stairs to the final room, some people high on fake power and taking the whole thing FAR too seriously gave us a chilling and somewhat disturbing lecture about how serious it is for people to do it on their own, etc. It was unbelievably absurd, and destroyed all the simple charm. I abandoned it after that. When delightful ideas try way too hard... it vacates the intent.

<comment><USER38> Hmm.. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Very interesting. Im only halfway through so this is a pre-comment:

Anyone interested in this sort of immersive experience needs to watch The Game with Michael Douglass. Skip the trailer and its spoilers. Just watch it. It's like this but better. Preempted the appearance of such things you might say.

</comment><comment><USER40> Admittedly only skimmed the article, but I missed exactly what this group actually did. Philanthropy? Community service? Multi-level marketing? What's the purpose of having some secret group that only exists to be secret and to be a group?

<comment><USER41> I read the article from top to bottom, and these questions aren't exactly answered. I got the impression it was a group of mostly artistic types getting together for conversation, essentially bringing social networking back to the real world instead of through screens.

How the hell this was supposed to be a "startup" that expected to grow into a profitable business is beyond me. In any case, Jeff Hull inherited many millions of dollars, blew a chunk of it on a personal pet project, and then had a hissy fit when he tried to monetize it and met resistance. Classic child-like behavior of inherited wealth, completely detached from the real world where the rest of us have to work hard to earn a pittance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> So, it's like normal social interactions in something that look like a club or a non-profit but done by a private company that watch you all the time ?

That sounds to me like something for people that lack actual interesting social groups...

<comment><USER43> Of course it is. That's why it's in San Francisco run by techies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> This feels very much like the kind of thing that could have benefitted from an endowment, rather than a monetization strategy.

</comment><comment><USER45> rich people with too much free time

</comment><comment><USER46> Seems like the video indicates Nonchalance used a projector, to animate the fable, on the book pages...or was it something more exotic (?) Kind of hard to see.

Link: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAazLmTcmb0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAazLmTcmb0)

<comment><USER5> Yeah, it's a projector. pre-recorded projection mapping, custom electronics as a triggering mechanism. Automation for the projector and underlying computer. flask-socketio + Chrome for the media player.

You saw what the article was claiming was the total budget right? If we had done "mischief managed" levels of wizardry on that budget you would have heard about a very different aspect of what we did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Wow, I'm glad I have so many better hobbies than this.. This seems like a sad state of affairs to me.

</comment><comment><USER48> I'm curious. "I'm asked to surrender my possessions. So in go my iPhone and wallet"... and yet somehow there's photos of everything beyond that point.

<comment><USER8> Hi! I'm the article author. Praxis events were held in the same building as the slide, receiving room, etc. So I got the photos later, months after my initial Latitude experience.

<comment><USER49> Interesting read! I've always love new experiences and have been thinking of ways to share with people. Do you think instead of a single entity covering the cost, a group splitting the cost would make this idea lasts? For example, businesses that sponsor the society can get 3 invitations each to give to their top three customers. I'd love to brainstorm this if anyone in SoCal is interested.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Great read! Now I so badly want to be apart of a secret society

<comment><USER51> You mean you're not part of one? But all the rest of us are...

<comment><USER52> I'm pretty sure I am. But which one is a secret even from me!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Mr penumbras 24 hour bookstore

<comment><USER54> Hah, I just read that a few weeks ago and that's the first thing I thought of also. I wonder if the author was a member/participant in this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I submitted this yesterday. I thought HN didn't allow recently submitted articles?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11240405](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11240405)

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually submitted this 13 hours ago, not 1 hour ago. Take a look at my profile. Curiously, the front page shows 1 hour.

Regardless of that discrepancy, fvrghl's post was still prior to mine, as it's from a day ago. I'm not sure what's going on with the time stamps.

<comment><AUTHOR> Check that. 17 hours ago. Still doesn't explain my ability to submit the link.

<comment><USER56> "Interesting" posts that don't make it to the front page are sometimes revived.

I once received an email asking me to resubmit a link to something considered interesting, as part of a kind of trial for whether it should be the norm on HN. The behavior is now built in, so you don't need to interact with the system for your link to come back if it's "interesting".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Why not just join Scientology? Seems like it scratches may of the same itches.

</comment><comment><USER58> This reminds me of "Visit Port Watson". Similar purpose, similar execution.

</comment><comment><USER59> This article felt much like reading a pitch for a MLM scheme.

</comment><comment><USER60> hipster D&D</comment>


Show HN: Routinetap, my weekend project to track daily habits - <AUTHOR> http://routinetap.com

<comment><USER3> I'd love to see an android app, not with question-editing support but just to let me answer my questions when I'm on the road / in bed / otherwise not at my computer. The lower the barrier, the more often I will succeed at answering the questions for the day.

Great idea, great project. :-)

<comment><USER4> The funny thing is that I applied for Y Combinator funding three years ago centered around a Blackberry app version of a similar idea. I figured you could tie in ads or shopping recommendations based on actual behavior (rather than desired behavior). Unfortunately, I didn't get funding and the idea was too half baked at the time anyway. I ended up shelving it for over two years.

I resurrected the idea about 6 months ago when I learned Android development. I even built a very crude prototype. As you pointed out, however, data entry is a real problem. However, if you're willing to stick with it, these types of applications can be very powerful and useful for behavior modification because you get feedback on what you actually do. For example, if you're trying to lose weight or change a bad habit (or start a good habit) the power of actual statistical data is amazing. It's like there is another person watching everything you do that you have to be totally honest with. Just being aware of your routines at this level of precision changes you.

<comment><USER3> Indeed, I grabbed this app to record things I'm already recording. But I think a mobile app will be a big win. I have found that, if I record data points (mostly my weight) in a spreadsheet, I have trouble remembering to record every day. But if I do it on a whiteboard on the wall, it's easy. So salience and ease of use are key here.

