Colleges Consider 3-Year Degrees To Save Undergrads Time, Money - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/22/AR2009052203681.html

<comment><USER2> Am I the only person who actually wants a full and balanced education? I got enough advanced placement credit in high school to graduate with my CS degree in three years without any extra work, but I'm taking graduate courses and studying English instead. College isn't just vocational training, it's where you develop your interests and learn how to think. Honestly if all you want to do is learn how to hack well, you're better off not going to college at all.

I agree, at the end of the day Universities are businesses. But don't use that as an excuse to be lazy about your education. If you are proactive and motivated, you can get your money's worth out of your school.

The anti-college bias in the hacker community is really unfortunate, and ultimately it stems from a misunderstanding of what type of animal college actually is. I certainly agree that there are many talented people who do not need to go to or complete college. However there seems to be an assumption that it is the responsibly your college to stimulate your hacker ingenuity. Maybe that flew in your gifted classes in high school, but college is much more like the real world. In college it's your job to find your niche where you are intellectually simulated.

EDIT: And as for the complaining about general education requirements, you need to take a look at University of Chicago. They have the strictest general education requirements out of any college and it seems to work for them. On the other hand, if you really are against general education requirements, you should have picked your college better. A college like Amherst, for example, has zero graduation requirements (besides a raw number of hours). In any case, there is always a way to work the system. Find online courses that transfer and take them. Take a class at your local community college one night a week over the summer. And so on... At the very worst, accept the fact that your technical GPA probably needs padding anyway, and use GenEds to boost your GPA so you can get interviews.

<comment><USER3> _Am I the only person who actually wants a full and balanced education?_

There is more free thinking contained in one Hacker News thread then you'll find in most college academic departments. An institution is its selection process. And the selection process for a college is that of a priesthood ( which is not surprising, considering the ivy league colleges originated as seminaries). As one Swarthmore professor writes: "Graduate school is not about learning... Graduate school is not education. It is socialization. It is about learning to behave, about mastering a rhetorical and discursive etiquette as mind-blowingly arcane as table manners at a state dinner in 19th Century Western Europe." Paul Graham writes: "In order to get tenure in any field you must not arrive at conclusions that members of tenure committees can disagree with."

Recently I went to a forum about the education of history. The audience comprised professors from around the country. It was stunning just how uniform their views were. And I could actually watch their views become more synchronized real time. There was far, far less diversity of thought, and far less actual information, than is found in a stable of good blogs and discussions sites.

Hackers value a full and balanced education. But college does not provide that education. The university produces bad philosophy ( <http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html> ), bad poetry ( [http://unqualified- reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/tryfon-...](http://unqualified- reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/tryfon-tolides-almost-pure-empty- poetry.html) ), bad English <http://www.paulgraham.com/essay.html>, bad history ( [http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/10/how- daw...](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-dawkins-got- pwned-part-4.html) ), bad architecture ([http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2009/05/architecture_an_6...](http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2009/05/architecture_an_6.html) ), bad economics ( [http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/08/de- gust...](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/08/de-gustibus-non- computandum-or.html) ), and bad business ( <http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606/stewart-business/> ).

The university could be forgiven it it was just wrong. But it is not only wrong. It teaches you only its narrow interpretation of the subject, but tells you that it has taught you a full and balanced view. That is unforgivable.

<comment><USER4> > The university could be forgiven it it was just wrong. But it is not only > wrong. It teaches you only its narrow interpretation of the subject, but > tells you that it has taught you a full and balanced view. That is > unforgivable.

I don't know about that. Imagine if schools taught evolution, but then said, "well, this isn't a full and balanced view, but merely a narrow interpretation."

The point being, it's more important for educators to be correct than it is for them to be humble.

<comment><USER3> Excellent point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From the article: _Four-year degrees were designed in large part to provide a broad-based education that teaches young people to analyze and think critically, considered vital preparation to participate in the civic life of American democracy._

From the undergraduate CS adviser at a major university (Paraphrased, this was a coffee hour conversation): _I've actually never had a student come to me and tell me they wanted a broad education. Even very motivated students try to fill their gen-ed requirements with stuff they expect to be useful or easy._

There is a fundamental disconnect here. College employees want to sell one product but college students wish to buy another. College admins want to keep the money flowing.

I'd love it if new entrants take over the world here, but I don't see that happening. College is not a very competitive market.

<comment><USER6> college markets are kept uncompetitive by high barriers to entry. One is the chicken and egg problem of attracting decent professors. The other is huge subsidies to existing institutions that make the tuition costs of a start-up college uncompetitive.

