Job Guarantee vs. Basic Income - <AUTHOR> http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/01/16-reasons-matt-yglesias-wrong-job-guarantee-vs-basic-income.html <comment><USER3> I'm a bit confused about JG idea. Maybe it's different times now, but it reminds me of the old system in Poland where everyone doing something in their assigned work got paid. As a result, there were many people simply showing up for work and expecting to be paid. People on higher positions in common jobs often took the "I rule over customers" mentality. (think shop managers) Even worse for services, any public/government work, etc. The quality of work simply did not matter.

There's even a saying people will still recognise, which means something close to: whether you stand or lay down, you're entitled to the wage.

Sure, the political system was completely different, what you could spend your money on was limited, but... This image is in the back of my mind when people talk about JG - and I'm not sure why it wouldn't happen again.

<comment><USER4> But when capitalist talk about Job Guarantee, they do not want to reinstall the stable jobs of communist times. Regardless if there was work or profit, you had a job in DDR or Poland.

But they think about 1 Euro Jobs like those installed in Germany by the aSocial unDemocratic Party.

The result of the 1 Euro jobs here is that that those 1 Euro workers do the work of former employed people. Not as a worker, but as a state owned slave, for the benefit of capitalist who exploits them.

So its driving wages down to the bottom, because everybody fears losing his job, and accepts any shitty job, just to avoid becoming an 1 Euro slave worker. And those areas where 1 Euro slave workers are "employed" no longer pay living wages, because they can get workers for free.

PS: One of the most evil examples what this "Job Guarantee" might look like happened in the city of Oldenburg: The city just forced 1 Euro slaves to collect the waste, when waste collectors went on strike. Great Job Guarantee is a union killer. Thats exactly what the capitalist want.

<comment><USER5> This is a misrepresentation.

The purpose of the program is definitely not to create an army of slave workers for the German state.

The so called "Ein-Euro-Jobs" are intended to help people on long-term unemployment benefits to become active and grow accustomed to regular work.

Source: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_opportunities_with_addi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_opportunities_with_additional_expenses_compensation)

<comment><USER4> Thats how they sell it, but the real goal was very different. To cite our former Chancellor Schröder:

" Wir müssen und wir haben unseren Arbeitsmarkt liberalisiert. Wir haben einen der besten Niedriglohnsektoren aufgebaut, den es in Europa gibt. Ich rate allen, die sich damit beschäftigen, sich mit den Gegebenheiten auseinander zu setzen, und nicht nur mit den Berichten über die Gegebenheiten. Deutschland neigt dazu, sein Licht unter den Scheffel zu stellen, obwohl es das Falscheste ist, was man eigentlich tun kann. Wir haben einen funktionierenden Niedriglohnsektor aufgebaut, und wir haben bei der Unterstützungszahlung Anreize dafür, Arbeit aufzunehmen, sehr stark in den Vordergrund gestellt. "

Translation by Google:

" We must and we have liberalized our labor market. We have built one of the best low-wage sectors, which is available in Europe. I advise all who deal with it, to deal with the realities apart, and not only with the reports on the circumstances. Germany tends to put his light under a bushel, even though it is the worst thing you can actually do. We have built a working low-wage sector, and we have in supporting payment incentives to take up work, provided very strong in the foreground. "

s/supporting payment incentives/if you do not accept the 1 Euro job, we cut your social security payment/

The result of this wage dumping can be seen in the Euro crisis. People around Europe become unemployed, and those states collect dept, as they can no longer escape German wage dumping, by lowering their currency.

<comment><USER5> If Ein-Euro-Jobs were used by Germany as a wage-dumping tactic then the euro crisis and consequential unemployment rise in the south of the continent would lead to increase in the number of people in Ein-Euro-Jobs in Germany. Now, since these people are counted as unemployed for statistical purposes this would mean unemployment figures in Germany would be soaring, too. However, the reverse is happening.

<comment><USER4> People who have an 1 Euro job, or are "educated" to write job applications are no longer counted as unemployed. This is a nice statistical trick to lower the high numbers.

And even then the long term unemployment is extreme, with a large north south and east west imbalance, e.g. Berlin 16,8%, Bremen (my home town) 14,3%, till Bayern with only 3,4%.

You also need to consider that export oriented wage dumping means to export unemployment. So those people who have an underpayed job here, cause unemployment in southern Europe.

<comment><USER6> I often hear this sentiment (preferably harshly phrased) and agree with most of your observations, but what is your proposed solution?

Should Germany act against its own interest and _not_ export its unemployment?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If there were a basic income guarantee, which I'm in favour of, and if it were sufficient to fulfil my basic needs (food, clothing, housing, electricity) then I'd use second hand hardware and become a free software developer full time. I would be working, but what kind of work I was doing wouldn't be decided by anyone other than myself. I suspect that the JG schemes (one is proposed by the Labour party in the UK) would indeed be make-work schemes producing nothing much of value.

If I had a BIG the kinds of software I'd work on would be:

\- Making self-hosting easy

\- Making encrypted communications easy for anyone to use

\- Mesh networking systems to diminish ISP dependency

\- Simulations of ecosystems, including climate modelling

In other words I'd be able to work on things of real value rather than having to work on things of little value just to have basic needs met.

<comment><USER8> And those without your skillset will certainly collect garbage from public spaces, repave roads and fill in potholes, and all the other boring and unpleasant tasks that our civilization needs.

This is something I don't understand. All the potholes are filled, all government buildings are perfectly clean, no new infrastructure projects can be productively performed? Productively working women already have free child care provided? The government is already doing everything we want it to do, and there is no use whatsoever for low skill labor?

<comment><USER7> I don't know where you're living, but here in the UK the government only does a fraction of what ideally people would want and as time goes by it does less and less. There is indeed plenty of work to be done as you say, but typically you can't fulfil basic needs while doing those jobs which would enhance the neighbourhood. This is evidenced by the current phenomenon of the "working poor" (i.e. people who are working in the private sector but who still critically depend upon income from the state).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Job guarantees kill one of the key advantages of basic income: Basic income allows us to dramatically reduce the overhead in social services and other administrative programs that choose who should get paid benefits and weed out those who abuse the system.

In a world of guaranteed jobs, you would either have to maintain the administration or force sick people to work. Not to mention that basic income could have the huge economic advantage of allowing people to productively use their time to develop products and services they couldn't afford to before. Some of the earners of basic income will certainly do great things with their freedom, which will benefit everyone.

<comment><USER10> I don't think Job Guarantee proponents are suggesting that the sick and disabled also have to work. They continue to receive welfare without any work requirements. I'm not a JG proponent, I just thought your comment was miscontrueing their position.

