What Makes Finnish Kids So Smart? - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120425355065601997.html <comment><USER2> I'm Finnish and I would say "I don't know". Article paints quite a rosy picture which isn't necessary true. Finnish schools(elementary to high school) are very boring. There are almost no other activities, no special classes, no school sports(only p.e. for everybody), no advanced classes and teaching is mostly done with books, paper and board.

Teachers maybe still care little bit about there students and think the main difference is that we are expected to learn and know more from the start. I started learning a second language when I was on first grade and third language on fifth grade. The bar is set high for everyone.

Getting to a college through admission test is quite a pain in the ass if you want to study medicine, law, economics or engineering in a decent city(and there is like three). You need about 6months of study and probably a training course for the test.

Edit: And I would say that low immigration helps. Over 12years of schooling, I didn't have a single classmate that didn't speak Finnish as native language.

<comment><USER3> _There are almost no other activities, no special classes, no school sports (only p.e. for everybody), no advanced classes and teaching is mostly done with books, paper and board._

Maybe this is good.

<comment><USER4> When I read that part I immediately thought of your essay "Why Nerds are Unpopular."

Maybe there's a bit of psychology at play here. There might be a lower out casting of nerds if the popularity gap is smaller. Going off the essay, maybe it's far more acceptable to become more intelligent (both intellectually and scholastically) in this type of environment.

If that's the case, it sounds like a school full of nerds who are cool with nerds--sign me up!

<comment><USER2> True. We don't have any athlete superpower or fierce popularity contests. I don't even remember that if anyone had been bullied over being good at school. Of course some kids are more popular than others, and there are always few tough guys, which are mostly regarded kind of sad cases.

But still for a half-nerd like myself, school was not a very intresting place to be. I was more interested in the real world and computers. School is like mundane job where you go because you have to, you have no control over it and nothing is real. Equal minds is great thing to have, but it means that you can't have so many best minds.

While our education may excel in PISA, still even our schools are not very inspirational places, which I think they should be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Part of the reason surely has to do with the economy. In Finland, two sectors are highly subsidized via R&D: Information Technology (Nokia) and Forestry (which is highly scientific).

Interesting article: [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071127....](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071127.rmtimber1127/BNStory/robColumnsBlogs/)

These two drivers for the economy surely reinforce the importance of science and math in school. Students are more focused on areas of study with practical applications (jobs) in their own country - hence high math and science scores. And where you have more competition you have a positive feedback look (Kenyan Runners: [http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2007/11/kenyan- runne...](http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2007/11/kenyan- runners.html))

My two cents anyways.

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting article, I think that while America has a long way to improve our education system, Americans sell themselves short. America has sprawling metropolises with a lot of urban poor. Trying to improve their education by throwing a couple of books their way is dismissive of the large problem at hand.

But also on the opposite end of the spectrum, we have a lot of the brightest minds in the world. Most of the top universities in the world are based in the United States, and our top students obviously do well in the global arena.

</comment><comment><USER7> "... one of the lowest percentages of immigrants of any Western European country: only two percent of its 5.2 million residents.

And a substantial fraction of Finland's immigrants consist of spouses of Finns, Finnish-speaking citizens of Russia (there are pockets of Finnish- speakers throughout the forests of northern Russia), Estonians, whose Uralic language is closest to Finnish, and Swedes (Swedish is the second official language). Third World immigrants make up less than one percent of the population."

<http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070319_diversity.htm>

<comment><USER8> I'm pro-immigration, in the classic "the more the merrier" tradition of those with confidence in both markets and human innovation.

But to be intellectually honest, we have to acknowledge that immigrants of different languages, cultures, and economic backgrounds will bring many 'average' statistics of education (and health, etc.) down. This is even true if the immigration is a net-benefit to both natives and newcomers.

With that in mind, the massive downvoting of the parent comment (at -9 at one point) is a dishonest enforcement of political correctness.

Even if you disagree with the _conclusions_ of the linked article, and the _other views_ of that article's author, the comment here is factual and relevant to the topic at hand, and the linked article includes other useful facts about Finland.

If the submission question "What makes Finnish kids so smart?" is legitimate at all -- the study of why one country has different results than others -- discussion has to be free to consider major things that make that country different from others. In Finland's case, that includes its traditional and apparently legally-enforced homogeneity.

I would not want to live in such a place, but I don't want my understanding of such places crippled by a long list of "things you can't say".

<comment><USER9> "the massive downvoting of the parent comment is a dishonest enforcement of political correctness."

I don't read Sailer's blog, but from what I understand it's mainly devoted to proving that African-Americans have lower IQs because of inferior genetics. Now you might say, well if this really is true, then wouldn't denying it be intellectually dishonest? Here's the thing though. The black-white IQ gap has been almost entirely explained by controlling for SES and other factors. Anyone who spends all day quibbling over the last two or three points clearly just has an axe to grind for other reasons.

<comment><USER8> Sailer's other writings are no good reason to downvote the factual, relevant excerpt above from user 'occam'.

And regarding those other writings, do you think you can give a fair summary, and a convincing refutation, when you haven't read them?

<comment><USER9> I've read some of them, and I followed his spat with Gladwell. I also didn't vote down his comment. My point was more that Steve Sailer in general has never struck me as the model of intellectual integrity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The climate is pretty bad in the US for teachers.

<http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_1_how_i_joined.html>

...not every school is like that obviously, but particularily chaotic institutions will drag down the average.

</comment><comment><USER11> There's probably a correlation with being a "happy" country: <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24371878/>

</comment><comment><USER12> Remarkable... I wish the US system were more like that but I can't see it happening. My high school was nothing like that. Montessori schools seem to lean in that direction though. Can anyone with first-hand Montessori experience comment on that?

<comment><USER9> That's the problem with Montessori. It's unclear what they actually believe. If you go through the mainstream literature on various educational theories, the proponents of each theory make a clear case about what this method does for children and why it is better than other methods, with some set of empirical results. With Montessori if you want access to their materials then you have to pay.[1] It's like the Scientology of the education world.

[1] With the exception of the original books from 90+ years ago.

<comment><USER13> I think you may be getting Montessori mixed up with Waldorf. Information on the montessori method is widely available (start here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori>, google for more). My son goes to a public Montessori school, and if I want access to the materials, I just ask the teacher. Everything is open, and parents (including prospective parents) are very much encouraged to observe the classroom.

Waldorf is kind of weird and secretive and expensive, and based on suspect and outdated science. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education>

<comment><USER9> No I meant Montessori. The Wikipedia article and the information on montessori.org provide a short description and a few example activities, but neither contain anywhere near enough insight/information to make a rational evaluation of the program. So far as I can tell you pretty much have to accept everything on faith.

<comment><USER13> Seriously, as much info about Montessori as you want is out there, and unless the school you're dealing with is a little shady, you should be able to walk in & request anything without paying tuition. You can also find a lot more than those two sites on the internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This PISA test is ridiculous as a standard to measure the general intelligence. 400,000 is not a very big sample size in certain countries. It seems that this method measures more of the homogeneity of the education level of a country rather than the smartness of its students.

I'm curious about the sampling method of this test, it's really hard to select a representative sample among diversity such as U.S.

That being said, I do agree with the way a lot of classes are taught in American public schools. Especially the projects where students "glue things on a poster for an hour", mindless things like that really waste time and energy better used in something else.

And I cant help but think that Finnish kids really dont have much to do compared to people at other countries? They might as well do really well in their studies!

</comment><comment><USER15> Then why is the US the most innovative country in the world? I am not saying the others aren't, but overall the US is the most innovative regardless of the poor schools. Maybe it doesn't really matter who earns the top scores, it is what you accomplish with it.

<comment><USER16> The USA rewards innovation and has the least friction applied to people trying to innovate.

This doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether the average student in the US is learning anything.

I can walk into any building in Silicon Valley and the Indians will come close to outnumbering the natives (and if the battle were held on a syllable-by- syllable basis, a clear loss for the home team.) It seems to me sometimes that Silicon Valley built something great based on widely available, merit-based, quality public education. Then around the 1970s they stopped funding that and started to rely only on prodigies from wealthy families, or outlier freaks from America, and the educational product of all the other countries.

<comment><USER17> The thing about the U.S. is that it encourages competition particularly in lower levels - not within the school system entirely, but also partially despite it.

The way public school systems are set up, you get multiple social spheres that are forced to interact. You've got the sports group - the people who push away their boredom for school with a fascination for physical activity. There're the honor students, or whatever you want to call them - the people who study for hours a day, who partake in activities with Machiavellian efficiency. The ones who will do anything as long as it means a shot at the Ivies.

Those are the two ones people know and talk about. The one that ISN'T mentioned, the one that absolutely exists, is the smaller sphere of people who know what they want to do with their life. It's always a set of bright students, but students that have no seeming motivation toward school. They're just as real a group as the other two, but they have no need to announce their presence, so they're really often missed when people talk about them. They're the people, I think, that really propel innovation.