<comment><USER5> What do you mean by "decent professors"? If you mean "quality teachers", then you'll have a very easy time of it. There is a huge oversupply of PhD's, and many are excellent teachers. You can get good teachers quite cheaply.

Accredition and reputation are the main barriers.

<comment><AUTHOR> _There is a huge oversupply of PhD's, and many are excellent teachers._

Agreeing with your first point that there are lots of Ph.D.s to go around to staff many colleges, how does one check your second point that a particular person is a good teacher? What is the best evidence for determining who is an effective teacher at the college level, and how is that evidence gathered at each college where Ph.D.s teach, and used at each college that has occasion to hire new faculty?

<comment><USER5> Disclaimer: most of what I'm about to say is second hand info. I'm a research postdoc, so teaching matters very little to me (all I need to do is show up). However, I know several people who did go through this process.

Current method: student evaluation. Treat it as a roughly equal mix of easiness, sympathy (1), clarity and charisma.

The best method would be to measure outcomes on standardized exams. However, in all cases I've seen, the teacher doesn't affect this very much. Very few places do this.

In practice, most teaching colleges hire mainly based on personal connections or random chance (whoever applied at the right time). So I didn't mean to imply that new entrants into the college market could do a _good_ job of hiring teachers. Basically, they can do just as good a job as anyone else.

(1) Fun fact: my teaching evaluations went down about 40% after I stopped acting sympathetic and started writing my own tests.

"Sorry the test is so hard, I didn't write it. I'll try to help you pass it and see what I can do about a curve." -> good evaluations.

"Stop whining, i'll curve it if it's too hard. And yes, I do expect you to understand the concepts rather than just do mindless calculations." -> bad evaluations.

I could probably try harder to game the system, but I don't really want an academic job anymore.

<comment><USER6> you could control the standardized tests for IQ, which would cancel out noise. The problem is that you now need to administer two tests, and the errors implicit in assigning raw numbers to such fuzzy concepts as teaching ability multiply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Examples of classes I should not have had to take:

\- Kinesiology (fancy term for "PE" and/or "Health"): they had their chance in high school. By college, most people know whether they're going to be "physical" or not. I had to take FOUR of these, each for only 1 hour of credit

\- "Multi cultural studies": politically correct indoctrination course. By my observation, usually had the reverse effect of what was intended

\- Political Science I & II: Just replace with a poli sci survey course. Interested students could take more as elective or major in it

\- Economics and Accounting: Both of these classes are incredibly theoretical, dry, and boring - unless you happen to like the subjects, in which case you're probably majoring or minoring in them. Replace with ONE course about how not to screw up your personal financial life, since they can't be bothered to teach that in high school

\- Physics I & II: I don't need two full semesters of physics. Again, just give me a survey course (that's all I'll remember anyway). The interested students can go on to learn more

\- History I & II: We know, there's a lot of history to cover, but a whirlwind course would probably hold students' attentions more than two whole semesters

Oh, and, for Computer Scientists:

\- The vast majority of people in computer science departments want to be programmers, NOT computer scientists. I recommend splitting this major into computer science and software engineering. Computer Science would be in the department of science and software engineering would be in the department of engineering. For software engineering students, I would collapse most of the computer science curriculum into one or two survey courses and use the rest of the time to teach solid, modern, software engineering concepts (configuration management, working in a team, requirements gathering, design patterns, methodologies, real-world programming, etc...)

<comment><AUTHOR> _Economics and Accounting: Both of these classes are incredibly theoretical, dry, and boring_

I'm surprised you encountered an economics course that wasn't interesting. I find economics endlessly fascinating, and have asked here on HN

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=415683>

for recommendations about things to read on economics.

<comment><USER3> Since it wasn't mentioned in the thread: Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard. By far the best economics book I have read.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One quite important factor that is easy to overlook is that a very significant number of people on the .eu side will not only do this 3-or-so-year bachelor's/licenciate/candidate degree, but also the additional 2-3 year master's degree. In many fields of study, Master's is the standard target, including the lower degree.

</comment><comment><USER9> Most Australian undergraduate degrees are 3 years, and more focused than the American style, without the "gen ed" requirements. You can take things like Medicine and Law directly as undergraduate degrees - there's no "pre-med" here. For most you can optionally take a further year to do honors, often research-focused.

Ironically, Melbourne University, one of the most prestigious Australian universties, has recently been moving to an American-style system with more generalist degrees at the undergrad level (eg there's no undergrad medicine there anymore).