<comment><USER5> I'm working on an app to help people track their progress towards better eating habits (<http://everyday.io>), and yeah, being able to use it from wherever you are is an important feature for me. So besides the web interface, I also have an "email interface" (daily reminders, email-ins) and I'm working on the mobile interface (Android app, iOS app pending damn Apple approval). It's already hard enough to change daily habits, so it's important to make it as easy as possible to track.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is there a way to remind me everyday to fill out my questionare? A daily email will probably work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not yet, I have thought about this but I wasn't sure if I would be nagging people. Maybe a opt-in would be the best choice.

<comment><USER7> I would also let them set the time of day for the notification.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I may be wrong, but I believe Benjamin Franklin had a system similar to this. Except with "daily habits", it was "virtues".

I like the idea, and think it would be even better if you made things simpler for the user. The point of this kind of app would be to get daily input, but the user is their own worst enemy by not entering it every day. So, a nag would make it much better.

Also, your use of Twitter Bootstrap is nice, but I saw that on the Sign Up form you had the "@" prepended before e-mail. I think that is meant for when there is a form to enter a twitter handle.

See here for what I mean: <http://cl.ly/2Z3Q1N112x2a3W0C0K3x>

<comment><USER9> You are correct. He had a chart with the days of the week (columns) and virtues (rows). He would then note how many faults he had committed each day. He tried to perfect each virtue for some time before adding another, and would perform cycles of this system that lasted several weeks each.

He later stopped doing it, claiming lack of time but he still saw much value in performing this task. You may find this in more detail in his book, which is reproduced here (I have pointed for the specific chapter): <http://www.benjaminfranklinbiography.net/#IX>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> When people say weekend project, do they typically mean this took 20 hours or so? About how long did this take you, mping? (Just wondering, because I feel I'm very slow with personal projects - mostly because I usually work in 2 hour blocks or so)

<comment><AUTHOR> Not even remotely close to 20 hours. I used this proj to learn rails and mongodb, I had a previous project that went nowhere to learn rails, I had a previous css scheme (before twitter's bootstrap came along), I used KnockoutJS intensively (only to learn I didn't need it that bad) and I had to learn how to deploy to a server (linode, dns, setting up nginx, etc).

A good estimate would be like 100 hours or more; I'm guessing if I handled the screents to a Rails expert, he would do it in ~20 hours.

If I were to repeat it, I'd probably give backbone.js a try (and spend another 100+ hours...)

<comment><USER10> OK, thanks - makes me feel a little better. I was originially thinking "Where do people get 100 hours in a weekend? Wives/children/pets must be on vacation...". But I realize it's probably more like weekends, plural. I've got a side project going to learn Django and Python - you're work inspired me to throw Bootstrap in there too.

Anyway, nice job!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice idea but the UI is weird. I have to setup questionnaires, click save on them and on each day. It should sync in the background. Can't input data for past days even if they're empty, only current day. The shuffling around animation between calendar days is weird. Also feels slow.

UX is very important for this type of app. You're using it every day, it needs to load and save data quickly.

Obviously it's the early prototype but I'd expect a simple app like this to be as snappy as backbone.js todo example, it's not much more complex.

</comment><comment><USER12> I like the idea of this, but I can't help feeling there is always too much for a user to do with app's like this.

I'm a busy person, I dont want to be filling in forms all the time keep this information upto date. I know this is hard problem to solve. I mean - <USER2> else would this work?

Makes me think of this post a few weeks ago

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3188635> (Dont give your users shit work).

</comment><comment><USER13> Your copy needs a bit of work.

> "Do you ever wondered why don't you reach your personal goals, although you > try?"

I'm not sure where you're going with that question, but it's all over the place.

> "Do you want to know how much do you sleep on average?"

This makes somewhat better sense as: "Do you want to know how much you sleep, on average?"

Although it's not a very gripping question. It could definitely lose "on average".

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, you're right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've been looking for something like this for a while. Almost coded it myself but now I don't have to. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER15> I was actually just starting to work on something that did the exact same thing. I felt guilty for taking time to build a system that was supposed to save me time. Thanks! Signed up, will surely use this.

Any plans for social features? I want to share my goals with the universe!

<comment><AUTHOR> Plans are refine the thing, go social and/or go mobile, to minimize the friction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Blarg. Who the hell wants to enter all these stats about their life, carefully submitting numbers about their day, etc. bla bla bla. so in human. in the end you're like a slave to the careful entering of stats about yourself, managing your facts like some accountant.

</comment><comment><USER17> I have four questions, I only see one at a time.

On <http://routinetap.com/answers_list> I expect to see all four of my questions.

I want to spend as little time on this app as possible.

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems I have to refine the lingo. You may have created 4 questionnaires instead. I'll have to set up a how-to real soon!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is my first submission to hn, so be gentle with me. The app still has alot of work to do (eg: send email on registration), but I figure that I shouldn't wait anymore.

<comment><USER14> The interface could use some work. I don't want to have to press back every time I add a new question. It was unclear to me whether I should be creating multiple "questionaires" or adding new questions to one questionnaire. Is questionnaire the right word for this? Those are just my 30-second reactions.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll think of something to clear up the confusion. I sure need to write a guide. You shouldn't have to press back, only left click on the questions and they would be added dynamically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Hmmmmmm, is that twitter bootstrap I see? :) Very nice.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you're looking for a more game like version of this, Health Month has managed to keep my interest for a little bit now.

</comment><comment><USER20> reminds me of Daytum (<http://daytum.com/>)</comment>


Using Helicopters for Nashville Mass Transit Alternative - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/using-helicopters-nashville-mass-transit-alternative-john-maddox/?trackingId=sH%2B6xzLkG%2F2%2F%2FuJUPXEfWA%3D%3D <comment><USER2> Please don't include a tracking id in the URL.