The interesting thing is that beyond a sort of personal drive, those people tend to have nothing outwardly in common. There're very nerdy people in that group and there are people as far from nerds as they come. Quiet people, loud people. They blend between the other spheres - despite a focus on things not school-related, a ton of them go to really top-notch schools. I'd put myself in this category. I very rarely put an effort into any part of school, did no work, and I'm still going to a really top-notch public school. It's not an Ivy, it's not what I've been told for a long time I ought to be striving for, but I've known for a long time what I want to do with life and I don't think that an Ivy League school can help me any more than a really good school can. Me and people like me become part of the statistic that drag schools down a lot. The sports sphere helps a lot, because the sports sphere is the sort that really shouldn't be kept in schools, because the sports sphere just doesn't care. But among the top-tiered students, it's the ones that don't care about standardized testing or academics at all that keep American schools so low.

That's also a huge boon for America, though. I can't talk about other generations, but in this generation it's entirely likely that by the time we're all going to college a lot of us have tried our hands at several things and dabbled in them. A lot of us have some semblance of "real world" experience, in other words. I tried my hand at a web start-up in my sophomore year. In my senior year I published a book. Neither thing is world-changing, but it means that as I work on web development today, when I try writing again, I've got a lot of experience as to what learns and what doesn't. A friend of mine has been learning how to code and create models for game design since something like eighth grade. A bunch of my friends have launched sites and blogs of their own; one friend was mentioned on G4 for a tutorial he wrote. This isn't a particularly exceptional school I'm at, either; nearly every school I know the name of has its share of breakthrough kids.

I can only speak for my culture, not for others. But it seems to me that paradoxically, it's America's inability to handle kids like that that makes its school system so effective in delivering innovation. When you have a culture of youth that's already experienced and capable of learning from its mistakes, you have a core generation that has an edge over even the best- taught students from the rest of the world. You get a sort of encouragement of big ideas and of youth. You grow up hearing stories about Bill Gates at 19 and Steve Jobs at 21; about the Beatles and the Beach Boys and about all the musicians who started in grade school. (Incidentally, I think that the fact that there are no real writers who made it that young corresponds to the fact that so few young people want to be writers.) We get stories about Welles making Citizen Kane at an age when most graduates are just looking for jobs. It teaches this idea that it doesn't matter what your grades are, because you could be getting things done rather than studying, and that introduces a whole new aspect on to your world.

<comment><USER18> I agree. I had brain surgery recently (small tumor), and all I could do for the week after is pretty much stare into space and think. I came upon a series of epiphanies/hasty generalizations along those lines that seem pretty correct to me now:

1\. Most people don't like what they do enough to do it when nobody's asking them to do it.

2\. Most people can't singlehandedly start projects that require a lot of work and have uncertain reward.

3\. Among those who enthusiastically do, very few can complete those projects.

4\. Institutions like schools and corporations are quite reasonably based around this assumption, and work very well for most people. They set up worthwhile hoops for people to jump through.

5\. In most institutions, the way to judge someone's worth is "What nifty, pre-existing hoops that I know about did you opt to jump through?" If it's something weird like getting a book published or starting a software business, _it doesn't count_. The judge can't use this sort of thing in comparing one candidate to another because there are few other candidates who have done the same OR because the judge is possibly someone for whom the generalization in 1-2 applies and just doesn't get it.

I don't know a lot of other people my age who have real passion about what they do and can pull through on significant projects that they start themselves.

Thinking I was going to die for a few days before I learned of my prognosis made me realize that rather than feeling weird and timid about this distinction, I should see it as kind of a superpower and go more gung-ho on some of my more successful endeavors.

What's also cool is that there are companies and individuals that can't _afford_ to judge people according to the criteria in #5. And that isn't to say that it's not occasionally worth jumping through other people's hoops when it's not hurting anything :)

<comment><USER17> That last thing you stated is what I consider to be the ultimate check in capitalism, the thing that makes the system work. You can't set up a corrupt entity that lasts beyond a point, because things evolve too quickly.

Also, along the lines of 2 and 3, I think that's what explains why young people tend to have such uncommon successes of such magnitude. It's not because of drive per se: people of all ages have drive. But it's because the fact that there's such an imbalance in the system that makes people move forward.

I had an epiphany recently that, next to yours, seems pretty stupid and shallow, but it's an epiphany that moved me nonetheless. It was the realization that, despite all the stuff that I'd tried to do, all the stuff I thought I could do, there were still some pretty basic social things I would be incapable of, if I kept along the route I was going. And I didn't like that. So I've started working out, eating more healthily, trying to normalize a bit in preparation for college. And what I've found is that while I'm doing that stuff, I find getting work done to be far easier, too. The two go hand- in-hand. And it's at young ages that trying to show off in shallow ways really stays a priority.

It's like the article about Zuckerberg that was on here a week ago. When he was in high school, he wasn't a typical coder: he was an active fencer in the top levels of the USFA, and he was in quite a few social clubs, too. This isn't a case of somebody who's a brilliant coder going off and writing code. That doesn't happen often at all, not even when you look at success stories in Silicon Valley. Rather, he was a very bright person who dabbled in a lot of things, who had an idea and who did whatever he could to bring that idea to fruition. I think the part of that story that fascinated me the most was the part describing how he began Facebook because his girlfriend snubbed him. What an absolutely honest start to a site: something about that story felt absolutely real to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm going to go out on a limb and say it probably has something to do with culture. a culture that promotes a education is going to churn out more curious, creative people. And i don't mean "stay in school kids" commercials, I mean in all the unspoken assumptions about the world that are communicated from parents and other authority figures from a young age. You can't fake enthusiasm about education. The U.S. currently does not have it, so of course kids are smart enough to pick up on this and place education further down their priority list.

</comment><comment><USER20> This might do it:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126617>

Television educates you even when you watch Beverly Hills 90210.

</comment><comment><USER21> Hackers, please. Let's get real here. Why are Finns so smart? It probably has very little to do with culture, teaching methods, or economics. These can all be limitations (I suspect oppressive teaching hinders Japanese kids), but Finland's secret is not related to any of these. It's related to biology. Finland's secret is brain size.

Mother nature doesn't fuck around. If your brain and its activity costs you anywhere from a fifth to a third of your metabolic energy, it's for a reason. This essentially amounts to all the discretionary spending your body has. That brain had better pull its weight, and it does. Skull size correlates with brain weight; brain weight determines surface area; surface area determines processor power.

Again, if your brain could be a smaller part of your metabolism, it would be. Mother nature squeezes every calorie for all it's worth. So there is an advantage in having a larger brain. And that advantage translates to being smarter. "Smarter" isn't a particularly mysterious quality either; in biology, it's basically how good you are at deciding what to do with your muscles. In the scheme of things, balance doesn't require much processing power; neither does homeostasis. What is really resource intensive is good old thinking. Writing requires forming markov chains. Memorizing is hard too. Understanding physics is also hard. Thinking--just plain old thinking--is very resource intensive.

So, why are Finnish kids so smart? Well, the PISA test doesn't convince me they're that smart. They strike me as being about as smart as white American kids. Thing is, the intelligence of Finns is not averaged out with the intelligence of people of other ethnic groups, who, regrettably, have smaller brains.

And before you call me racist, keep this in mind that the argument for different intelligence levels across races is borne out by a data set comprising millions of standardized test-score results, tens of thousands of autopsies, across many different countries, spanning centuries. The correlations have R-values in the .8 and above range. Don't call me racist; call Reality racist.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain#Brain_energy_consumption> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Statement_claim...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Statement_claiming_links_between_race_and_intelligence) <http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/africanfailure.html>

</comment><comment><USER22> This was posted earlier on Hacker News: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126608>

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately the URL I submitted is different, so the duplication wasn't caught.</comment></comment>


Peter Cooper will teach Ruby programming on CodeLesson in January - <AUTHOR> http://codelesson.com/courses/view/the-ruby-programming-language

<comment><USER2> Peter Cooper's patient, thoughtful contributions to Hacker News are part of what made me so impressed w/this community when i first started lurking.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is awesome. I have much faith that Peter will create some good passionate programmers in our field.

</comment><comment><USER4> i'm so taking this class!</comment>


Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-impact-pollution-emissions-waste-water-2019-10 <comment><USER2> I can't wait for the day when I can walk to my local dump and move into a mcmansion somebody threw out because the paint was the wrong color... And I am only half joking.

Go into your local thrift store and try not to gasp as you walk past $300 pair of designer jeans after $400 dress, some of them still with tags on them as they've never been worn, and most all of them in seemingly brand-new condition.

It's a consumer's dream world out there, baby.

And we can't seem to get enough.

Storage units weren't even a thing 75 years ago. Now they're ubiquitous.

The idea of paying rent to store things you'd never use to our grandparents was insanity. (It still is imho).

I'm going thrifting right now, actually.

To everybody else in the world, if you could take a break from buying more brand new clothing, to consider why you might not need to buy more brand new clothing, we would all be a lot better off imho.

<comment><USER3> FWIW I've heard storage units are not necessarily a super profitable business, instead they are a low overhead operation to cover the property tax on land in the outskirts that you're sitting on waiting for appreciation as the city grows. So they only have make up the cost of the cinderblocks to be worthwhile.