<comment><USER11> But to implement that, you still need some administration to work out who's eligible for welfare and who needs to work. Basic Income schemes potentially eliminate this requirement.

<comment><USER10> There will still be a need for admin/bureaucracy with BI. Some people will need extra benefits because of their circumstances and people will have issues (e.g. suddenly their payments stop). I'm not convinced BI will decrease the number of support people since more people will actually be using the service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The writer doesn't justify his insistence that a Job Guarantee "IS NOT 'MAKE- WORK'". It seems to me that if the primary purpose of a job is to provide work, then it is by definition make-work.

<comment><USER13> S/he says that government jobs would be those that benefit the community. It's not hard to come up with examples of those kinds of jobs - care for the elderly, cheap & healthy kitchens (like kitchens for the homeless, but for everyone instead), more repair and maintenance of infrastructure or new infrastructure (e.g. before WW2, German's increased employment by building highways throughout the country), culture and art events, recycling, running non-for-profit stores (for many basic items, the margin of the store is much greater than production costs) ...

IMO, that's much less make-work than advertising, sales and similar (basically, jobs that exist because your product is not good enough to sell itself).

<comment><USER14> No, says the entrepreneur, having the government fix the roads stifles innovation and impedes the god-given right of some megacorp profiting.They should hire a company that in turn will hire the same people who would do the job, except with lower job security and cheaper wages.

And people wonder why the public always gets the short end of the stick.

<comment><USER15> There is a difference between, on the one hand, needing something done and hiring people to do it; and on the other needing to employ people and finding things for them to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you have a guaranteed job, can you be fired from it? If so are you cut off from all income for some period of time? If not, what stops somebody from turning up and having very low or no productivity and demotivating others?

<comment><USER17> I think Japan has something close to guaranteed job, their culture is somewhat different from American culture, it would be very interesting to study.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/business/global/layoffs- il...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/business/global/layoffs-illegal- japan-workers-are-sent-to-the-boredom-room.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

<comment><USER15> What that's talking about is quite different. That's inability to fire from a private position, this is (approximate) inability to refrain from hiring for a public position. It's still, certainly, an interesting thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What about stuff that doesn't get paid but need people to work on it?

There is much work to do in community work, free software or fine arts.

The JG will probably only create jobs in the first category. With BIG all people can choose where they want to work and don't have to base their decision on the wage the job pays.

</comment><comment><USER19> Interesting read, certainly some good points in there.

...but it doesnt address the fundamental issue: You cannot just invent jobs and be done with it.

A colossal level of bureaucracy would be involved in:

\- picking what job was assigned to whom

\- ensuring jobs did not adversely affect or compete with commercial enterprise offering similar services*

\- managing training for jobs

\- managing quality of work in jobs

\- managing transport and infrastructure for the labor pool^

\- disputes over 'fairness', 'quality of work', etc.

Its not just messy; it would be a logistical nightmare.

I cant take the suggestion seriously with addressing how you plan to administer such a system.

(* if you think that wont be an issue, you're fooling yourself; ^obviously different area will have different labour requirements; its utterly naive to assume people would not have continually shift to new local areas where labour was seasonally required)

</comment><comment><USER20> Employing someone is very expensive. You need to provide equipment, insurance, safety, management and work. It is much cheaper (less overhead) to just provide "existential minimum", lets say $7000 a year.

I think root problem is in Americans mentality. Hard work is more valued than its outcome. Also some demographic groups are always treated as disposable garbage, they do not deserve support "just for being humans". Help is only for protected groups.

Also corrupted political system prefers expensive solutions, since it increases its power and various kickbacks. You can not "extract" much money from an agency which just forwards social welfare payments (overhead around 2%).

</comment><comment><USER21> It is a question of time, until a robot, let's say priced about 10.000 US$ with the intelligence of a 12 year old child can replace the majority of labor, while working 24/7\. IBM did not build Watson to win in Jeopardy I guess. Then what?

I am more than pessimistic for the future. I take this as an opportunity to post some of my favorite blog posts. Enjoy!

"There is No Steady State Economy (except at a very basic level)"

[http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady- stat...](http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-state- economy-except-at-a-very-basic-level/)

Limits to Growth–At our doorstep, but not recognized [http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-12/limits-to- growt...](http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-12/limits-to-growth-at- our-doorstep-but-not-recognized)

Wealth And Energy Consumption Are Inseparable [http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and- energy-...](http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy- consumption-are-inseparable.html)

Galactic-Scale Energy [http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic- scale-e...](http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale- energy/)

</comment><comment> a-saleh Is there some generic framework for these ideas?

For example, if I simplify my country "social net", it basically is, that either you have job and pay taxes, or you don't have a job, and you can apply for government help.

Then we have minimal wage requirement in our law.

I know that a faction in our government argues, that this system has two main problems:

1) for low income people it might not be worth to search job, because often they would be paid just a little extra for large amount of work, than they alredy receive from welfare

2) employers complain, that because of high income taxes and other expeditures on employees it is not worth for them to employ people that recieve low salary.

The party proposed to add a fixed sum of money negative income tax to the income tax rate as a quite elegant solution, resulting basicaly in BIG in the country.

I wonder how well would that work, because at least it solves these two problems they stated.

</comment><comment> a-saleh "Under BIG, production drops, consumption rises, and so do prices. Suddenly, the value of the BIG grant has been eroded. Great success: the poor are still poor."

I was under impression, that BIG works on assumption, that production doesn't drop, because the people that would consider not working are often the people that wouldn't produce as much.

On the other hand, the rise in compsumption would be fueled by newly found buying power of the low income population, and that means bussinesses would care about them more.

For employers BIG would basically mean a flat discount on all of the employees.

And for government and people with low income it would mean a large reduction in byrocracy. \</comment><comment>-- Unfortunately lots of these assumptions on BIG are somewhat culture dependent.

<comment><USER13> > the people that would consider not working are often the people that > wouldn't produce as much.

What do you mean? The jobs that suck the most and are paid the least are often the ones that absolutely have to be done (by a human), at least in the today's societies: garbage collector, construction worker, cleaners, store/fast-food workers, ...

<comment><USER22> All of the jobs you mention can be done by robots. Some of them can be done by robots TODAY.

<comment><USER13> Personally, I haven't seen any of the done by robots (except for Roomba, but that's not even cleaning - I'm talking about things like bathroom, trash, ... i.e. cleaning of corporate offices). Also, even if it's possible in the next decade, it will probably be much more expensive and capital intensive than human labor for quite some time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I feel like this article (and many like it) ignore the distinction between "wanting a job with a salary" and "wanting to have something to do".