Regarding the concept, helicopters don't provide mass transit.

This is yet another example of "rich people think everyone should travel like they want to travel."

While it's true that "These helicopters have proven history", part of that history includes [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetLife_Building#Helicopter_se...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetLife_Building#Helicopter_service) . Note the "inadequate passenger loads", even for NYC.

You don't want your mass transit system to halt in somewhat bad weather.

"given their speed it would take no more than 10 minutes to fly from Franklin to downtown". That's about 20 miles, so average speed of 120 mph. Sounds like the goal is to push the helicopter as fast as it can, then slow down. Probably not good for longevity.

During the commute times, those helicopters won't be carrying much when going in the other direction.

Even if it's a 10 minute flight, It's going to take time to load/unload those people. With light rail there are a lot of doors to help out. Not on a helicopter.

Good luck too on bringing a stroller or wheelchair on that helicopter.

"MI-26 Halo ... which can transport between 150-200 people". There's a discrepancy with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26) . That says "Capacity: * 90 troops or 60 stretchers; * 20,000 kg cargo (44,090 lb)." while [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Khankala_Mi-26_crash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Khankala_Mi-26_crash) says "The Mi-26 helicopter was designed to carry 80 troops, while the one that was destroyed was loaded with at least 140 people"

We can figure out the capacity. Assuming 3 trips per hour for 4 hours of commute time, all carrying 150 people, and with 50 helicopters, that's 84,000 people who could commute.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_440_(Tennessee)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_440_\(Tennessee\)) says "I-440 was built to carry 60,000 vehicles a day. By 2008, the average annual daily traffic (AADT) was 106,219 vehicles." Assuming only one person in each car, going each way, that's 53,000 commuters.

In other words, this helicopter service is _at the impossible best_ about equivalent to building a new 6-lane highway.

FWIW, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail) points out that "a well-designed two-track system can handle up to 30 trains per hour per track, achieving peak rates of over 20,000 passengers per hour in each direction." That's 4x the capacity of this hypothetical helicopter service, using proven technology which can handle bad weather and is ADA compliant.</comment>


What They Don't Teach Law Students: Lawyering - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/business/after-law-school-associates-learn-to-be-lawyers.html?_r=2&ref=business&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> While the article makes good points, I disagree with its fundamental premise that the case system is a bad way to prepare students for the practice of law.

The article offers what is really an academic critique of law school education. In effect, it says, "wouldn't it be so much better if we could just dispense with all that abstract case-law analysis and get on with teaching prospective lawyers how to draft contracts, how to try cases, how to handle client interviews, how to give strategic advice for doing acquisitions, how to negotiate personal injury settlements or divorce arrangements, how to represent clients before federal regulatory agencies, how to handle equity and debt funding for business ventures, and all the other things lawyers do." And it answers that question by saying, in effect, let's have experienced practitioners teach students in lieu of those who have been professors all their careers and who emphasize abstract academic writing as a primary means to career development, let's dispense with the classic core curriculum that teaches old cases like Hadley v. Baxendale as part of a student's foundational training and put in its place a lot of clinics where someone can guide students in how to negotiate, document, and close deals and in how to try cases, etc., and let's generally adopt an approach to legal education that allows students to be "client ready" by the time they first set foot in a law office on graduation. How is this to be achieved in a practical sense? The article does not say. It posits the problem and suggests that there are theoretical alternatives to the current system without offering answers.

To learn to practice law well is a huge undertaking. Here is crude guide:

1\. Learn issue-spotting. This is analogous to a doctor learning how to diagnose maladies. If you never see what the legal issues are in a given situation, you will have no clue about what is or isn't important in a deal or in a dispute. A do-it-yourselfer in law most often falls short here: he will fill in the form as instructed but will fail to see the traps and pitfalls along the way or will fail to spot strategic opportunities for doing something better just because he is flying blind. A law student will do better in having been trained to spot the issues in ways that academic knowledge affords. A seasoned practitioner will do all that and much more in being able to guide clients based on having been through real-world experiences involving those issues many times before. It is basically a combination of brains, foundational knowledge, and experience. Ultimately, you need all three if you are to practice law well.

2\. Learn to communicate well, particularly in writing. Law is often about words, their meaning, and their impact. As a lawyer, you often need to persuade, or to reassure, or to cajole, or to intimidate, or to do whatever the occasion calls for in serving the legitimate needs of clients. If you can't speak well, and if you can't write well, you will be an inferior lawyer. Conversely, to be a skilled lawyer for many purposes, you need to master the art of both oral and written advocacy (I elaborate on this here: <http://grellas.com/articles.html>).

3\. Learn to think strategically. Law can involve many complex areas. The student will have a grasp of the theoretical complexity. The inexperienced practitioner will have some sense of how that complexity works in practice. But only a partner-level lawyer will have a consistent ability to take all that complexity and be able to handle it strategically - that is, be able to see the big picture, to understand how all the component parts fit in, to identify what matters most for a given situation, and to know how to sort through it all intelligently and efficiently to help achieve a client's goals.

A new grad in law will be at a serious disadvantage if he lacks a solid grasp of critical _legal principles_ that are taught precisely by the case system. You won't be a great practitioner if that is all you have but you will likely be a poor one if you lack it. You will also be better for having done moot court or law review (or both) because these will help you master the art of communicating. But, even if a new grad comes in ideally equipped in all these ways, there is no bypassing the apprenticeship part of law, the learning by doing. In my experience, it takes about seven years for a new grad to grow from green lawyer into a highly efficient and strategic lawyer. That is what it means when a lawyer becomes a partner.