<comment><USER4> I don't really believe that as in many places you're starting to see multi- level facilities with as many as 5-6 layers of units. That ain't cinderblocks.

<comment><USER3> Alright, then perhaps I am wrong (or out of date). I'd not seen nor heard of these six story high facilities, my lord.

<comment><USER5> I have seen those only heading into cities near the outskirts. I also didn't get why they weren't apartments.

<comment><USER6> In California at least, prop 13 lets them operate without having to worry about rising property taxes in areas where otherwise there could (and probably should) be housing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ecologically speaking maybe Steve Jobs/Star Trek respectively were onto something. A high quality minimal personal style that involves orders of magnitude less garment churn and waste with the added benefit of just not having to spend time on what to wear each day (insert pithy Jobs quote).

But seriously if I was to explore finding a personal style that I could wear as my day to day work/life "uniform", where to look, where to source from. Are there any companies focussed around this?

<comment><USER8> Men already had that in the past, the suit. Up until the first war clothing was expensive to make so generally men had only one or two suits and they would wear them every day, and repair them as they wore down. Shirts were, to an extent, a step above underwear. Men would spice up the same suit every day with different ties, pocket handkerchiefs, and other small accessories, all of which were generally more affordable than an entire suit.

These days suits appear to be worn less often, mostly in business environments, very formal life events, and by fashion enthusiasts. But ironically, maybe one of the greenest ways to dress (for men) is to get a secondhand suit or two from a thrift store, in a natural material like wool or linen, have a tailor or dry cleaner alter it into a stylish cut that fits your body, and wear it every day. They can be altered to fit literally anybody in a flattering way, different materials can be either warm or surprisingly cool to suit your climate, and there's so much more to suits than the depressing shiny blue/black polyester business suit we all picture these days.

Want to be green _and_ look great? Drop the Patagonia fleece and cotton t-shirt swag from last week's startup, and buy a used suit in a nice natural material!

<comment><USER9> > Want to be green and look great? Drop the Patagonia fleece...

That Patagonia "fleece" would feel nicer, function better, and last longer if it were actually made out of a fleece and not out of plastic. I can't really understand how that happened.

<comment><USER10> Wait, the "fleece" jackets are made of plastic??

You're not talking about the outer layer of the down jackets?

<comment><USER8> Modern "fleece" is polyester, which is plastic-based: [https://www.contrado.co.uk/blog/what-is- fleece/](https://www.contrado.co.uk/blog/what-is-fleece/)

<comment><USER9> That page even has a pair of bullet lists showing that the plastic imitation is inferior to the real thing!

I do make a lot of winter trips like the one in the photograph (long winter backpacking trips) and am an instructor and I only use wool for my socks and other undergarments, and jackets. Down for sleeping in. Synthetic underpants though!

<comment><USER11> Moths tend not to destroy microfibre polyester fleece.

Other than that, a wool felt _is_ quite nice.

<comment><USER9> I don't have a moth issue...my cats destroy my clothing before it can be eaten.

But at least wool can be repaired.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 10% of global emissions are for clothing. Wow!

And growing..."If the fashion sector continues on its current trajectory, that share of the carbon budget could jump to 26% by 2050" (from the article)

Flights: 2.5% of global emissions [1]

Maritime shipping: 4.0% of global emissions [2]

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/climate/air-travel- emissi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/climate/air-travel- emissions.html)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping)

<comment><USER13> The shipping numbers are rather dubious. No way it's actually"just" that much. Reporting is lacking and even where it's enforced shippers use defeat devices (that secretly pump pollution into the water rather than spew it in the air) or a second, weaker engine.

<comment><USER14> The shipping numbers are correct. Shipping is incredibly carbon-efficient at moving large amounts of freight.

The pollution problem from shipping is not in the form of carbon emissions. It's in the form of oil spills, NO2, SO2, etc pollution, and it is difficult to accurately estimate. [1]

On the other hand, estimating ship carbon emissions is easy - count how much bunker oil gets produced, world-wide, and assume all of it gets burnt in the engines of cargo ships.

[1] This is why occasionally, you see anti-environment publications push nonesense like 'Gas taxes are stupid, because one cruise ship produces more pollution then every single car in this city combined.'

Yes, in NO2 and SO2. [2] No, not even remotely in terms of CO2. And carbon taxes are intended to... Reduce emissions of CO2, not NO2 or SO2.

[2] Those gases are pollutants, they cause health and environmental problems, but they aren't very important in the context of climate change... Which is what carbon taxes try to address.

<comment><USER12> Yeah as my life cycle analysis friend says, "transportation is waste".

<comment><USER15> Not always waste. There are some important collections of atoms that you would prefer to move whole from one place to another, rather than creating new ones on site. Especially since it takes 18 years or more to do!

Other than that, I agree. Home nanotech for everyone!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> We really need a better industry around re-use of essentially everything.

Let's say I need some X. Last week I bought a base layer because it's getting cold here.

I can order, or buy in a store, a brand new X trivially. I don't actually need a brand new X. A used X would do me just fine.

But the difficulty in doing so is ridiculous in comparison. Cottage industry eBay stuff (that you have to order online) vs. an entire infrastructure built around producing and selling new stuff.

<comment><USER17> Well, for one, that would vastly reduce economic growth. But aside from that, there's not many things that fit X in the scheme of things you purchase frequently. Packaging / containers of consumed items is a big one. Fashion might be but probably not.

The example I hear a lot for some reason is power tools. Yeah it would be great to share power tools because you only need them once or twice... but you only buy them once or twice otherwise. It's a good idea to help poor communities consolidate resources but it's hard to help large communities reduce their eco foot prints

<comment><USER16> I think that treating fast fashion as a driver of economic growth is an example of the broken window fallacy.

That is to say that I don't actually think it drives economic growth overall. It may do within a specific sector at the expense of others.

<comment><USER18> The broken window fallacy requires forcefully destroying someone's property to get them to replace it with the same thing. This doesn't fit that model at all.

<comment><USER17> You could argue that purposely designing things to last only a year when they could last ten years is purposeful destruction though

<comment><USER18> No, because people know that at this point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This article has a bit of an underhanded motive. It pretends that is all pro environment but it comes out as an attack on fast fashion.

One can argue that fast fashion is bad for the environment. One can argue that it encourages people to throw away clothes, that fast fashion clothes are cheap and wear out very quickly, etc. But that does not have to be the case.

The ideal of fast fashion is that it is about putting clothes out in the stores and letting the customer decide what to wear and then quickly creating new designs based on customer demand, rather than the old system where the clothing industry would change collections only four times per year and more or less force the customer to like those collections based on a massive top down system of advertising, fashion magazines, models, movie stars, etc. A side effect of this system of making people like the new fashion is by bombarding with ads with beautiful people is that you also make people hate themselves.

So fast fashion does not necessarily have to be low quality or low durability. And having a large number of collections does not necessarily suggest low quality either. Personally I cannot say much about fast fashion darling ZARA, because nothing there fits me, but I wear a lot of GAP, Banana Republic and some Uniqlo, and those clothes have been generally quite durable.

That being said, if certain companies do make low quality clothes they should be called out.

To change the subject, one accurate thing about the article is about how bad plastic clothes are. In addition to being bad for the environment they just feel worse on your body. I would just avoid buying artificial fibers as much as practical.

<comment><USER20> > they just feel worse on your body

I don't think this is true anymore. I am a huge fan of cotton, but for athletic activities there is nothing like a modern, wicking, synthetic shirt. The 32 Degrees brand really sold me on synthetics a few years ago. Yes, it is bad for the environment... I'm just saying that synthetics aren't like they were in the 80s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> That's interesting. I was thinking about this a lot over the past 2-3 weeks. The sheer amount of clothing lying in all the shops across the world.

Talk a walk into any Macy's / Bloomingdales / Hudsons Bay and count the number of items of clothing.

Then multiply that across that one store's chain of shops. Then realize there are multiple chains like that. Then realize there are multiple stores not in chains. Then realize that's just the geographic area you're aware of. Then think about other cities, counties, regions, provinces, countries.

Then remember all the clothing you have at home already...

<comment><USER22> All the industries are competing to be the one by which you display your worth to society. The order as I see it is: House, Car, Clothes, Phone. Jewelry goes in there somewhere.

Each of these products is trying to convince you of _their_ value, excess value really, so you will spend your money on them, yet the expense of the product isn't worth much. You need a house to protect you from the weather and other people. After having done that, the rest is extravagance. Jewelry is absolutely _no_ value. If you can call, text, and browse the internet, you're good. If a car gets you from A to B and doesn't need a lot of maintenance, that's sufficient.

I remember a Sex in the City scene where Carrie was talking about her $40,000 worth of _shoes_.

Beyond providing the basics, these products aren't worth more except for their display of wealth.

Meanwhile, we destroy the planet a little more each day to prove we are worth mating.

<comment><USER23> They look beautiful. You know, like art. Is that also of no value?