The reality is that you don't need to attach a 'salary' to a 'job' to get people to do something useful. Given the time and resources, they will do so of their own accord.

Relatedly, a post I wrote on the topic of unemployment a while ago: [http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2013/03/18/unemployment- is-i...](http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2013/03/18/unemployment-is- inevitable-and-thats-not-a-bad-thing/)

<comment><USER24> In that post, you wrote: "Unemployment is effectively an excess of manpower."

If there is excess manpower, how can we explain the existence of unkempt lawns and trash on the streets?

<comment><USER23> Quite simply; people on an individual basis can still think "meh, I don't feel like doing it". On the other hand you have people who enjoy doing such work - yes, they exist - and they are likely to either go "well I'm not getting paid for it", or they _are_ getting paid for it but are assigned to doing it elsewhere.

The general perception of "work" in a society greatly influences how productive people are. I can't even count the amount of times I've been told that I "don't do work" because I don't have a job with an employer, even though my working week is significantly longer than a regular one. Until that perception changes, people will keep being stuck with treating work this way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Unemployment is one of the pillars that capitalism is built on, it is a structural necessity for profits to exist, so any efforts to relieve it via reform are doomed to failure. Structural unemployment did not exist in Europe prior to Europe moving from feudalism to capitalism several centuries ago - structural unemployment is a creation of capitalism. One need only pick up the Wall Street Journal or Businessweek during times of low unemployment - <USER2> is great fear that unemployment is getting "too low", meaning everyone who wants a job can get a job. Since the purpose of capitalism is to generate profits for rentiers, this makes sense.

The schemes mentioned here and being floated about in Slate and the like are done in anticipation of how to respond to a sudden, massive increase in unemployment for low-skilled workers in response to advances in things like AI. These schemes wouldn't contradict what I said before, because they would be due to an economic shift where the lever of unemployment for low skilled workers would mean less, since the increased quantity of unemployed would change the quality of what unemployment is. The threat of sudden mass unemployment would mean less to increasing profits, and could potentially cause social unrest. Like Larry Page's grandfather wandering around a GM plant with a weapon in his hand during the Flint sit-down strike.

It's obvious that structural unemployment is a creation of capitalism, as it did not exist in centuries past. From reading the business press's fears of unemployment getting too low, it should be obvious that big business feels unemployment is an essential pillar of what they need to keep the system running as they wish. Despite this history and current expression of views, people seem to be blind to the reality that not only is the government not interested in helping unemployed people, but that it is actively promoting unemployment, and will fight and do anything to keep structural unemployment in place. It's not an accident trying to be fixed, the existence of ~0% unemployment is what would be seen as the accident, and any levers to throw some of those people out of work would (and have been) utilized. While this is the reality, the standard corporated owned and sponsored hegemonic press is of course oblivious to all of this. Unemployment isn't an accident government is trying to fix, when unemployment gets "too low" business and government actively work to increase unemployment among happily employed people.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour)

</comment><comment><USER26> "10\. The poor and the unemployed want to work (here, here). And as my work on Argentina showed (9m14s), receiving income is the fifth reason why the poor wanted to work! Why do BIG advocates presume to know what's better for the poor than the poor themselves? BIG does little for those who want to work."

Earlier in the article, he claims that BIG will cause fewer people to work; if BIG reduces demand for jobs then surely those who want jobs will have an easier time finding them?

</comment><comment><USER27> This does raise some interesting points, though I am skeptical that the government could efficiently create guaranteed jobs. Though I suppose we have learned a lot since the days of communism, maybe with advanced computing and data analysis we could actually give everyone a useful job without too much administrative overhead. I mean, the US government could never pull something like that off, but perhaps a better-run government could.

</comment><comment><USER28> > 10\. The poor and the unemployed want to work (here, here). And as my work > on Argentina showed (9m14s), receiving income is the _fifth_ reason why the > poor wanted to work!

> 13\. The JG does precisely that: recognizes many people want _paid_ work

It looks as if the article confuses work and PAID work. Sure, BIG may lead to more people quitting their paid jobs. But it might actually increase the amount of unpaid, yet socially valuable, work.

</comment><comment><USER15> _" Yglesias may not realize it, but all serious academic support for BIG is based on the idea that many people will quit working"_

 _" BIG does little for those who want to work."_

These seem contradictory. Presumably those who want to work can fill positions vacated by the many people who quit working (but are still able to express their needs directly through the market).

</comment><comment><USER29> You can no guarantee anything that requires resources without compromising interests/freedom/rights of some other class.

</comment><comment><USER19> Idly either JG and BIG implemented with a custom bitcoin fork and matched with government backed commodity stores (food, clothing, housing for govcoins) would be an interesting system.

Particularly it would solve a number of inflation issues around BIG I imagine... (and motivate people to get off big on to a real job if they wanted luxury goods).

<comment><USER15> Particularly for BIG, you would need some mechanism of determining uniqueness of users, ending payments to the deceased, &c. That does away with much of the benefit of a system like bitcoin, without some technologies that (as of yet) no one has figured out. If you can solve the relevant problems, then I agree it would be interesting!

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> May unemployed people are so because the jobs available are not pallatable. Almost everyone I know that doesn't have a job could easily find work washing dishes or similar. How is this different from a job guarantee, at least for a large chunk of the population?

<comment><USER31> With basic income even the people filling those jobs now won't do them, forcing businesses to automate that workload and, as the article says, de- commoditizing the human labor force, and emphasizing a focus on technological solutions to previously "too cheap to automate" tasks.

<comment><USER32> Not only that. People need income, and thus the employer have an major advantage. With BIG people do not need the money to the same extend and thus evaluate the cost/benefit much more fairly. I'm not going to bust my ass off for 10$ an hour with zero benefits. On the other hand if the same job gave me 30$ I might not mind it.

<comment><USER15> _" I'm not going to bust my ass off for 10$ an hour with zero benefits."_

Unless it's to an end I feel passionate about. Then I might do it for $5 or for free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> All I can say is that Job Guarantee is not working in Denmark and that the administrative overhead alone is insane.