Can the apprenticeship part effectively be merged in with the academic part during law school? In limited ways, yes. But it can't displace the academic part without serious loss to the student. The current system of legal education is full of problems and flaws but the solution does not lie is dispensing with or severely minimizing the case system of learning legal principles. In the end, you can fault it all you like but I still say, "three cheers for Hadley v. Baxendale." In the end, this remains a foundational part of good lawyering.

<comment><USER3> That's a good write-up on the benefits of law school. My biggest problem with the current structure of JD programs isn't that they're useless, but that they're mandatory.

For instance, you can make a case that majoring in Computer Science is a better than majoring in Math if you want to be a programmer, but you can't legally prohibit math majors from writing code.

I'd like to see alternatives to JD programs. I think that a lot of the core skills you described are certainly developed in good law schools, but they are also developed well in lots of different academic paths. For instance, suppose someone double majored in mathematics and english literature with exceptional grades, followed it up with a grad degree. Should that person be forced to go through three years of law school? If this person were allowed to pass the bar and was able to do so, should we deny him or her the right to enter the profession? Would this person be ready with a one year course of study (maybe a master's degree)? Even if it would be "better" for this person to do the full JD, is it worth the additional time and money (and deterrence)? Are we better off as a society if this person gives up on law? (People who hold JDs are probably better off, which of course has a lot to do with how rigorously the JD is enforced as barrier to entry).

There's a big difference between defending the JD as a good way to prepare for a career in law and defending the JD as the _only_ way to enter the legal profession.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It is easy to teach and learn the practicalities of a profession. But it is the difficulty to enter, the amount of abstract thinking and study required plus the prestige that gets you higher salaries in the end. It is like saying, look I have made it so far so I am pretty able to do anything if you train me more. If Universities were employee factories then salaries would be lower, service prices would be lower (most people think this is a good thing) and requirements from students would be practically non-existent.

Take another example. A 30 year old nurse gets far more practical training than an M.D. but after she masters the practicalities, it is simply an endless repetition. MDs on the other hand are trained to solve problems and in just 4-5 years of practical training are able to do that in a higher degree.

Apprenticeship has been established in the service provider's section from the beginning of time, it is hard to beat with some extra classes in the University

PS: My first comment on HN, hello to everyone, you have a great community here

<comment><USER5> "But it is the difficulty to enter, the amount of abstract thinking and study required plus the prestige that gets you higher salaries in the end."

The problem is that the "difficult to enter" is artificial and exists primarily as a way of ensuring high salaries of current lawyers through the law school requirement; Clifford Winston explains as much in _First Thing We Do, Let's Deregulate All the Lawyers_ , ([http://www.amazon.com/First-Thing- Lets-Deregulate-Lawyers/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/First-Thing-Lets- Deregulate- Lawyers/dp/0815721900?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957)) which is worth reading for anyone interested in the issue.

It used to be that one could "read" for the bar and hang out a shingle announcing that you're a lawyer. This didn't seem to hurt anyone except existing lawyers. People are reasonably good at figuring out who might be okay at a job and who won't be; the nominal "protection" they get in the form of law-school credentialing is not that far from the "protecting" they might get from Tony Soprano.

P.S. Solid first comment; welcome to HN.

<comment><USER6> You can still apprentice and then take the bar in California, without attending law school, and that hasn't seemed to do anything positive for the price of legal services in that state.

Winston presupposes that increasing supply will decrease costs, but he fails to understand that it's not the ABA that's limiting supply. The DOJ smacked them down in the 1990s for trying to limit supply--the accredit law schools as quickly as people can open them up.

Rather, what limits supply is how many students Harvard, Yale, etc, are willing to enroll. Big firms hire almost exclusively from the top 15-20 national schools, plus the very top students at the regional schools. The limitation in supply of those people drives the firms' cost structures. And people keep bringing their business to these firms because they're afraid of losing litigation or screwing up a deal and are willing to pay for the abstract comfort of the credentials.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There used to be a dual-track system, where you could study law by either attending a law school, or apprenticing with an existing practicing lawyer for some set amount of time; and either way you could then take the bar exam to be licensed. Typically people would go the apprentice route to become trial lawyers, and the law-school route to become appellate lawyers or specialists. Seems the apprentice route has either been abolished or fallen into disuse, though.

This article's proposals for reform don't really seem on the mark, though. As this post points out, his suggestion for expanding law-school practical clinics, and staffing them with tenured faculty rather than instructors, is pretty directly contrary to his complaints about the expense of law school, since that would only increase it: [http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/11/david- segal-on-law-school...](http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/11/david-segal-on-law- schools.html)

<comment><USER8> This is still technically possible in a few places: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_law#Modern_practice>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> To me, this article perfectly captures what is wrong with legal education: students are plunking down $150,000 @ ~8.0% to learn how to support themselves practicing law, and in exchange they get three years of abstract classroom lecturing. Add into the equation documented outright fraud in employment statistics reporting on the part of law schools and you have what is legitimately a scam going on. Best of all, there's no return policy for JDs. Not even bankruptcy.

<comment><USER10> [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html?pagewa...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html?pagewanted=all)

This was a good story, recent JD with $250k in student loans, no job, and he knows he needs to stay calm.

Incidentally this from 2nd page of googling "law school student loans" (the same google search done by hundreds of thousands of college juniors every year), buried in a sea of websites telling you how easy it is to make law school, business school or whatever your dream is, attainable/affordable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a law student I think the article misses a few points.

1) The case method is a great way to teach concepts. Working with hypotheticals and seeing how rules interact is extremely useful, and something I greatly missed in my engineering education where I spent 4 years just watching some TA do derivations on the board.