That said, is art (or having a beautiful environment) worth, in this particular case, filling the oceans with junk and killing people, probably not.

But let's not pretend that fashion is a worthless status-seeking endeavor but playing video games is a window to a new world here.

<comment><USER24> I'm basically on board with you but I think we're conflating two things here.

Fashion, by which I include clothes, jewellery, accessories, etc., is not a single uniform thing. Fast-fashion, in particular, is categorically _not_ art, and is particularly egregious in terms of the environment.

But, on the other hand, I just got a _sweet_ deal on an absolutely beautiful motorcycle jacket (that I will wear whilst motorcycling, not just for show!) that, even on sale, was as expensive as my my winter jacket and trousers combined, but will probably last me a decade or more if I stay roughly the same shape.

Is that art?

I don't know, it might be: it definitely looks really awesome, and it's probably still going to look awesome in 10 years' time.

Then you've got handmade stuff, in terms of both clothing and jewellery. I don't tend to go there because it's generally way beyond my budget, but it becomes hard to deny that it's not art.

And whatever you may think about the value of it, there is something to be said for wearing nice stuff: the trick is to reach the point where you can do it for yourself without caring what anyone else thinks, and to make sure you buy things that are going to last, and ideally have a certain amount of timelessness to them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> To me men (not all 100%, the majority) are stoic: few garments, the necessary. How many of you are the opposite to this? My GF is a machine of buying clothes. Her friends too. I don't see my friends buying that much each month. When I go to a shopping center the majority of stores are women oriented, the entire fashion industry is run for them to ludicrous levels.

<comment><USER26> I do not and never will understand fashion. I understand the whole speech in The Devil Wears Prada (that the things we all wear were once the trendsetters, just like the tech in luxury cars trickling down) but I just don't get it.

Even when someone buys me something I tend to just pick a favourite and stick to it. I have a few pairs of shoes but pretty much just wear one unless the occasion says I shouldn't.

And then there are the gamers with their "Fashion is the real endgame!" attitude which I've found in a few games. I seriously don't care if I look like this ([http://i.imgur.com/SfYDtUO.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/SfYDtUO.jpg)) when playing. Just gimme the stats I need.

<comment><USER27> Gaming as a hobby is no more rational than fashion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Generally, it's a good article, but it lands on a sore point for me with many environmentalist articles - treating "water use" as if water disappears when used. Generally, water doesn't cease to exist - it just gets temporarily stored.

<comment><USER29> The type of water use we're talking here - saturating it with detergents, dyes, etc. -- makes it unpotable, at which point it is, best-case, going through a very expensive treatment process before it can be returned to the water cycle, which you can be certain the manufacturers are not footing the full cost of; or more likely in the places where garment manufacturers set up, is just being dumped into the environment, destroying ecosystems and the health of those unlucky enough to be stuck with its fallout. So you're right, water can't be "used up", but the amount of it being used in industrial processes is a very good proxy for environmental harm.

<comment><USER28> Yes, but. That same argument gets used for, say, raising cattle, where the water used is quickly cycled out as organics (mostly urine). It doesn't produce the kind of toxic waste that something like a large fabric dyeing operation does.

The argument also doesn't distinguish what the water is used for. Even things like cooling get written off as water "consumed". It's an appeal to emotion, and reeks of fallacy.

<comment><USER29> > That same argument gets used for, say, raising cattle, where the water used > is quickly cycled out as organics (mostly urine). It doesn't produce the > kind of toxic waste that something like a large fabric dyeing operation > does.

Actually, it does.[1]

> The argument also doesn't distinguish what the water is used for. Even > things like cooling get written off as water "consumed". It's an appeal to > emotion, and reeks of fallacy.

The main reason you see all water use lumped together is because the water users do not collect or share figures on discrete uses. Environmentalists would _love_ to have that data.

1\. [https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/environment-natural- res...](https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/environment-natural- resources/water-quality-of-runoff-from-beef-cattle-feedlots)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Seems like we need to bring back "Make Do and Mend": [https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/large106365.html](https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/large106365.html)

<comment> globular-toast Who has time to mend clothes now that everybody goes to work?

<comment><USER31> And yet the average person somehow has hours per day to spend on TV/Social Media/Video Games

<comment> globular-toast So you're suggesting having zero downtime? What a life...

<comment><USER32> Fixing clothes is not a particularly time consuming activity. Usually its a 10 minute job to replace a button or fix some ripped stitches. Very few people are so busy they can't find 10 minutes to fix things. They could even work less if they spent less buying new things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The article references this report from a year ago: [https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and- stories/story/putting...](https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and- stories/story/putting-brakes-fast-fashion) (2018)

" The fashion industry produces 20 per cent of global wastewater and 10 per cent of global carbon emissions - more than all international flights and maritime shipping. Textile dyeing is the second largest polluter of water globally and it takes around 2,000 gallons of water to make a typical pair of jeans.

Every second, the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles is landfilled or burned. If nothing changes, by 2050 the fashion industry will use up a quarter of the world's carbon budget. "

<comment><USER34> By comparison, a pound of beef is around 1,800 pounds. Average American eats like 200 pounds of meat per year.

How many pairs of jeans do you think a person buys each year?

I buy 1 pair of Levis and just wear them about once or twice a week (never washing them) and throw them out after 2 or 3 years.

[https://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats- resources/](https://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats-resources/) [https://www.globalagriculture.org/whats- new/news/en/32921.ht...](https://www.globalagriculture.org/whats- new/news/en/32921.html)

<comment><USER35> Are you talking about cow farts? When cows eat grass, the carbon they emit was already in the system. It's just like any other organism staying alive. This is different than burning fossil fuels, the carbon of which until they are extracted hasn't been in the system for millions of years.

To the extent that the beef industry burns fossil fuels, that's something you could criticize, but it's hardly unique to the beef industry. Cattle would eat less intensively-cultivated corn and more grass if the corn farmers weren't subsidized so much. If no corn was cultivated at all, cattle would still be a pretty efficient way of sustainably extracting food from marginal grassland.

<comment><USER34> I'm guessing you didn't look at the links I included?

<comment><USER35> Did you? The one is talking about water, which I don't care about since I'm not raising cattle in a desert. The other says that people are eating more meat, which seems more of an economic measure than anything else. Yet you've posted them on this thread about carbon emissions. I tried to interpret your links in a reasonable way, but if I missed the point you could explain further.

<comment><USER34> I was replying to a comment saying:

> it takes around 2,000 gallons of water to make a typical pair of jeans.

This sounds like a lot until you consider how much water goes into literally everything else people do without thinking.

Let me know if you need more clarity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Flights are currently "used" by a tiny % of the global population, whereas clothing is a necessity for 100% of the population.

What does that comparison says, exactly? Changing the habits of a few persons would have much impact on the environment as changing the habits of every person on Earth? Which change should we prioritize? Mmmh...

<comment><USER37> I don't think any sane person is proposing the future of humanity lies in nudity. But you'd have a tough job persuading me that having 60% more clothes than 20 years ago and landfilling 85% of textiles bought a year is necessary, or that extensive wardrobes replaced every season are less frivolous than transport.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Bought a H&M zipper jacket by the start of this year, somehow now it's is as worn down as a Adidas one I bought in 2011! H&M mostly sells disposable clothing, and they have the never of making "conscious" fashion ads.

</comment><comment><USER39> The quality of clothing has gone downhill over the years. Both the fabric and the stitching. They just fall apart faster.

<comment><USER40> I'm not sure I can agree. I'll give a few examples.

"Free clothing" quality has gone up and become more fitted. Instead of 1 gender neutral size, clothes are by gender, and fabric softer. Stitching seems unchanged. I've had to purchase these for groups.

High quality clothing has more accents. Quality of fabric is secondary to aesthetics.

<comment><USER39> So where is a good place to buy good quality T-shirts for men?

<comment><USER40> I make my own clothes so I haven't been going to retail stores. Try a few places, if they feel good, they are likely good quality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> You don't even have to reuse to lower carbon emissions, just buy something durable. I have a shirt from RL that still looks new and I bought it in 2009.

I still run with a pair of Nike socks from 2012, although I bought a new pair just this summer and they had holes just after 2 months, so I guess quality went down while price went up for this brand.

Vote with your wallet for things that are durable. The market will follow. See Forever 21 going down the drain [1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_21](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_21)

</comment><comment><USER42> _In Europe, fashion companies went from an average offering of two collections per year in 2000 to five in 2011._

And a lot of it is zany garbage.

Plus, fashion helps promote a lot of warped body image issues.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm glad this finally got the attention it deserves.

Forever21 went into reorganization bankruptcy because they were not "fast enough"!

That's lunacy. Make things that last, in other words durable. Make them timeless. Bigger upfront investment, lower total cost. Lower impact on environment.

</comment><comment><USER44> this is the reason we need carbon & pollution tax! this is like whack-a-mole, way too many industries lurking under the radar & polluting our common resources for private profit. unless we put a price to it they will not factor in the cost to the rest of us.