<comment><USER34> Can you expand on that please ?</comment></comment>


Aging, mediocre programmer seeks wise fellow programmers/technical folks - <AUTHOR> Very soon ageism will catch up with me and I'll be unemployed. ( I'm 42). I'm smart enough to do most business related software development but mediocre enough that I won't be hired by the likes of Google.
As they say, most technical work or any work that requires deep focused thinking is generally a race to the bottom. I see great potential if programmers/technical/above average minded people are willing to put aside their overly individualist and reclusive tendencies, and start realistically co-operating. I'll like to get in touch with fellow techies who have realized this. And want to hash out ideas for any mutual co-operation. I have nothing concrete in mind yet, but I can be reasonably sure that I'm not looking for software related ideas.
A starting point could be some online forum where ideas/views can be exchanged. It must me emphasized that this post is not a solicitation for money. <comment><USER2> If the way that we do software development requires exceptional talent, then I'd say that our process is broken. I'm very interested in creating methods and approaches to software development that provide increased levels of support to the individual engineer; as well as increased levels of assurance and predictability for the end customer. As I see it, this mostly involves the integration of existing tools and technologies.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I'm very interested in creating methods and approaches to software > development that provide increased levels of support to the individual > engineer; as well as increased levels of assurance and predictability for > the end customer.

Don't even try, is my recommendation. The reason being that there are way to may mediocre programmers ( way more mediocre than me) out there. Any process/methodology which is supposed to increase reliability/productivity etc. will either be ignored or will be elevated to the level of hype where the essence of the new process is lost. For example the 'agile' method.

Obligatory question - how long have you been in the industry? And how how have you been on planet earth?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Adding contact information to your profile might prove useful.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought that the email on the profile information was visible to everybody. Anyway I added to my profile write up. Thanks for bringing it to my notice.</comment></comment>


How Hydrostor Aims To Change The Power Game By Storing Energy Under Water - <AUTHOR> http://www.jpuopolo.com/2011/07/how-hydrostor-aims-to-change-the-power-game-by-storing-energy-under-water/

<comment><USER2> Reminds me of [synthetic] hydraulic storage; it's the same principle I suppose.

They claim high efficiency. Presumably higher than pumped hydro storage. Wonder then on the efficiencies of using different gases than raw air.</comment>


Sydney tunnel water screen stop sign for oversized vehicles [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoTMC-uxJoo <comment><USER3> That's a cute high-tech solution. A simpler one is to put a horizontal bar, the same height as the tunnel's ceiling, which will physically stop the truck before causing millions worth of damages. It's often done in France, sometimes with an early warning: a first arch with chains hanging to the maximal height. It makes a lot of noise on the truck's top, but won't destroy it.

<comment><USER4> Did you see the truck in the video take out an enormous steel beam that was presumably attached to the structure of the tunnel in some kind of permanent way? How would your solution avoid the same fate?

<comment><USER5> That beam they took out is called a "sacrificial beam." It was not a structural support, but was meant to take the impact before any structural members were damaged. You'll see them on many modern bridges and underpasses.

<comment><USER6> That's interesting and seems like a good idea, except perhaps it should be paramount that the 20-ton beam NOT fall on the following cars! That is an entirely different meaning of "sacrificial"...

<comment><USER5> See the videos on 11foot8.com, that beam is a freestanding structure separate from the bridge solely designed to decapitate trucks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's a really cool idea, but I couldn't help but think they should move the water stop sign to well BEFORE the million dollar damage point. Some big trucks would have a hard time seeing the stop sign, reacting to it, slamming on the brakes, and coming to a complete stop in time before they cause damage to the overhang and beams.

<comment><USER8> The advantage with the signs before the final water sign is that they should be enough for any reasonably alert driver and don't make the environment more hazardous.

You really want to have the water screen projection, which douses the road with water, as the last line of defence. Water on the road is likely to make it far more difficult to stop a large truck like that. Having it earlier could actually be detrimental to their stopping ability[1].

We're also assuming the unexpected water doesn't cause additional accidents from all the other vehicles. A wall of water could provoke some quite irrational reactions. I drive that road on a fairly common basis and even a small accident there could well result in an expensive pile-up.

[1]: Conjecture

<comment><USER9> I worked near a train bridge that was constantly being hit by trucks. It was a near weekly event at times. They installed big, flashing lights and drivers would still blow through.

<comment><USER10> Check out 11foot8's YouTube channel for some great examples of how common this can be in some places.

<http://www.youtube.com/yovo68> <http://11foot8.com/>

<comment><USER11> An other fun one is "2m40" (after the tunnel's height, of 7ft10), on the tunnel de l'etoile in Paris: <http://www.2m40.com/> (in 2009, a truck crashed into it every 10 days and there were bets on the time the hanging sign would last)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> And I think some people will STILL crash on the tunnel anyway.

I made a arcade game once: www.abril.com.br/blog/campus- party/2011/01/19/fanatico-por-jogos-leva-seu-proprio-fliperama-para-a-arena/

It has instructions printed on the sides of the screen... It was VERY, VERY, VERY common to someone ask people around them what a button do (sometimes to even random passerby people, or for example a couple arrived at the machine, and the guy would start to play and ask stuff to his girlfriend), and then the asked either looked confused, or pointed to the instructions, and the people asking would behave surprised, confused and shamed.

Why people ignored the instructions and asked for example their girlfriends, random people and so on instead?

Why people see a huge sign blocking the way to a ATM saying it is out of order, they remove the sign from the way and attempt to use it anyway?

<comment><USER13> its because most instructions are unhelpful and a waste time to read, so we're conditioned to ignore them.

<comment><USER14> Even when you make great, easy to understand documetation, people are fucking lazy. That fact keeps the most of people in our support department employed.

<comment><USER15> An important customer once told me "Yes, I have read about the manual, but it is so much easier to call you." - the problem with lazy customers is that they will make false assumptions about what the software does (everyone will probably do this at one time, but not reading the manual / instructions is much more dangerous).

She also refused to upgrade from a 15" monitor to a larger model, so we had to keep the screen layout in accordance with her outdated screen format. (The cost of a new screen would have been negligible compared to the profits).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> You might think that trucks ignoring multiple, obvious flashing warning signs wouldn't be that common. This hilarious video proves otherwise:

[http://gizmodo.com/5955244/watch-this-bridge-destroying- doze...](http://gizmodo.com/5955244/watch-this-bridge-destroying-dozens-of- trucks-and-buses)

<comment><USER17> "multiple, obvious flashing warning signs wouldn't be that common."

Unfortunately they are way too common. Did you know there's wild animals living outdoors and they cross roads? 75 miles away a divorced family is having a custody dispute so here's abduction alert #243 for the year as a punishment from one parent to the other? There's a terrorist hiding behind every tree stump? Next month some roadwork is planned although nothing so far has been done other than put up the warning sign and barrels and collect higher traffic ticket fees? Six months ago a long term road work lane closure happened so everyday commuters now completely ignore a giant bright flashing warning that lanes have changed? The bright flashing overhead sign reports that 30 miles away where you aren't even going, there is a traffic jam? This is before I even get started on the billboard advertisements designed to distract you from driving.