2) Schools don't teach outdated law as the article seems to imply. Sure you read some old cases in the process, but some of the basic areas of the law haven't changed that much! To take the example of Hadley v. Baxendale used in the article, it was true in 1850 that damages for breach of contract are limited to those that were foreseeable by the parties, and it's still true today! When I took contracts, our book started with Hadley, but went on to describe several cases that arose in the dispute between Texaco and Pennzoil when they were both trying to acquire Getty.

3) Law school doesn't leave you any more unprepared to practice law as engineering school leaves you to practice engineering. Indeed, law school does a much better job teaching you to "think like a practicing lawyer" than engineering school does to teach you to "think like a practicing engineer." The problem is that a lot of the courses that teach you lawyering skills are elective, and people would rather take "law and social change" or something fluffy like that. At our school we have extensive clinic offerings, and my friends and I are doing everything from poking around in a Superfund site to helping defend criminals. And the professors aren't all eggheads. My tax ethics and business associations professors are partners at local law firms, my telecom and environmental law professors practiced in the field for years before coming to teach, my clinic professor was general counsel at a major corporation, etc.

<comment><USER11> > "1) The case method is a great way to teach concepts. Working with > hypotheticals and seeing how rules interact is extremely useful, and > something I greatly missed in my engineering education where I spent 4 years > just watching some TA do derivations on the board."

Agreed. The case method would arguably address many of the problems raised in this article. The problem is not the case method itself, but what is being taught by the case method.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This isn't just law school related. This applies to every type of college and education system, with few exceptions.

The college system does not teach practicality _by design_.

To do that would remove a great deal of profit...

Instead of raking in 4-5 years worth of tuition, they would only get 1-2 years.

Instead of hiring teachers that can't-do, they would need to find teachers that can-do.

Instead of keeping people pre-occupied and enrolled with bullshit curriculum that keeps you going nowhere and seeing-nothing, they would lose students as soon as those students decided this type of job was not for them (rarely anyone knows what they want to do at this age).

The college system is sold to us on the premises that 1) you'll be trained for the job that 2) you will most certainly be getting right after the degree is awarded. Neither of these things is true.

I've been there. It was not worth it at all. While there are a few exceptions, people mostly play on their egos with degrees and such. There is nothing quite as useless as a new college graduate that thinks he has value.

<comment><USER13> Colleges have never advertised themselves as employee factories. The value-add for college should be in giving people the ability to think for themselves; to figure things out.

<comment><USER14> Why does that have to cost $150,000?

Why can't "thinking for yourself" and "figuring things out" be combined with examples from relevant legal systems rather than examples from post-feudal England?

<comment><USER7> I haven't attended law school, but I've self-studied a few of the casebooks and readers they use, and most examples _are_ contemporary. In fact many profs and book-writers go out of their way to use examples their students will find relevant/entertaining. Sometimes that even gets them into trouble; in a recent case, a law prof was suspended for posing a "colorful" hypothetical about shooting his dean in various combinations of circumstances: [http://volokh.com/2011/02/16/criminal-law-professor- suspende...](http://volokh.com/2011/02/16/criminal-law-professor-suspended- for-classroom-hypotheticals/)

<comment><USER8> I have never had a law exam question that tested something on outdated law. I'm a third year Cdn. law student but it's probably quite similar.

The old cases are taught because they're still relevant to some principle. A 1600s case about a music hall burning down sounds ridiculous until you realize that "buildings burning down" is still a problem that exists today and that's the origin of the doctrine of frustration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yes. Colleges are not trade schools. If you want fancy letters after your name, you are going to need to learn all the theoretical stuff about your field, and people are going to ask you about that stuff in interviews. If you just want to write a Ruby on Rails app, you can save yourself the $150,000 and 3 years, 364 days, 21 hours by reading "Teach yourself Ruby on Rails in 3 hours".

</comment><comment><USER16> I've read this same article every quarter for 5+ years now. In another 10 or 15 years, law schools may start to focus more on the importance of clinical education, but the change will continue to be slow.

The best and most valuable experiences I had in law school, bar none, were participating my school's clinic and volunteer income tax assistance site. I graduated in 2008, and still learn something new every day about how to be a good lawyer. If that doesn't continue for the rest of my career, it's my own damn fault.

</comment><comment><USER17> The most shocking thing about the article was the $575 million that is spent on law review research! Talk about a different government subsidy!

I know basic science research is important but academic law research?

Exhibit #1 (the second item under "Articles" (NSFW, depending on where you work))

[http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content...](http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=87%3Atable- of-contents-28-4&Itemid=14)

<comment><USER6> Well in one sense this research is government subsidized, because it's paid for through tuition that is paid for through government-backed student loans. On the other hand, the government recoups that money so the actual subsidy is much smaller than the $575 million figure.

That being said, I think there is one very salient aspect to the whole law review system, which is that it engenders participation by a much broader cross-section of lawyers than is the case in other academic fields. Law reviews publish students and practitioners in addition to professors. You see articles not just about abstract theory, but the mechanics of some new tax provision. Even at big law firms some partners take the time to publish, not just articles but books. This is far better than say CS academia, where most articles are math-wankery that everyone ignores.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> There are many opportunities for practical learning at law schools. Yes, you can go through 3 years of school without learning out to draft a contract. You can also sign up for a clinic or internship or a drafting course.

For better or worse, law school forces students to take responsibility for their learning. Many professors just aren't good at teaching so students often end up teaching themselves a subject. Thus, the gigantic market in study aids. This all hits home when you have to absorb tons and tons of material to take the bar exam.

</comment><comment><USER19> I see something very similar happening in many Computer Science papers and the areas in which some CS academics have chosen to focus their time. It's not as bad as what goes on in Law School, certainly, but there is definitely a divide between what is important to industry (which is often much more about engineering) and academics (who need to publish something which will get them tenure, which means it has to pass muster with senior academics in the field).