<comment><USER45> How does that stop people from still buying the now corrected-for-those-taxes garments? All you've done is added a revenue stream in the middle, and now there's even less incentive for regulators to do anything about the _actual_ problem, because now they're making (more) money off of the problem, and solving the underlying problem would damage those revenue streams.

<comment><USER5> The price correction is the point. If the externalities are internalized it makes better methods proportionality more incentivized and viable if say cotton fabric garments are only seventeen cents more expensive than a synthetic instead of the previous two dollars without environmental costs factored in. Demand would be shifted accordingly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Money spent = Emissions generated (direct or indirect by further spending)

If you want to save CO2, then save as much money as you can in paper form. Don't spend, don't invest. Instead keep everything as cash. This also has indirect effects by slowing down the economy which reduces money flow for other people, too.

<comment><USER31> You can spend your money on digital goods which have a very tiny environmental impact. This doesn't have the result of preventing other people from spending that money but it is at least sustainable if everyone does it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> The source appears to be this report by Quantis:

[https://quantis-intl.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/measurin...](https://quantis-intl.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full- report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf)

Specifically page 18: « _Together the apparel and footwear industries generated between 5 and 10% of global pollution impacts in 2016. Footwear alone represents approximately one-fifth the impact of the apparel industry, about 1.4% of global climate impacts (700 million metric tons CO2eq), while apparel represents 6.7% of global climate impacts (3,290 million metric tons CO2eq). Combined, they account for an estimated 8.1% of global climate impacts (3,990 million metric tons CO2eq)._ »

</comment><comment><USER48> My gripe is with tennis shoes. Back in the day (70's), tennis shoes always had a piece of rubber across the toe to prevent your toe from wearing through the fabric.

Now, tennis shoes either don't have anything covering the toe, or even more ridiculous (Under Armor), there is a small piece of leather/vinyl on the outside edge of the big toe, but it strategically doesn't cover where your toe actually comes through the fabric after a year.

It used to be that tennis shoes could be worn until the soles were worn through. Now, the upper portion wears holes through in a year, maybe two if you're lucky, and the sole looks almost new.

And it's not just the fashion industry who are making products designed to fail: I just replaced a water heater after 7 years that had a 6-year warranty - surprise! The gas valve stopped working. Water heaters used to last _40 years!_ It's sickening to me that every household in America is sending a water heater and other major appliances to the landfill every 5-10 years, just so manufacturers, supply houses, and installers can make more money.

</comment><comment><USER49> This article reads like a twitter thread. I wasn't sure if I was reading one article or multiple. I wasn't sure what was a image and what was an ad.

</comment><comment><USER50> Need incentive to buy less clothing, especially fast fashion?

Watch _The True Cost_ , available free here: [https://thoughtmaybe.com/the- true-cost](https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-true-cost).

Here's the trailer: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDx711ibD1M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDx711ibD1M)

</comment><comment><USER51> >85% of all textiles go to the dump each year

So only 15% of textiles make it into someones home or office and doesn't get thrown out. Where is the waste? I assume it is 1) Unsold stock, 2) Unusable material during manufacturing, and 3) Consumers throwing clothing away in the first year of ownership.

Could we reduce waste most significantly by moving to on-demand clothing manufacturing?

<comment><USER52> Yes and no :) "On-demand" clothing manufacturing is practiced today, in that fashions change rapidly, and in response, retailers produce what can only be described as "shitty quality, fast".

(Exacerbated by Chinese clothing manufacturers + social media - they're extremely effective at churning out extremely glossy pictures for what's about the lowest possible bar of quality)

That - "fast fashion" \- is what gets discarded.

That's not the way forward. On-demand manufacturing that's more along the lines of traditional high-quality bespoke clothing _could_ be an answer, but it would mean that the vast majority of people likely can't afford to wear the latest fashion all the time. And even if we can sidestep that problem through technology, wearing "the latest" itself is a huge part of the problem. If you have clothes that are only meant for a season, you'll dump large amounts of textiles.

So what's needed is both a move to higher quality, and a move away from "fast fashion". Given that the entire industry makes money mostly on "what's new and hot", this would require a significant cultural change.

<comment><USER53> Now, if only bespoke shorts and tshirts became a thing.

I'd happily pay a decent sum for a set of charcoal tshirts that fit me perfectly and last for a few years of daily use. Bonus points of I get to choose a fabric other than pure cotton.

<comment><USER52> They are a thing. Find a local tailor. (They often hide out at dry cleaners, but not all of them are good :) OK, that will be more made-to-measure than bespoke - the difference there being that bespoke comes with a master tailor who does a really exhaustive initial consult on what patterns work for you, what fabrics work best, what specific cuts to choose, etc, while m-t-m is more "we measure you, you get a standard tshirt". It'll still be lightyears better than anything you get in a shop.

I'd expect you'll be in the range of $100 per tshirt, +/-

And yes, of course you get to choose a fabric, that's the point of bespoke :) It's also the major cost factor. Depending on your taste, there are some expensive fabrics to have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I'm glad to see growing awareness concerning plastic in clothing. The article mentions problems with cotton production as well.

With clothing I feel the same way I do about food, and the same way many people have felt for decades: I've been duped! It's not difficult, but it takes time money and effort to make good purchases, and that can be frustrating.

</comment><comment><USER55> It aint even a problem we cant solve. My buddy here in Goa, India realise most of that water and land pollution in her home state came from chemicals used to dye these fabric pink, purple, blue, etc etc. Guess, what she did, she learnt the traditional art of natural dyeing and now, book she and all her friends wear clothes that have footprint of less than a q-tip. Unlike consumption of meat, fashion is something that can be solved by demanding different. Different chemicals. Different production methods. Different efficiency.

</comment><comment><USER56> Fashion is such an inscrutable practice to me. My closet is full of clothes but aside from my formalwear every shirt matches every pair of pants. When I get up I pick a set at random and go about my day. I don't own anything I don't like and I don't keep anything I can't wear so what's the point of choosing what to wear when it doesn't matter to anyone else? Throwing away a shirt to make room for another shirt is like throwing away a hamburger so you can buy another hamburger.

</comment><comment><USER57> Most places that do alterations can do repair. But someone who is very good at repair is worth extra. Good repairs are strong. And they'll see weak areas needing repair before a hole starts, which might require patching.

Buy that cashmere sweater and repair it. I've got two over 20 years old, one pair of jeans over 5 years old I wear so often they got crotch holes in them, easily and authentically repaired.

</comment><comment><USER58> technology / D2C / supply chain startups are desperately needed in this area to solve these problems.

At unspuntech.com (where i'm employed) we're working on creating high quality denim garments using 3D body scanning as the basis for custom fit. This allows us to go 0 inventory, and consumers generally don't mind a 2-3 week wait time for manufacturing thus far. up to 10-30% of garments end up unsold, so 0 inventory can have a large effect. We're also working on robotics solutions to remove steps from the manufacturing process, and eventually to reuse parts of the garment that get worn out.

More thought has to be put into the fast fashion part of the equation -- consumers (moreso women than men for clothing) want a large variety of options, and if they can get them at the cheapest prices, why not? There either needs to be a shift culturally (maybe look at how organic foods became prevalent at super markets) or through some sort of regulation (not ideal).

if any hner's want to talk more about these issues, please email me!

</comment><comment><USER59> Well I hope the FKK party emerges out of this one.

<comment><USER60> Maybe the YKK party

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Ignorant question: for the purposes of this article, are all clothes "fashion"? Are other things fashion too? Which ones?

</comment><comment><USER62> I don't believe it, actually. Considering how much waste I use wrt food .. clothes seem much less wasteful. But, who is to know?

<comment><USER63> "Who is to know?" That's what the report linked in the article is for. To provide evidence for the claim stated in the title of this post.

<comment><USER62> You mean the UNEP report? It provides the fact, but no source. I trust the UN, but I would appreciate knowing how the number is bigger than flying and shipping. That's pretty remarkable, no?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> globular-toast If you're a man you can immediately stop contributing to this by opting out of fashion and buying high quality garments that will last you a decade or more. Buy handmade shoes that are worth resoling. Buy shirts and only wash them when necessary. Stop wearing printed t-shirts that degrade quickly. Don't wash your trousers.

</comment><comment><USER64> I'm surprised there's no viable business model in just renting clothes at this point. I know there's "Rent the Runway" for women, though unsure if their customers are renting the majority of their clothes or just using them to rent one off pieces for special events.

</comment><comment><USER65> The problem with carbon footprintting is that it suffers from a variation of the coastline paradox. It's impossible to meaningfully determine the carbon footprint of a t-shirt, for example, because you can also find another level of externality.

</comment><comment><USER66> Ouch. Lets see what they have to say about the cosmetics industry ...

</comment><comment><USER67> While it might be technical true...Will it be surprising when study emerges that food industry take the crown of carbon generation?

</comment><comment><USER68> So maybe shipping is more efficient than manufacturing?

</comment><comment><USER69> Thus ended the climate change saga.

</comment><comment><USER70> Where's Greta when we need her?

</comment><comment><USER71> I would call this the garments or textiles industry, not "fashion"

Just a nitpick.