If everything's an emergency, then nothing is an emergency. Including, unfortunately, bridge height.

<comment><USER18> These yellow flashing signs are useless, as you say, but you'd think that drivers are conditioned to obey traffic lights, and most every tunnel in existence - including the one in Sydney - has these red and green lights up top that allows the tunnel crew to block lanes individually. I couldn't tell why truckers see these and _still_ blow through them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Put a metal sign on a hinge that is at the too-tall height several hundred feet in front of the tunnel.

When they hit it, they will definitely stop, and replacing the sign is a fraction of the cost of the water sign, which they can drive through anyway.

<comment><USER20> > When they hit it, they will definitely stop, and replacing the sign is a > fraction of the cost of the water sign

Other comments seem to suggest this doesn't work [Low bars etc..] I am not sure how large a problem this is [No audio on vid :(] Asking people to stop sharply on a suddenly wet road doesn't seem an ideal solution.

I think an addition would be to charge the drivers the cost of repair, this is not a tax on stupidity - it is a lesson in taking responsibility in driving an extra-ordinary sized vehicle on a public road.

Thankfully my driving instructor knew the importance of taking _responsibility_ and understanding what that means _before_ you get behind the wheel.

<comment><USER21> "I think an addition would be to charge the drivers the cost of repair"

The cost of a repair to a bridge?

Maybe if the driver's employer is Fedex perhaps but even then the worse case scenario is the driver looses his job but I'm sure that already happens regardless of cost impact.

<comment><USER20> > The cost of a repair to a bridge?

It was a tunnel ;)

>Maybe if the driver's employer is Fedex perhaps but even then the worse case scenario is the driver looses his job but I'm sure that already happens regardless of cost impact.

I don't really want to _punish_ somebody retrospectively for their actions in this case.

If my family and I were to be behind this over-sized vehicle at this time - <USER2> would think probably think much different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The first three or four times I read this post title, it made no sense at all to me. It might as well have read "Sydney tunnel correct horse battery staple". Once I clicked through to the article it made sense, but this is one of the few times I wish the mods had edited the title to match the article.

</comment><comment><USER23> low-tech solution: [http://vanishingpoint.at/wordpress/wp- content/uploads/2010/1...](http://vanishingpoint.at/wordpress/wp- content/uploads/2010/12/bruecke-warnhinweis.jpg)

(edit: actual image url instead of article)

<comment><USER24> More severe low-tech solution: [https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=blackwall+tunnel&hl=en&...](https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=blackwall+tunnel&hl=en&ll=51.496467,0.002017&spn=0.003841,0.009645&client=firefox-a&hnear=Blackwall+Tunnel,+London,+United+Kingdom&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=51.496422,0.002184&panoid=PxV8zQOysXqalADtmkbjSA&cbp=12,359.88,,0,-2.48)

(Blackwall Tunnel, northbound, London)

And again, just in case you missed the scraping sounds the first time: [https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=blackwall+tunnel&hl=en&...](https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=blackwall+tunnel&hl=en&ll=51.498531,0.001545&spn=0.00384,0.009645&client=firefox-a&hnear=Blackwall+Tunnel,+London,+United+Kingdom&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=51.498663,0.001526&panoid=1CoD- kL0V2llH65kjm_5Pw&cbp=12,359.68,,0,-2.48)

(For some reason they don't appear to have anything similar going south...)

<comment><USER25> There is a diversionary slip road for overheights (OHT) on the approach to Blackwall after the first pic and before the second. If you've made it to the second (having ignored a good few red lights), expect to be prosecuted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm mildly surprised that requiring trucks to file travel plans has not become a more widespread practice. What with terrorism concerns, and the widespread use of GPS monitors on trucks it's both feasible and plausible. It seems like major metro areas could institute a slightly tighter control of large load vehicles; which could actually benefit from coordinating with traffic control signals in some cases.

<comment><USER5> Since Garmins and other GPS devices have lane information and speed limit information, you'd think you could punch in your load height and get a route that worked for it.

Anyone want to go collect 500K bridge heights for the database?

<comment><USER27> Garmin already offers a specific product line for truckers and bus drivers, that deals with these kinds of issues - beyond vertical clearance you have issues of turning radius and maximum load.

I've seen them being sold at major truck stops in the US. You're not suppose to use a normal consumer GPS if you're driving an oversize / multi-axle vehicle.

<http://sites.garmin.com/dezl/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This article made me take a trip to one of my favorite often-forgotten websites, <http://11foot8.com/>

</comment><comment><USER29> I wish they had this Storrow Drive in Boston. Every year during school move- in, then uHauls get stuck. What a mess.

<comment><USER30> Its sister on the other side of the river, Memorial Drive, does: <http://goo.gl/maps/jdTtx>

But that doesn't stop everyone: <http://bit.ly/10LXX53> <http://bit.ly/10FmQLa>

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The drivers cannot be not simply ignoring the signs.

The sign is telling them that later down the road they will absolutely get in to problems, and get literally stuck. No one would continue with that certainty of getting stuck or in trouble. On top of that, it cant be repeat offenders either. Some one who has been there before must have gotten caught out, one way or another. Its not like drivers on small roads who see a 6ft width restriction sign, but know through local knowledge that really you can squeeze 7ft wide car through the lane.

What we have is drivers who do not know the road, and in their minds don't think the big huge warning signs are meant for them. In their heads they think it for a another driver on the road in close proximity, even if there is no sign of one.

The problem with road signs is making it known to specific individuals that the message is absolutely for them. The brilliant last resort sign absolutely makes it clear who the message is for.

So the key is to some how make driver know that the message is actually for them specifically.

<comment><USER32> I have always felt that this is an issue, as i have personally had many problems when interpreting road signage.

For example, i once pissed off some builders by following a truck into their work zone (they were working on a highway lane). The truck had a huge sign on the back that said 'do not follow into work zone', but how can i possibly know if i'm following a truck into a work zone without some indication of where the work zone is? There were no other signs or lights or orange barrels or anything.

Another example is the way exit ramp signage is written where i live. Highway signs don't include units of measure when they refer to distance, so the first few times i saw the sign 'ABC ROAD — 2' i had no idea that it was telling me that the exit for Abc Road was in 2 MILES, not that i was meant to take Exit 2, which happened to be the very next exit after the sign.

The 11foot8 Web site linked elsewhere in the thread mentions that the rail bridge has a flashing sign that says 'OVERHEIGHT WHEN FLASHING'. The site calls this 'pretty good' signage. It makes sense sitting at my computer reading about it, but i can almost guarantee that if i was seeing that sign for the first time on the road i would have absolutely no fucking idea what it was talking about until after i had already crashed into the bridge.

etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The footage of the 20 ton beam getting knocked out of the tunnel ceiling by a truck was remarkable. I hope there were no injuries!