<comment><USER20> I think that, for CS, this is actually a good thing: "industry" in general tends to be more interested in short-term gain and things which are immediately practical--they are creating the technology of tomorrow. Academics, on the other hand, are not bound by this; they can look into creating the technology of the far future.

Another important difference is that CS research _also_ goes on in industry, resulting in more diversity. There is no fundamental problem underlying the whole field--for every researcher working on things you find useless for industry, there are probably several working on things which are useful.

Finally, this may be due to my university being more pragmatic than some, but most of the research going on that I've heard about is actually immediately practical. The single largest issue a ton of professors seem to be working on is parallelism and distributed computing, which is indubitably extremely important to industry _right now_. Of course, I could also only be seeing this because most of the professors that teach my classes or that I've talked to are affiliated with similar labs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Few thoughts.

"Another problem he encountered: there are few incentives for law professors to excel at teaching."

As a college student I can attest that this is not just law professors. This is the case in any research-centric university.

The rest of the article reminds me of the debate surrounding Computer Science and Software Engineering. Many people feel that CS degrees do not prepare you to actually code, and that a lot of CS graduates do so without knowing how to write any good code.

If looked at in that light, is it really a problem? The specifics of how law is done might change, the deep insights and theoretical knowledge will always be useful at some level.

To frame it in the computer-science context, which I am more familiar with, if a schools pends four years teaching practical applications of Java and the specifics of the Hadoop framework, the graduates will surely have a lot more practical knowledge right as soon as they begin working. But in ten years if Java is no longer used and Hadoop was superseded by something else, all that knowledge is now useless. In contrast, knowledge of Turing Machines and automata will still be useful, if not for its practical application, for its cultural value and the ability it has to change your thinking about problems.

I think the best way to deal with the lack of practical knowledge is to combine it with actual practice. At Northeastern University, a large percentage of the students do six-month coops where you work full time for those months. It's a way to deliver the best of both worlds. Deep theoretical lecturing mixed with actual real-world work. I have yet to find a downside to it for the average student.

<comment><USER22> Yes, it is really a problem. Unless your career path as a CS graduate is to research more computer science or somehow spend your career only working on the theoretical, it really is a problem that you graduate not knowing how to code.

Learning Hadoop and Java is not the same as "learning software engineering", just the same way that learning quicksort is not the same as "learning computer science."

You're conflating learning a specific language or a tool with learning how to engineer anything more complicated than a one-file program. Software engineering is about understanding why you should care about object orientation--and when you shouldn't. It's about learning how to deliver most value for a given expenditure of time--and how to make sure that value lasts longer (i.e. maintainable code).

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "If medical schools took the same approach, they'd be filled with professors who had never set foot in a hospital."

Amusing, because med schools _are_ filled with professors who have never practiced. They're called PhDs, and account for a huge majority of faculty at medical schools. That's why doctors have to do residency and medical rotations.

</comment><comment><USER24> The article seems to be really pushing that law review articles are obscure things that no one put another professor of law could understand or care about, but as a CS student who's taken one course in ethics at a very un- humanities university, all those titles were perfectly understandable.

<comment><USER7> His examples aren't even all in law, to make it worse!

For example, he mentions a paper entitled "What Is Wrong With Kamm's and Scanlon's Arguments Against Taurek" from _The Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy_ as an example of ivory-tower lawyering. But this paper is written by Tyler Doggett, a _philosophy_ professor. He isn't even a borderline law/philosophy prof: he doesn't have a law degree (he has a philosophy degree from MIT), and he doesn't teach in a law school (he teaches in UVM's philosophy department). So it's not clear how his publishing output is relevant in any way to law school curricula.

Weirdly sloppy researching/writing. Though it does open a small window onto just how dishonest that type of "quote 'incomprehensible' academic papers to show how out of touch they are" argument often is: the people making it rarely have a good-faith interest in understanding the papers they're citing, and instead quote random things without reading them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The fundamental issue I have. Why do we need lawyers?

This is not a flame, but a serious question: Would it be possible to phrase the law and change the procedures in a way that would obviate lawyers?

In jury trial a lawyer's task is more that of show master to convince the jurors (who are neither trained in law, nor in the matter of the trial) of their client's position.

The other task is help interpreting the law, because it is not phrased in terms that the "common person" would understand.

<comment><USER6> Asking "why do we need lawyers" is like asking "why do we need CPAs?" Or "why do we need programmers", for that matter. In modern society its just the product of division labor. Some people specialize in the complex field, then advise other people. They leverage the economics of the fact that their knowledge can serve multiple clients who have similar problem, so the clients don't have to learn the law themselves.

It's not the phrasing that makes the law complex. It's the fact that the law is a mechanism through which we mediate human interaction, and the interactions of modern society are phenomenally complicated. E.g. the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which is still basically "the law" in the area of antitrust, fits in just a few pages: <http://www.linfo.org/sherman_txt.html>

It's not dense legalese. "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." That's the gist of the Act. Yet, many lawyers make their living specializing in this law. Why? Because restraint of trade is hard to define precisely (if the Act tried to define it precisely, it would be dense legalese, like the Tax Code). Courts navigate antitrust suits largely be looking at what they've done before (consistency of result is often more important in law than getting the 'right answer', which may very well not exist). Lawyers help their clients navigate through that web of precedent.

It used to be the case, a hundred years ago, that law was unnecessarily complex. You had to plead cases in this highly stylized format, etc. That's all gone now. Courts will go to great lengths to make sense of a complaint written in crayon. What's left is a lot of necessary complexity. Look at the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/#chapter_vii>

Again, it's not dense legalese. "A summons must be served with a copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service." When law students take civil procedure, the greatest source of complexity actually ends up being complexity inherent in our federal system: choice of forum, choice of law, etc. Under what circumstances can a California court exert jurisdiction over an Alabama resident? When does a federal court have to apply state law? Which state's law?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> So it's not just that CS departments are graduating engineers who can't solves FizzBuzz, law schools are graduating lawyers who can't file a merger certificate.