</comment><comment><USER72> First I was shamed for driving a car, then flying, now wearing clothes.

Fine, I'm a terrible person. I'm going to stop trying now. _sarcasm_

<comment><USER73> Not clothes, _artificial_ clothes.

From TFA: "Many of those fibers are polyester, a plastic found in an estimated 60% of garments. Producing polyester releases two to three times more carbon emissions than cotton, and polyester does not break down in the ocean."

I'm not sure if it is more the consumers or the producers driving it, but it's almost impossible now to find actual 100% cotton clothing., at least in the US. It seems that an entire generation or mor literally does not know what genuine cotton jeans feel like.

<comment><USER72> Article shames cotton also. "It takes about 700 gallons of water to produce one cotton shirt. That's enough water for one person to drink at least eight cups per day for three-and-a-half years."

My grief with the article is it hypes things and doesn't give very good context. It feels like it is cherry picking the worst examples.

Research is already being done to grow cotton using less water. This is the sort of solution that works.

100% cotton is difficult to find and finding good quality 100% cotton shirts is even more difficult. For Jeans, the original Levi's 501 blues is 100% cotton denim, many of the new styles are blends.</comment></comment></comment>


UK by far the biggest enabler of global corporate tax dodging - <AUTHOR> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-corporate-tax-avoidance-havens-justice-network-dodging-a8933661.html <comment><USER2> That's great!</comment>


How I Improved the Speed of My Mobile App by Over 1000% - <AUTHOR> http://www.jeremymorgan.com/blog/programming/making-firecom-faster/

<comment><USER2> He talks about not knowing when to update the feed: This could be easily accomplished by running the php file every time, check how old the cache is and return a new cache if it's older than a minute for instance. You could then guarantee that there would be no stale pages</comment>


Hack of US Navy Contractor Nets China 614 Gigabytes of Classified Information - <AUTHOR> https://hotforsecurity.bitdefender.com/blog/hack-of-us-navy-contractor-nets-china-614-gigabytes-of-classified-information-20009.html <comment><USER2> Much more in depth source article: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/china...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/china-hacked-a-navy-contractor-and-secured-a-trove-of-highly- sensitive-data-on-submarine- warfare/2018/06/08/6cc396fa-68e6-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.baadf9b1ba4e)

</comment><comment><USER3> How is it possible that the exfiltration of 614gb of data goes unnoticed even with the barest forms of oversight?

<comment><USER4> I'm guessing you've never worked for the Federal Govt. before. The level of Liferism[1], ill equipped technical contractors, clueless management, and just plain old general political fuckery, is stupefyingly gargantuan.

[1] Lifers are employees who just exist, do the absolute bare minimum, and collect a paycheck.

<comment><USER5> How do I get the opportunity to become a lifer?

<comment><USER6> Have low aspirations, and set up camp in a boring job akin to a jail cell, in a place no one wants to be, doing something no one wants to do, and work alongside washed up people who are not inspiring to talk to, and perhaps have never had the chance to even try to become an inspiring role model for others.

Liferism looks like a DMV employee. Postal workers are often lifers, so not all lifer jobs are inherently disappointing, but certainly none are glamourous.

In the 1990's the internet introduced some existential threats to lifers working for the USPS, and since then, the USPS has weathered some rough seas. Putting yourself in the position of a lifer is not precisely enviable, since forces from beyond the protective shelter of the lifer job can still augment economic realities enough to affect such a station in life.

If you find your way into a lifer job, and you grow old while working it, should the day ever arrive that your lifer job disappears in a puff of magic smoke, you might never find comparable employment again.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


1982 DC Comics Style Guide - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.207954002578217.59091.207950722578545 <comment><USER2> I have touched and thumbed through one of these - when I was six or seven years old. My father was employed in a family printing business as the art director and an illustrator drawing jigsaw puzzles for various companies. The company was sold in mid-80s and went out of business mid-90s. I have no idea what happened to this copy. He had so many amazing things in his office (like an original Voltron). He wasn't able to keep much of it when he was laid off when the company ran into trouble. I had completely forgotten about this and had no idea how rare it was. Thank you for posting this.

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe its the old man in me talking, but I really miss this style. Marvel also had a similar style at the time. Clean lines, bright colors, minimal detail, etc. The post Jim Lee/Rob Liefeld era slowly became a Western version of Anime/Manga today that looks a cheap imitation of what Japan has been doing for a long time.

Comics out this week for reference:

[https://pulllist.comixology.com/thisweek/](https://pulllist.comixology.com/thisweek/)

<comment><USER4> There's a lot of stuff like that around. The covers are usually much different compared to interior art. Like, Headlopper which came out last week. Clean lines, bright color, minimal detail. Here's an example from an interior spread: [http://andrew-ross-maclean.deviantart.com/art/Head- Lopper-2-...](http://andrew-ross-maclean.deviantart.com/art/Head- Lopper-2-Spread-495745695)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What's interesting to me is that in terms of style guidance, there doesn't appear to be a lot of exposition.

Save for the colour palette It's just pictures, part of me expected to see some sort of exposition about what given characters could and couldn't do.

</comment><comment><USER6> Really cool. The images don't look like they were scanned - how were they digitized?

<comment><USER7> I would guess that they are scanned on a high-end scanner (drum scanner maybe), and then possibly (probably) retouched.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> And it's gone. Did anyone grab it?

<comment><USER9> It's still there.

<comment><USER8> So it is. For some reason when I clicked it it said "removed".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I realize that HN leans far to the edge on this issue, but this really is over-the-top copyright infringement. The whole thing, in its entirety, with not even an attempt at commentary?

I'm reminded of the time a Spike Lee documentary was on HBO. The Boing Boing lunatics were outraged that it wasn't available online, so they published 18 links to YouTube (videos were then limited to ten minutes in length). I doubt anyone even made it to part #6 of 18 before the whole thing got taken down.

Likewise I'm sure they think they invited HBO GO and Hulu as a result of their radical, innovative behavior. It was not. And they did not.

The post is cool, the art is super cool... and Facebook couldn't be a dumber place to put it.

<comment><USER11> I understand you have a point you want to make but... do you actually know anything one way or the other whether it's actually copyright infringement? It's posted in a José Luis García-López fan club, and he's an artist that has had a long running relationship with DC Comics. It's entirely plausible that it was posted with permission. Why are you jumping to the assumption that it's copyright infringement?

<comment><USER12> He also has the #3 comment on the page and doesn't seem to see anything wrong with it.

<comment><USER13> Morally, what is wrong with this?

It's not costing anyone any money, not even in the theoretical sense. It's not exposing any trade secrets.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


World Health Organisation novel coronavirus situation dashboard - <AUTHOR> https://who.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/c88e37cfc43b4ed3baf977d77e4a0667 <comment><USER2> This page does not show Taiwan as a separate country, which is ludicrous, but is in line with the WHO policy. Because of this policy (mostly dictated by the Chinese government), not only Taiwan is excluded from this map, but Taiwanese experts are also barred from participating in WHO meetings, even though there are already 10 cases diagnosed in Taiwan and Taiwan has a "good" history with epidemics (the current vice presdient, Chen Chien-jen, served as Minister of Health from 2003 to 2005 and was praised for effectively managing the SARS epidemic through quarantine and screening procedures [1]).

I recommend using the Johns Hopkins map [2] or Corona Help website [3] for more accurate information.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Chien- jen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Chien-jen)

[2] [https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h...](https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6)

[3] [https://corona.help](https://corona.help)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been waiting for more concise visualisations like this to start showing up. Much easier to consume the important statistical information once a day or two, than to get sucked into the normal media fear cycle in order to keep informed.</comment>


A YubiKey for iOS Will Soon Free Your iPhone from Passwords - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/yubikey-lightning-ios-authentication-passwords/ <comment><USER2> I have recently started using Yubikeys. I sadly have to use TOTP along with U2F on services I need to access on my iPhone (G Suite for example). This leaves TOTP as the weakest link on those services. Hopefully it won't be long before I can stop using TOTP completely on services that support U2F.

</comment><comment><USER3> Literally I cant find a Valid reason why Bluetooth is not used...

claiming that you could pair with the "soundbar rather than your smartphone" is frankly silly

apple I would have hoped would adopt a security standard rather than charging a MFI fee

</comment><comment><USER4> This seems like a terrible idea. If it takes off anyone stealing your phone can just also steal the key, since you are likely to be carrying them both with you</comment>


Lesson Learned: One Month Into the $5 Web App Challenge - <AUTHOR> http://www.gerlandopiro.com/2013/02/27/lesson-learned-one-month-into-the-5-dollars-web-app-challenge

<comment><USER2> "It's been one month since I decided to try launching a product with the goal of generating $5 in profit."

I'm confused. Why is this a challenge?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm challenging myself, I wrote a post about it here: [http://www.gerlandopiro.com/2013/01/27/starting- the-5-dollar...](http://www.gerlandopiro.com/2013/01/27/starting- the-5-dollars-web-app-challenge)

I've updated the line to be more clear.