<comment><USER34> I'm surprised a truck was able to knock it down. A 20 ton beam sounds like something that's rather important, I figured it would be attached fairly securely.

<comment><USER35> Well if the common use-case is for force to come from the top, they probably didn't optimize for the case of lots of force coming from the side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Why not have a plastic flap hang down and thwack the top of the too-tall truck?

Next, if that's ignored, a plywood barricade hanging down: Better some splintered plywood than a jammed tunnel.

<comment><USER37> And lastly a large flashing sign, or water sign, saying there is tire damage up ahead. Then have tire damage spikes come out of the road. It's the drivers responsibility to not damage the tunnel or bridge. Better to damage some cheap tires on a truck than the tunnel.

<comment><USER35> That's not a good idea. Tire damage reduces control of a multi-ton vehicle in the middle of traffic, and vastly increases the amount of time it will take to get the vehicle back out. Even the flying rubber tire parts have huge amounts of energy and can damage nearby cars or even kill people.

<comment><USER37> The trick then is to have something negative happen before the tunnel that isn't so dangerous to other drivers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Eventually the tunnels will have "soft walls" which send large trucks a remote-braking command if collision seems likely... and the trucks themselves collision-avoidance radar. And soon after that all the trucks will be self- driving.

<comment><USER39> This would make _Speed_ interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> It was cool seeing it in action (I wonder who thought of it, and got passed the bureaucracy to make it happen). I wonder whether they considered industry standard truck height when building that tunnel.

<comment><USER41> If anyone was at the London 2012 Olympics then they may have seen this: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNTczEIaDI>

They may well have these in many other places of course, I thought it was dead cool.

<comment><USER42> When I'm rich I'm going to build an RSS reader that works like this

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Perhaps they need more cowbells: [http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-bus- crashed...](http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-bus-crashed.html)

</comment><comment><USER44> This is a very innovative idea. I have seen those water displays shown in the malls for fun. This is a very cool application of a fun technique to save lives and property damages.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is the same problem as getting pilots to not land on aircraft carriers with their landing gear up. I've heard they station a guy with a flare gun as a final notification, but sometimes the pilot lands anyhow.

This idea could be used on an aircraft carrier, if the water was sprayed up from below.

I think it would be interesting to try a projection of a scary face, or even a non-scary face, or a video of a crowd of people.

</comment><comment><USER46> Strange that they didn't just install a huge metal bar in front of the tunnel, like in this video (11 foot 8, the "toughest bridge in the world"):

<http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3c0_1351184890>

</comment><comment><USER47> Why not just have those things which actually hang down and hit the top of your truck showing you that you're too tall?

As for that water sign ... why don't they put it further back and have a way for offending vehicles to exit in front of it? Am I missing something?

<comment><USER48> > As for that water sign ... why don't they put it further back and have a way > for offending vehicles to exit in front of it? Am I missing something?

The projected-onto-water sign relies, for visibility, on the fact that is in front of a tunnel that is dark (hence why the lights near the entrance shut down when it activates), so it wouldn't work farther back; it also makes the road wet and incrementally more dangerous for all drivers, which is why it makes sense for the more normal insistent flashing signs, etc., to be placed farther back and the water sign to be a last resort even before considering visibility issues.

<comment><USER47> Okay, well why don't the progressively more dire warnings include stuff that dangles from the sign and causes the truck driver to hear a big rattling sound on his roof?

Not this far though: [http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/10/durha...](http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/10/durhams- bridge-death-will-decapitate-any-tall-truck/3707/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I recall seeing a sign on a low tunnel in NY (?) that had something like "15 feet We mean it!"

edit: I'm not from NY I Googled and see it is the Holland tunnel which has the sign 12'6" (but it's actually 13') and We mean it.

</comment><comment><USER50> ironically, the water on the road makes it that much more difficult to stop

<comment><USER51> ironically, physics would preclude an oversized truck from reaching the wet pavement.

<comment><USER52> It has carefully designed overhead friction surfaces?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> My question is: Once the truck is stopped in front of the sign, presumably with traffic backed up behind it...how do they get it out?

</comment><comment><USER54> A lot of people seem to be struggling to understand why this solution is needed in place of {big metal bar, hanging chains, flashing signs above road, etc.} and why drivers seem to act counter to logic and common sense by ignoring warnings and so ending up in situations where they're stuck and cause damage to their truck or load.

It's as simple as this: signs around the edge of your field of vision are far less noticeable than signs directly in the centre of your field of vision. Signs around the edge are also far more common than signs directly in the middle of the road. Common events (such as these signs whizzing past) breed complacency and it's a fundamental tenant of workplace health and safety that some of the biggest risk events are not those that are inherently risky or difficult, but those that are performed so frequently that the practitioners become lazy with complacency (example: smacking yourself in the face and knocking your teeth out when undoing a tight bolt because you're pulling the spanner towards you). Driving is such a repetitive task that said complacency is incredibly high as a result, which explains all kinds of road phenomenon that you'll witness on a daily basis and wonder 'what the HELL was that idiot thinking?!?'.

In the rail industry, level crossing incidents are way too common. I recall one several years ago that killed the two train drivers when a B-double ran a crossing and ripped the oncoming train right off the tracks when the train ran in to the trailer of the B-double. The report ([1] specifically sections 2.3.7 and 2.3.8 starting PDF page 72. Fascinating reading about human factors of accidents if you're in to that) made it very clear that the truck driver failed to see the flashing lights and associated signage alerting that a train was coming. As a result, he failed to stop. Importantly, it notes that it is entirely possible to miss major changes to your environment (big flashing signs, in the tunnel case) if your attention is elsewhere.

Couple that with the fact that driving long distances for extended periods can be almost hypnotic, especially at night and when fatigued. Driving becomes almost automatic. Ever driven a long distance and realised you don't actually remember specifics of the journey? Yeh. These guys are going to be driving at night (due to being in the middle of a major city) where lights from billboards, etc. are surrounding their field of view. It's like driving through a star trek warp speed tunnel with lights flashing past your field of view constantly. That's hypnotic and you zone out as a result. As such, the driver's attention levels are pretty much nil and no low-hanging beam is going to snap him back to reality.