This goes to the heart of what education should be about. Foundations and theory, or vocational training.</comment>


Quake III Arena on Github - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/id-Software/Quake-III-Arena

<comment><USER2> Cool, but why is this news? Hasn't it been up for a while now?</comment>


Facebook Is Losing Millions Of Users In The US And Other Mature Markets - <AUTHOR> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/facebook-losing-millions-users-us-110108858.html

<comment><USER2> Sad how even after a rumor has been denied and discredited it's still repeated ad nauseam in linkbaited titled "articles".

[http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/04/29/socialbakers- denies...](http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/04/29/socialbakers-denies- report-that-millions-of-users-have-left-facebook-claims-there-is-no-story/)

<comment><USER3> The article is not completely bogus:

Jan Rezab, CEO of Socialbakers, took to the company blog today to explain to readers that the statistics were "rough estimates" and "not primarily intended for journalists".

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Alternative social networks such as Instagram, the photo sharing site that > won 30m users in 18 months before Facebook acquired the business a year ago, > have seen surges in popularity with younger age groups.

I don't think losing users to Instagram in particular should bother Facebook, since they bought it a year ago.</comment>


Much faster Android compilation (for projects with big libraries) - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12088375/compiling-android-project-from-command-line-is-slow

<comment><AUTHOR> This is my own question on StackOverflow, which I found answer for by accident. I've searched the internet and basically there were no information about this anywhere, so I guess it could help quite a few people.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you handle being beaten to the market by a small margin? - <AUTHOR> Together with a few friends we've decided to create a Bluetooth-based mobile application to register encounters with people infected by COVID-19 to offer to our national health authorities. As we approach production-ready state, legal issues smoothed out, the authorities announce app developed by some other group that fallows the same approach. This means an end to our efforts.
How do you handle situations like that emotionally and restore your will to work? I'd love to hear your stories and how you managed it, to get myself back up.
Disclaimer: This is a question about motivation and handling failure/disappointment, not about business. The final outcome of the situation is the same as it would be with our app making it - leveraging technology to fight the virus. But of course I'd prefer people being healthy due to my code, hence the breakdown. <comment><USER2> could it be offered in other countries?</comment>


Ask HN: Am I qualified to start any startups? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN experts:
I am a programming novice and have the passion to learn how to code in the hope that one day I could be ready to start my own startup or build my own apps.
The fact that I am a programming novice sometimes makes me think I will never be able to achieve what I just said above. Especially knowing the fact that there are some many great hackers out there who will definitely beat me to the punch.
Could you, great hackers, kindly give me some advice? I truly value yours as I have absolutely no one to ask for opinions and etc.
Many thanks for your help in advance!
Best, Ed <comment><USER2> _"... The fact that I am a programming novice sometimes makes me think I will never be able to achieve what I just said above. ..."_

start here with _"How To Become A Hacker"_ ~ <http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html>

        To follow the path:
        look to the master,
        follow the master,
        walk with the master,
        see through the master,
        become the master.

then continue here _"The Art of Unix Programming"_ ~ <http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot @bootload for your tips and resources! You have brought me one step closer!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _Especially knowing the fact that there are some many great hackers out there who will definitely beat me to the punch._

Let's get crude and say you're a mere 2 out of 10 on a fictional scale of aptitude. At what level do you think you wouldn't be "beaten" by anyone else? What about developers at 7 or 8? They could just as easily feel the same way.

You need to stop looking at this as an RPG-style skills game and one of the world/market being a massive place with opportunities for all. There are so many niches that you can find something productive to do. You just need to be prepared to fail over and over until you get a success.

<comment><AUTHOR> @petercooper: you are right! I should never give up until I see some light!! And I won't give up!

Thanks a lot indeed!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pick something simple to start with. Build it and get satisfaction from launching something and the confidence that goes with it. Then up the ante and repeat all over again. Before you know whats going on you'll be in the middle of it all.

<comment><USER5> Word hard and iterate. The biggest obstacle is yourself. Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right @g0atbutt! I am my own enemy! Thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hi,

To "build" a start-up in to something concrete, it takes more than a geeky programmer. Don't worry about who can beat you in programming or not. As long as you show the resolve that you will make your idea in to a real company, you are in business. Keep in good contacts with all of your non-technical buddies. When the right time comes, they will be your chaperones.

Trust me, I had the same fear when I started out last year.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks @rananth! I will certainly give my all out to try! Despite not having much tech buddies (well, non-tech too!), guys/gals in the HN community are already my chaperones!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am in the same boat as you.

The way I look at it is that I come to terms with what I suck at right now and then work hard at sucking less. Eventually I get really good at what I sucked at and move onto the next thing.

And you don't need permission to start something.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I definitely work hard at sucking less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is not directly related to your programming concern, but you might find the article useful. Paul Graham's Why to Not Not Start a Startup: <http://paulgraham.com/notnot.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks @allanchao! Another resource for me to read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> You don't need to know how to build it, rather how to explain what need be built. Oo yeah.. cash helps too!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks @JoshKalkbrenner.

<comment><USER10> Friendly HN tip: You don't need to use @ (and it's considered good form not to) when replying to someone. We can see who you're replying to from the nested comments.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot seancron for your tip! Didn't know this at all!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Don't forget that the code is merely a tool for your business.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I definitely need both sound ideas and decent code to do the job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> No,you are not qualified to launch a startup.And the only reason why is because you don't have enough confidence in yourself.You might be a novice and you will make mistakes, but that should never stop you from launching a startup or working on a project that you are passionate about.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot for the motivation indeed!</comment></comment>


Rolls-Royce: Britain's lonely high-flier - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12887368&source=most_recommended

<comment><USER2> I graduated from one of the top universities in the UK and to be honest the city circled the campus looking for the bright and greedy people.