<comment><USER2> Got it. Makes sense now. I like that idea. I struggle with some of the same issues. Just get it out there and iterate...</comment></comment></comment>


The Pirate Bay is down - <AUTHOR>

Could not connect to caching server.
http://thepiratebay.sx/
Is it like this for everyone else? <comment><USER2> "Upgrading software, please check back in some minutes."

</comment><comment><USER3> Yep. Could not connect to caching server 00

</comment><comment><USER4> What is this website?

<comment><USER2> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Same problem

</comment><comment><USER6> Same here</comment>


Message to recruiters - <AUTHOR> https://tudorbarbu.ninja/message-to-recruiters/ <comment><USER2> As a recruiter I can shed some light on the other side.

A lot of recruiters are entry level hires. In my office most people are fresh out of a big ten school or one of the well-known colleges in Illinois. These are mostly people in their first full time job. Entry level sales is generally hard but having to learn tech stacks as well makes it even more difficult. Most people don't take the job seriously enough to learn about different aspects of development. Honestly most people are not very good at sales or writing a compelling message so that's why you end up with so much shit in your inbox.

The other aspect that comes into play is that every recruiting agency works a little different. My company breaks down by tech stack. We have 6 teams. My team only focuses on .net developers. When I started as long as I knew what C#, ASP.NET, and SQL Server was I could hold a conversation. Unfortunately many companies don't break down this way so recruiters are working any roles they can. A lot of recruiting agencies focus on recruiting sales people, office admins, or healthcare workers, and also do IT staffing on top of that. When a recruiter has to work on multiple roles in multiple fields it's just about impossible to be knowledgeable about all of them.

I encourage developers to work with companies that focus on IT staffing and ask questions about the company. Most developers don't even know how recruiting agencies make money or how they find the roles that they are working.

As far as the LinkedIn spam… I actually think it's a pretty big problem but in a lot of industries. I get recruiting in mails and emails every day from other recruiters. Corporate recruiters and agencies recruiters. More often than not I can tell I was one of 20 people receiving the same copy paste message. This occurs in almost any industry where the demand is high and people have a internet presence. Developers just happen to be in that sweet spot of high demand and often public internet presence that makes it easy for recruiters to find them.

</comment><comment><USER3> I completely agree with this. I'm starting to look at other opportunities, and so renamed my tagline on LinkedIn to "actively looking for work". Since then, it's been a deluge of awful job offers or requests for a phone call. Most of them not even what I'm looking for.

I wish there was a way to force recruiters to read a small text before contacting me, that would state exactly what I'm looking for:

* A complete job offers with details about the company, technologies used, my future role AND SALARY.

* I know they'll never do that, but including the company's name would be great, so I can Google/Glassdoor them and find more about it.

* What's special about this position? Does the company offer any meaningful perks (counting among them work-life balance)?

* And finally something I'm interested in! Either Backend or Fullstack work!

</comment><comment><USER4> This article is much better then some rants about jobs and recruiters I've read. He actually spells out some of the issues he has other than sheer volume or quality.

That being said if any of you think you get too many job offers please send them my way.</comment>


Web developer  - <AUTHOR>

I'm 25 with no college degree and I want to begin a career in web development. I have little programming experience. I know HTML, CSS, and I'm currently learning PHP. Do I stand a chance at this age with little ecperience? If so, what is the best course of action? Also, I reside is byram Mississippi.  Thx. <comment><USER2> Start building stuff and absorbing all the information you can. It'll take a while, but you'll get there eventually. It won't be easy and it won't be quick, but you can get there.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, I have an irrelevant college degree and I'm doing exactly this at 28 yrs of age. It's been about 4-5 months and I've done enough in this period to join a web development company as an intern. So, YES, it can be done if you're passionate about it.

You can check out my blog for some ideas on what to build/read to get started. I started with Python though not PHP. pragmaticstartup.wordpress.com

</comment><comment><USER4> Of course you stand a chance, if you like it you'll learn everything pretty quickly. I toke a class in Turbo Pascal in the 90's very basic stuff, I left the whole computer/web world for 8 years and then came back and in 2 years I picked up PHP, HTML, CSS, Javascript and today Web Development pays my bills. Oh, and when I started learning all these technologies I was 32 (2009).

</comment><comment><USER5> Great programming tutorials: youtube.com/thenewboston. Search his channel for html, css, php, etc. Check out his website, he has everything neatly organized!</comment>


The Former El Bulli Chef Is Now Serving Up Creative Inquiry - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/business/ferran-adria-the-former-el-bulli-chef-is-now-serving-up-creative-inquiry.html

<comment><USER2> The introduction is superb:

" One day in November, Ferran Adrià, the Spanish chef who turned foods into foams and pioneered a new era in gastronomic innovation while running one of the world's most popular restaurants, bounced through a loft space in Barcelona. He peered at pencil-sketched mind maps tacked to plastic foam bulletin boards and examined books jammed on narrow shelves — until he reached the end of a display table featuring a variety of Asian soup spoons. Then he stopped.

"I have a question," he said in Catalan to the small group of visitors and staff members trailing him. "What is wine?"

There was silence. Four seconds, five seconds, 10 seconds. Finally, cautiously, someone offered, "A drink?" Mr. Adrià's eyes widened. "Maybe it is a drink if I put it in a cup. But what if I make it into a sauce and cook with it?" His voice was sharp. More silence. Mr. Adrià spun away and began walking again. "Now," he said over his shoulder as the crowd shuffled in his wake, "what if I turn the wine into ice cream? What is it then?"</comment>


Facebook's Aquila Drone Will Beam Down Internet Access with Lasers - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/26/facebooks-aquila-drone-will-beam-down-internet-access-with-lasers/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29 <comment><USER2> This is pretty fascinating.

This reminded me that a few years ago, Facebook launched "0.facebook.com," in order to let people use the Internet on their mobile phones without incurring any data charges ([https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/fast-and-free- facebo...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/fast-and-free-facebook- mobile-access-with-0facebookcom/391295167130)).

Now, they're trying to provide the Internet to people who otherwise wouldn't have it, by using a very large drone system.

I'm not sure they'll be able to see any ROI on something like this, but the technology to keep a solar powered drone in the air and broadcasting Internet signal up to 90,000 feet for three months at a time is _very_ impressive.</comment>


Show HN: Hacking recruiting - Coder's Coffee - <AUTHOR> http://www.coderscoffee.com/ <comment><USER2> The idea seems appealing but as many "dating" apps it won't work:

People want to meet new people all the time, the more the better and preferably close to their own personality. The problem is: if you just say, 'hey guys, you should meet up, you are both coders, you should like each other' or in a real dating environment, 'hey guys, just meet, you are both singles' it won't work.

People need some guidance, some hook and reason why to meet and more important what to talk to each other, small talk without setting people into context won't work. This app is missing the hook to meet up, just grabbing a coffee together because both code in similar languages is no sufficient plug or starter.

Examples that work:

\- On a typical network event you have small hooks like the presentations shown. There're great starters to get into small talk and carry on with deeper conversations later. This environment leaves the agenda open about who you talk to and what you talk about. That's good and keeps conversations and new encounters thrilling.

\- On a hackerthon you have even stronger hooks because you have to work together or you just _have a very good reason_ to talk to each other—mingling will happen automatically and excitement wil be at its max because everything is new (people, context, tech) and you face a challenge which you have to solve in a short time which makes it even more thrilling. The stronger these kind of excitements are the stronger the initial bonding will be between the participants after the event. And this bonding is everbody's goal: not just meeting random people for coffee but meeting like-minded people _in order to_ build strong relationships with them. Or to put it another way: the context (=> the event/guide/task/excitement) is the actual cause for strong bondings and relationships and _not_ similar personalities or preferred languages. Interactions between people are context and behavior driven and not because of similar profiles.

You have to give people a task, a mission. Just telling them to meet and talk will make them feel awkward.

<comment><AUTHOR> Tom,

Thanks for the awesome feedback, we agree it seems like a dating app, and we'll have to work hard to overcome any awkwardness and craft the best experience possible. Our focus is on finding Coders in Silicon Valley, but our big idea is much much bigger. Hope we can solve all the problems you've brought up.

<comment><USER2> > but our big idea is much much bigger.

Tell us more!

<comment><AUTHOR> All in good time my friend. :) We've only just begun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I know mobile is hot right now, but does this really have to be an iPhone app?

<comment><USER4> I made a mobile web app about six months ago, and this is what I heard over and over again from users: "Can you please please please make it a native app?"

Just to get our feet wet, my partner and I proceeded to write two simple iPhone apps. The first did 10x better than our mobile web app (with much less effort), and the second did 100x better. That was enough to convince us, and now we've shelved mobile web development in favor of iOS development.

That's just a personal anecdote, of course. I can't speak for the guys (or gals) behind Coder's Coffee. Overall, though, I think this is responsible for a lot of the interest we're seeing in iOS development.

It also helps that Apple has done a great job with XCode and the iOS SDK. Developing for iOS is really a pleasure.

<comment><USER5> what apps?