By throwing something completely different directly in the field of vision, the driver is immediately snapped back to reality in a big way. Your attention is (usually) mostly focused on the road in front of you when you're driving, even when you're distracted. Furthering the extremity of the reality check is that it's a gigantic 'STOP' sign - not just the word stop, but the word stop in the big red hexagonal sign. The sign is designed to provoke a response by its shape and colour (we're conditioned to hold that meaning to said shape and colour) and throwing it immediately in front of the driver will grab their attention in a way that bars and chains and all that simply will not.

In summary, by using a sign directly in front of the driver rather than through some secondary communications medium (e.g.: banging on the roof of the vehicle), the likelihood of detection and subsequent reaction is far higher. It will succeed where other mechanisms of alerting will fail. Water is used because it's convenient, doesn't cause lasting damage/debris and can be deployed very quickly. For the benefit such a design brings (avoiding blocking just about the biggest express road thoroughfare in Australia's largest city), the upfront cost is negligible and is easily justified over cheaper but less effective alternatives.

[1]: [http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Safety/railsafety/safetyre...](http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Safety/railsafety/safetyreports/Pdf_rail_safety_investigation_qt2459_complete.pdf)

<comment><USER55> fundamental tenet

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I'm somewhat more impressed by this water screen than the iphone's retina display.

<comment><USER57> Water screens are very simple (and old) tech. It's just a perforated tube and a projector. This is much more interesting: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gusJeslMbLc>, but still a weekend project, not billion-dollar research :)

<comment><USER58> There was the bit.fall project (ca. 2005) <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AICq53U3dl8> by Julius Popp

and before that Stephen Pevnick's Graphical Waterfalls® (1977) <http://www.pevnickdesign.com/gwhtml/history.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> They could get more creative and put up a projection of Steve Irwin with crocodile in hand, going "Crikey. An oversized vehicle. Watch out boys and girls - DANGER! DANGER!!".

</comment><comment><USER60> What if it was a convertible truck??

<comment><USER9> It'll end up convertible if it wasn't before.

Crashing into a bridge like that can peel the top off like it was hit with a can-opener.

<comment><USER61> Double decker buses too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> great article but terrible slug -- headline reads like a zippy the pinhead punchline.

</comment><comment><USER63> The video is down :(

</comment><comment><USER64> why not just have a toll gate come down ?

</comment><comment><USER65> Nice blog spam. A youtube video with no article.

</comment><comment><USER66> Or they could you know....just build a tunnel big enough to fir every vehicle size? I don't think this problem exists in the UK, I've driven through many different tunnels and they will accept any vehicle size.

<comment><USER67> Really? "any vehicle size"?

Including trucks carrying around 40ft tall construction equipment (like cranes) on flatbeds? What about those huge wind-turbine pieces?

You can't plan for "any", especially with shrinking government budgets globally. You plan for "most", and work to ensure the remainder has some sort of possible route.

<comment><USER66> I knew somebody was going to point out that oversized vehicles won't fit. For your knowledge, these vehicles are not normally legal to drive(in the EU), they need to have special permissions, display "oversized" badge on the back and on the front, but most importantly, they need to have their route planned and approved days in advance from actually driving anywhere. So none of these vehicles would ever crash into a tunnel, because such a route would not be approved in the first place.

By "any" I mean any of the sizes approved for legal road use, and there is not many of them. Trailers can only be of a certain height and width, and most tunnels are built to accomodate for those dimensions. And usually, tunnels are built to either make the route shorter, or redirect traffic out of the city. So if the biggest vehicles on the road cannot use them, and have to go through the city, then it defeats the point of building the tunnel altogether.

<comment><USER67> Cool, clearly Australia is a bit different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> What a neat idea! But if these trucks are PURPOSEFULLY breaking the laws and continuing to go through the tunnel, I am not sure that this solution will hold up for too long; after all, the clever truck drivers will know it is a mere illusion.

Furthermore, instead of a water screen, wouldn't a brick screen be more effective? Personally, I wouldn't mind going through water nearly as much as I would be running into a brick wall. Nonetheless, as I said before, a really neat idea and definitely a solution for some instances--limitations need to be addressed though.

<comment><USER69> The drivers aren't doing it purposely. They have been driving for 16 hours, are in an unfamiliar city, and are almost asleep at the wheel.

<comment><USER70> 16 hours!? Wow. The EU has a legal maximum of 10 hours per day — and that's only allowed twice a week, ordinarily 9 hours, with at least 45 minutes break every 45 minutes.

<comment><USER71> And the trucks are controlled, still drivers manage to trick the regulators: "I'll drive your shift now you'll get mine once" etc.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How a C program naturally scales better than a C++ program - <AUTHOR> http://assoc.tumblr.com/post/793449265/how-a-c-program-naturally-scales-better-than-a-c <comment><AUTHOR> Essentially C++ encourages you to put function declarations along with the data they operate on, even though only the latter is usually needed when included transitively from a header file. This problem is exacerbated by templates, which often require the full definitions of functions to be placed inside the header file.

<comment><USER2> But you lose some of the performance and safety benefits of templates.</comment></comment>


Will the NSA use smart power grid to spy? - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2010/02/09/smart-grid-electricity.html

<comment><USER2> It is already possible to introspect a _little_ on the grid: See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_analysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_analysis).</comment>


Tell HN: Listened to HN's and User's Feedback, Here's What We Did (Styckyd.com) - <AUTHOR>

The original launch thread is here:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2285320
The feedback from HN and the users we've been talking to lead us to realize that the problem that we had was a little worse than we thought. We were doing a very bad job of quickly communicating what we do and how we can help - basically we weren't telling you WIIFM. There were also a few other suggestions for fixes, including some usability things that we're still working on.
We have redesigned the landing pages for users and potential forum partners to be much more concise and increased the call to action.
Homepage for buyers/sellers: http://www.styckyd.com
Homepage for forum admins: http://partners.styckyd.com
What do you think?  Is this better? Any other feedback/suggestions? We're starting to get much more interest from forums and other communities but we can always make it better. <comment><USER2> Not in your target market, but from a general perspective:

What kind of story are you telling to people? The about page is about the team not what the team is doing. I was expecting something about the service and what it does.

Stop using the word passionate: I keep seeing it when I look at your stuff and it sounds like marketing speak.

I don't understand why you are partners with Forum Admins. I don't really get that at first glance.

Why can't I leave comments on the blogs? You talk about listening to people, but I don't know how to comment.

Don't show enthusiastic reviews when there are none. Move the parts details up and to the right to fill the space. Social proof is only useful when it is positive. Right now you are showing people that nobody is using the service.

Tactic: I don't know the budget you are working on, but if it is nonzero, start buying car parts and listing them. You have 7 total right now and that does not bode well with a potential customer. Even if it is a niche market, I would want at least triple digits in terms of items.