It was sad to see so many mathematicians, engineers and scientists disappear into the city to run financial simulations. Sure they made a lot of money but little of it was invested in UK PLC.

Anyone I know that didn't go to the city went to the USA or CERN. It feels like if you try and make something 'real' in the UK you suddenly realise that there is no one there to actually make it, design it, test it or research it.

I hope the current blip prods the political class in to realising that you can compete with China and India in manufacturing as well as services.</comment>


Bitbank.nz Provides Cryptocurrency Live Forecasts with Machine Learning - <AUTHOR> https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitbank-nz-provides-live-cryptocurency-forecasts-machine-learning/ <comment><USER2> Wow, AI can do that already, taking all the parameters in consideration. I doubt it, i doubt it very much.</comment>


Concurrency in Erlang and Scala: The Actor Model - <AUTHOR> https://rocketeer.be/articles/concurrency-in-erlang-scala/ <comment><USER2> Developing Scala Web and desktop Applications for a long time I thought Actors are sufficient models for concurrency. Than I got into contact with OpenCL/CUDA SIMD processing and now I think that many techniques for parallel data computations like workgroups, item sizes, momory types, barriers are missing from this concept. Concurrency is not only about reactivity but also about processing speed and distribution.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the best (recent) router for DD-WRT? - <AUTHOR>

I woke up this morning to discover that my router has apparently decided to give up the ghost.<p>Hoping to leverage the wisdom of HN as to what is a good, inexpensive router that is able to run DD-WRT. <comment><USER2> [http://www.dd- wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Supported_Devices#Suppo...](http://www.dd- wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Supported_Devices#Supported_Devices)

The Linksys (listed under Cisco) should be available, however you must note the REV when buying. I know some net gears switched to vxworks within the same model - but carried a different REV.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't have one, but I've seen recent positive comments about some of the ASUS line. Decent horsepower and memory, and a USB connector that can be turned into a network drive (keep in mind, USB 2 isn't the fastest).

<comment><AUTHOR> I spent several hours looking at various boards and reviews and it's turned into a chaotic mess since I last bought a router.

My requirements/would like to haves are: * DD-WRT capable (this is a must have) * a/b/g at least, n would be nice * dual band n even nicer * gigE ports that support jumbo frames

At this point, I'm looking at the Netgear WNDR3700 and the Asus RT-N16. FWIW, the router that just died was an Asus WL500G Deluxe and it worked fine until it croaked.

PS. There also seems to be factions that are variously for Broadcom, Atheros etc.

<comment><USER3> I've generally found the comments on NewEgg (newegg.com) quite useful, when averaged and weighted by the apparent competence of the commentor. I learn details from them that I don't find elsewhere. I'll also look at Amazon and some other places, e.g. anandtech and some of the PC Magazine reviews remain informative.

Off topic, but recently I was trying to learn details of the then new or upcoming Intel mobile Core processors. Googling around, the one place that had specifics was a German site. You never know...</comment></comment></comment>


Chesterton: The outline of sanity - <AUTHOR> http://www.chesterton.org/discover-chesterton/chesterton-101/lecture-47/

<comment><AUTHOR> For they go on saying that the big fish eats the little fish, without asking whether little fish swim up to big fish and ask to be eaten. They accept the devouring dragon without wondering whether a fashionable crowd of princesses ran after the dragon to be devoured. They have never heard of a fashion; and do not know the difference between fashion and fate. The necessitarians have here carefully chosen the one example of something that is certainly not necessary, whatever else is necessary. They have chosen the one thing that does happen still to be free, as a proof of the unbreakable chains in which all things are bound. Very little is left free in the modern world; but private buying and selling are still supposed to be free; and indeed still are free; if anyone has a will free enough to use his freedom. Children may be driven by force to a particular school. Men may be driven by force away from a public-house. All sorts of people, for all sorts of new and nonsensical reasons, may be driven by force to a prison. But nobody is yet driven by force to a particular shop.</comment>


Tiananmen Square, 1989 – Revisited - <AUTHOR> http://www.unz.com/article/tiananmen-square-1989-revisited/ <comment><USER2> He starts off with a decent point:

" _The idea that any elite–let alone the child-worshipping Chinese–would murder its own children for demonstrating peacefully over legitimate grievances is even sillier than the notion that they were demonstrating about democracy._ "

Although the author is an obvious China shill:

[http://www.unz.com/author/godfree- roberts/](http://www.unz.com/author/godfree-roberts/)

</comment><comment><USER3> What really got me was the full picture of "tank man": [http://www.unz.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/05/TianAnmen-4.jp...](http://www.unz.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/05/TianAnmen-4.jpg)

I had always understood (and I don't believe that I've misread media reporting on this) that it was a man trying to stop the advancing tanks that were heading in to massacre the protesters.

Turns out that it was the day after the clashes and they were heading out of the square. It's weird. On the one hand, the picture does inform correctly that a) tanks where there, b) a guy tried to stop them, but on the other hand it's very misleading when used in "man tries to stop tanks heading for Tiananmen Square to squash protests" context.</comment>


The 10 Worst Cities to Raise a Family - <AUTHOR> http://www.qualityhealth.com/the-10-worst-cities-to-raise-a-family-447/featuredArticle <comment><USER2> Wow. Pretty much the _only_ metric they use to make that list is city-wide graduation rate. By their standards, the best place to raise kids is to home- school them as far as possible from dangerous civilization.

There is _much_ more to raising kids than non-existent crime rates and graduation rates.

<comment><USER3> You can't forget that they mention playgrounds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That should be the 10 Worst Cities in the US.</comment>