<comment><USER4> I'd feel weird about advertising them here. :-) I'd be happy to chat over Skype or email, though. You can find my contact info in my profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sorry, but what the hell is a 'software artificer'?

If you look at how the word 'artifice' is used, it is generally negative, associated with being overly clever for the purposes of pretense, or generally false/insincere.

So if I'm not sure the job title 'software artificer' even parses. 'A person who writes unnecessarily ornate/impractical software.'

I hope I can write in whatever job title I want. It will be 'guy who may not have shaved in a couple of days, has had too much caffeine, and is grumbling incoherently at his laptop screen.'

<comment><USER7> It's a perfectly respectable word.

Yeats - It knows not what it is; and gather me Into the artifice of eternity

Joyce - Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead.

<comment><USER8> While it may be technically valid, artifice in modern usage is probably most commonly associated with deception & fakery. So, as a job title, I'd say it sounds pretentious and a bit out of touch, like someone who right clicked on the word "engineer" and espoused an adventitious synonym in order to have the earmarks of sagacity.

<comment><USER9> Artificers are not synonymous with engineers, they are much more synonymous with craftspersons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A mashup that is a cross of Geeklist (for credibility), StackOverflow (for topic listing and determining expertise) and this (to negotiate the details of getting people together) would be useful in those cases where one developer would like to spend 30 minutes picking the brains of a better developer.

For example, many a time I've spent 30+ minutes helping "orient" another developer with respect to backbone.js development.

However, right now I'm in need of 30 minutes to sit down and talk with someone who's implemented OAuth from the point of view of the API provider (not API consumer), and organizing your DB to manage developer accounts and permissions assigned to each "registered app" and it's hard to find the person whose 30 minutes of orientation would save me innumerable hours of research just to figure out what is worth knowing and worth exploring further.

Being able to accumulate karma based on spending 30 minutes here and there helping others and then spending it with others would be awesome. It would basically be a "productized" version of those "Offer HN" posts.

<comment><AUTHOR> Love this! The app should be used by Coders who just want to help other Coders too.

Thanks for this Andrew, we've got a lot of work ahead of us.

<comment><USER10> I'm also in the social meeting space working on something complementary. I'm in SF and I'd like to get coffee if you are too. Contact info in my profile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice. I'm not interested in joining a startup, but meeting local fellow geeks for coffee or lunch to shoot the breeze would be awesome... kind of like a GeekGrindr :)

A ChessGrindr would also be another cool idea!

<comment><AUTHOR> We've been saying it's Highlight for Hackers. :)

GeekGrindr sounds painful. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Seems fun. I signed up. However, in Chrome on Ubuntu I couldn't fill out the email form field, and when I logged into my android phone (you'll have an app for that too right?), it wasn't mobile responsive and I had to zoom in and swipe left and right to see the page.

Just FYI.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Those are known issues but we'll work on it! We will build an Android version for sure, but it's just one guy right now. :)

<comment><USER12> Totally understand :)

I'd say I'd like to help, but it's been 5 years since I've used any Java. My only decent languages are scripting ones - python and php as well as JavaScript (mediocre).

<comment><AUTHOR> Python Developers are still in high-demand. Hopefully you'll get paid more than just tears. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I like this idea a lot. As a sysadmin, I think you should build in more options for "what they do" :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! We will add more roles. Sysadmins are in high demand here too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think this is a good idea but the more popular you get the more filtering you need. If 1000 hire-ees want to meet for coffee how will the hirer filter them?

Well I guess I like the idea from the hire-ee perspective. But isn't it a bad deal for the hirer? How does he know I'm even worth talking to? The most valuable asset we have is time and you are asking people running companies to give a lot of it away.

<comment><USER15> The funny thing is, this is the only reason I would want to use the app. Once they have filtering implemented, I might as well just find an alternate means of communication (friend on the inside, cocktail parties, etc).

Maybe flip the question around, how will good coders stay free of getting hounded by headhunters and abusive clients?

<comment><AUTHOR> No Recruiters! You would only meet with Founders and bad startups will get flagged by Coder's rating them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think your homepage could stand to explain the fundamentals of your app a little better. It took some browsing around to figure out what the app could actually do. Might be nice to have a brief sales pitch and some bullet points.

Something like:

Coders: Recruiting for your startup? Looking for a gig? Download Coder's Coffee and we will hook you up!

[bullet points/features explained here]

<comment><USER17> Thank you for your feedback!. We'll improve the pitch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > _Help us reclaim the number one spot on Hacker News!_

We look forward to you sharing the results of HN discussion. What's the back story?

I know many developers are building proximity/stalking apps but to me this is creepy. However this may well have appeal to help others find hotspots of activities or events.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not much of a story, we posted it around 3pm and had the top spot for a few hours. It was exhilarating!

There are quite a few proximity apps, but we definitely don't want to be creepy. It should be used by Coders to meet up with Founders or other Coders to talk about their projects and startups. It might be useful to find activities and events, but that's up to you and how you'll use it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I looked but didn't see it listed any where. Any android support?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, we've just got the iPhone app. Android is in our future plans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I like it! Glad to see that innovation is alive and well in Argentina despite the current climate.

FWIW, my dad grew up a few blocks from the pin shown on the map.

<comment><USER17> Wow! You have eagle vision. I grew up in Argentina but we are based in Silicon Valley.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Guys, I'm a brazilian eager to work for a startup. I'm still in school, but I would not care to make a six month sabbatical, to work on a startup.

What skills (tech and non-technical) and connection do you think I must have to work in a early stage startup?

<comment><USER2> Technical: Good knowledge of a typical web stack or mobile development or both

Non-tech: Not much, you have just to show that your are ambitious and somebody who gets things done (or finishs them)

With good technical knowledge you do not need connections. Just get familiar with a technology, you like build some nice private projects and apply/go to networking events.

Regarding tech: demand for iOS devs is always high, Anroid too and for the web stack I'd recommend either Python/Django or Node.js/Express which are both easy to learn

The earlier you start the better, so go for it!

<comment><USER21> Thanks so much, Tom. Nice words coming from you. Can I send you an email?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all the support HN! We're excited to get the app live on the App Store, just have to deal with some paperwork first.

Also, if you are getting a 405 error on signup, you can just email us at firstname.lastname@example.com to be added to the list.

</comment><comment><USER22> This kind of thing makes me wish I lived in the valley, or in the US in general, I feel like I'm missing out. Any app that requires other people near you using it too is essentially useless to me.

<comment><USER17> Worry not!. We are cooking some exciting stuff that'll be useful for every single person in the world... Well... At least every geek.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Maybe Zynga isn't the best company to show on your example page for your target audience. Other than that it looks really cool! Is this a SV thing only or will it be expanding to other areas too?

<comment><AUTHOR> The Zynga thing is an inside joke. :) We are starting in SV, but hope to get enough interest to launch in other areas as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Software "Artificer"?

Artifice: "Clever or cunning devices or expedients, esp. as used to trick or deceive others: 'artifice and outright fakery'."

Not necessarily the greatest way to describe yourself...

<comment> brown9-2 You looked up the definition of the wrong word:

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artificer?s=t>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificer>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Talk about a real social startup. Remembers me about the one that pairs together random groups for a bar meetup.

<comment><USER17> We really believe that making real social application is indeed possible. We also believe that the recruiting system is broken. This is our first step to jailbreak it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Too bad the sign up fails on an iPad.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about that, we're using another startup's product for the sign-ups. Will take a look.

<comment><USER26> I don't think their product is ready at all. I came back using Chrome and failed again (Method not allowed with an UGLY error). I had to punt to Safari before I could get it to take my email address.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Great idea and great implementation. Focus on a real issue. Can't wait for trying it!

<comment><USER28> Me too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is the most amazing example of an MVP that I've ever seen. Lesson learned...

<comment><AUTHOR> Wowzers, that's a really nice compliment! Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is this just available in the US app market ? I don't see this in Singapore ?

<comment><AUTHOR> We are testing in Silicon Valley only and will hopefully go worldwide. Singapore has a great startup ecosystem that's just taking off!

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Good stuff, and I'm currently looking. Was hoping for more than a sign-up.

<comment><AUTHOR> We hope to have the app out soon!

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I like the idea. I just hope I can find someone in New Zealand.

</comment><comment><USER33> I don't think Capital letters mean What you Think they mean.

</comment><comment><USER34> I will definitely give this a try. Nice job!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Maryanne!

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> s/coffee/beer/

<comment><USER36> s/beer/soda/

(for those of us who are under the legal drinking age and dislike coffee)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> also relevant is bizzabo <http://www.bizzabo.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> That looks cool, thanks for letting us know!

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> cool idea. how do interested companies sign up?

<comment><AUTHOR> We're working with the startups directly. If you want to be featured, send us a note at firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> looks nice!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Alan!

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> The design is almost identical to discovercircle.com (I have no relationship with that site).

Is this a CMS theme?

</comment><comment><USER41> lol wtf does this do? I know talent is tight in the valley right now but surely you can find someone who can write a meaningful splash page. I don't think my iphone servers coffee.</comment>