Cool idea though. Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> _What kind of story are you telling to people? The about page is about the team not what the team is doing. I was expecting something about the service and what it does._

Hmmm. That's an interesting thought. There are actually two "About Us" pages, one for forum admins and one for users. Our thought was that we wanted to build credibility behind the fact that we are part of the market that we're targeting. I think special interest groups are particularly harsh to anyone not within the group, like the hacker vs. non-tech guy.

 _Stop using the word passionate: I keep seeing it when I look at your stuff and it sounds like marketing speak._

I didn't even realize we were doing that. I'll keep an eye out. Thanks.

 _I don't understand why you are partners with Forum Admins. I don't really get that at first glance._

It definitely makes more sense to the admins. We've built a plugin for vBulletin forums as we want to power their classifieds systems. Forum classifieds are not ideal for buying and selling.

 _Why can't I leave comments on the blogs? You talk about listening to people, but I don't know how to comment._

I'll be adding this, thanks for pointing it out. Right now I'm using Tumblr and their API to publish the blog to our site, I need to figure out a good way to integrate the comments.

 _Don't show enthusiastic reviews when there are none._

This is something we're grappling with right now. You're definitely not wrong. I do want to be able to highlight the functionality, though. We'll think more on this one.

 _Tactic: I don't know the budget you are working on_

This is something we're considering and will probably do. When we have a model-specific forum on board we may buy some parts specific to that vehicle to generate a few transactions.

Thanks for the feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable:

Homepage for buyers/sellers: <http://www.styckyd.com>

Homepage for forum admins: <http://partners.styckyd.com></comment>


Breakthrough Dialogue Tech Talks: Zunum Aero - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1ioXfa_jpY <comment><AUTHOR> Looks a lot more viable than the Eviation Alice[1] that was posted earlier today. (I'm not associated with either, just love aviation and enjoy HN discussions on it.)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18602771](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18602771) [2] [https://zunum.aero/](https://zunum.aero/)</comment>


UltraHook – Receive webhooks while behind a firewall - <AUTHOR> http://www.ultrahook.com/

<comment><USER2> Years back I worked on the Azure Service Bus ([http://www.windowsazure.com/en- us/develop/net/how-to-guides/...](http://www.windowsazure.com/en- us/develop/net/how-to-guides/service-bus-relay/)) which has a feature called "Relay". Except in the MS case its way more complicated and .NET-specific. Cool stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not the author of UltraHook, I just found it interesting because I once built something very similar for a customer to allow access to a DB behind a firewall.

Also, I'm literally implementing Azure ServiceBus Queues right now! My startup has been on Azure since the beta days and I'm migrating a lot of things that used the TS Queues to the SB Queues. We were actually invited to Redmond a few years ago to talk to various Azure teams and got a sneak peek intro to the new ServiceBus features. Of course we were all under NDA so we couldn't really share our excitement at the time. It seems that you've moved on to a few new adventures since your time at Microsoft. Good luck with everthing :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Similar stuff:

Pagekite ([https://pagekite.net/](https://pagekite.net/))

Localtunnel ([http://progrium.com/localtunnel/](http://progrium.com/localtunnel/))

<comment><USER4> (I'm the author of UltraHook)

Note that UltraHook communicates over HTTP and not SSH, so it will work through most corporate firewalls too. It's focused on webhook tunnelling instead of general purpose TCP tunnelling.

<comment><USER5> Localtunnel (as of the v2 beta) and Ngrok no longer use SSH.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> this is the most useful service i've personally come across in months -- thanks!!

<comment><USER4> It's a pain I've dealt with over and over again for a long time. I'm glad others find it useful too :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can I host it myself?

<comment><USER4> Not right now as the server component is currently closed source (I'm the author)

<comment><USER7> Thanks. I was curious since I've worked on some projects where that would be a concern.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Tax, CLI Task List Manager - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/netgusto/tax <comment><AUTHOR> I coded this as I needed a simple tool to help keep track of my things to do.

The hard requirements were:

* command line operated

* keep state in a standard markdown file

* display the current task in my shell prompt and tmux status to help me focus :)

I chose to do it with Rust as I felt this could be a nice project to learn the language.

Maybe this can be useful to someone else! Also, Rustaceans out there, I welcome your code reviews to help me grow into Rust!</comment>


Ask HN: How to get in touch with a YC company? - 100-xyz We are its-near.me one of the participants in the current Startup School.
What we are doing is a little similar to what Allo community is doing.  They are one of the recent YC batches but now seem inactive. https://www.allocommunity.com/
I would like to get in touch with them and ask questions.  I have tried through their website but have not been successful.   Ideas anyone? <comment><AUTHOR> You tried all social media? They have facebook, instagram, pinterest, linkedin, and twitter on the website, though they all seem to be dormant as well (no activity in at least 6 months)

<comment> 100-xyz Yes. I have tried all the social media.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah no activity in 6 months on any social media means they are possibly out of business. Maybe you can look up the individual people on LinkedIn and send them a message?</comment></comment></comment>


Deliberate Practice Claim Refuted – Beyond Born vs. Made: A New Look at Expertise - <AUTHOR> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.13586/full <comment><AUTHOR> Conclusions:

Twenty-five years ago, Ericsson and colleagues proposed their influential deliberate practice view of expertise. Though an influential account of expertise, this view is inadequate to explain the body of empirical evidence that has since accumulated. Moving ahead, we believe that the overarching goal of expertise research should be to develop and test theories of expertise that take into account all potentially relevant explanatory constructs. This includes different forms of experience, as well as basic human traits; it also includes task and situational factors, such as task complexity and performance pressure. This research promises to increase theoretical understanding of the origins of expertise and provide scientific grounding for interventions aimed at accelerating the acquisition of expertise. For example, it may one day be possible to use information about people's genotypes to tailor musical or professional training, as is already being done in sports. This type of intervention promises to help people realize their potential for acquiring expertise.

Non paywall related link to 2016 paper: [http://www.psychologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:bdb69b97-5c72-4f0f-a26...](http://www.psychologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:bdb69b97-5c72-4f0f-a268-5942d7641d88/Hambrick.PLM.2016.pdf)

Excerpt:

Ericsson's view has inspired a great deal of research, as well as popular books, such as Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else6 and The Talent Code: Greatness Isn't Born, It's Grown. Here's How.7 Here, however, we argue that Ericsson's view is inadequate as a theoretical account of expertise, both in terms of its ability to account for relevant findings and its specification of key concepts. More generally, we argue that the nature versus nurture debate in research on expertise is over—or certainly should be, as it has been for decades in other areas of research.8 We end by describing a multifactorial framework for research on expertise.</comment>