<comment><USER10> The UM change just seemed like revenue raising to me. The whole funding model of universities in aus now means you get funded on the number degrees granted and bums in seats. It seems like a way to game the system by lowering the quality bar. So I remain unconvinced that this is a better approach. Taking 5 years to do the same overall content, 3 year generalist and then 2 year masters just seems too long (may be experience bias though). I always though the generalist was things you should just be doing on your own.

Bond university when it existed, allowed you to do law in 2-ish years I believe; no holidays and extremely small classes (< 15). Expensive though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> _The three-year degree is the common model at the University of Cambridge and Oxford University in England_

Not only that but pretty much _all_ British universities. I was surprised to learn that the US traditionally goes for four. Given the similarities of the final qualification, the extra year seems more like a money making opportunity than anything else, so I'd more expect the fourth year to appear in the UK than the US going to three ;-)

<comment><USER12> > a money-making opportunity more than anything else

My lawyer friends complained that it is impossible to get a degree in less than the standard three years because of the way certain pre-requisite classes are scheduled. The influence of the American Board Association. Why? They said it was all for profit, no other reason.

Which might say something about lawyering in the U.S. - if they're trying to profit off their own future lawyers.

<comment> barry-cotter Northwestern has a two year J.D. programme. I forget the details but they have inter semester stuff for credit hours. IIRC they're really keen on work experience before letting you in though. Adam Smith Esq. had a good write up on it some time ago. You can practice in NY and possibly some other states with a UK or Irish law degree (undergrad, 3 or 4 years, cheaper).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well in Germany & France, bachelor is already in 3 years, though most students do a master then. So the discussion is probably worth it. I have no strong opinion for 4 or 3 years personally

</comment><comment><USER14> Yeah, 3 years is better, cheaper, more effective. Then you can go back for a Masters when you need it. The extra year is not going to give you the extra kick. Only a Masters will do that. The Brits got it right.

Of course this will kill the whole private school 4 year franchises, that make you believe they can change you as a person (the Yale/ Harvard/... man). 3 years is too short of an incubation time to mess with you IMHO.

So much for dealing with the education priesthood.

</comment><comment><USER15> I come from a country where it is usual to offer 3 year degrees (NZ). It does come at a price of killing general ed requirements but I agree with this. Reasons:

(1) It destroys the separation of compulsory secondary school and voluntary tertiary school.

(2) Dumbs down core courses, as the general ed students flock to easy courses or convince lecturers to make the class easier.

</comment><comment><USER16> My degree (in the UK) was 3 years and I feel I had a great education. I had plenty of time to attend whatever other courses/lectures I wanted, and when I elected to continue study into a 4th year, I got an extra degree -- and got _paid_ to study -- that specialised me to the point I could start a PhD. (Though some in other CS fields went straight to PhD from the 3 years.)

</comment><comment><USER17> And cost the world an educated work force... Everyone I have spoken to, from computer science professors to employers are dismayed at the quality of computer science students and graduates. I don't see how this is going to make the problem better.

Idiocracy is on its way...

</comment><comment><USER18> So the answer is less education? There is already a two year program in the US. Problem solved. This is a bit much. You can already go to a diploma mill and save yourself the time. Why do in 2-3 years what can be done in a couple clicks and a laser printer?

This is just lazy. Also, the idea that "people want education that will make them money do they need to skip traditional education" seems even more ridiculous in a time when very few are studying technical fields. Also the argument that many students take classes just because they are easy is stupid and I think those proferring that argument were probably the very same students. Many students are interested in an education.

<comment><AUTHOR> _So the answer is less education?_

Does school attendance invariably result in "education"?

How might students gain what you and I could both agree is an education at less expense?

<comment><USER18> I'm not talking about time but unless you devise a learning pill or device such as used in the matrix, these things Still require time and course work. There are probably more tertiary expenses that could be trimmed before the actual education. Perhaps states could actually fund the education institutions.</comment></comment></comment>


Pandemic speeds largest test yet of universal basic income - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01993-3 <comment><USER2> So this isn't universal basic income, as it's means based, but this article keeps calling it that for some reason. I really don't understand how a temporary traditional welfare program can give us insight into what would happen if everyone was guaranteed a monthly income - even if the richest didn't have a net increase in income, for example, my behavior might be different if I had a guaranteed income of $1,000/month but paid an extra $12,000 in taxes at the end of the year (because I am high income) than if I didn't have that monthly check and paid $12,000 less in taxes at the end of the year.

Beyond that this is unprecedented times/circumstances so it's really difficult to make general conclusions about this "experiment."

<comment><USER3> >So this isn't universal basic income, as it's means based, but this article keeps calling it that for some reason.

Yeah, I received "relief income" from the government, i.e. my own tax dollars, even though I'm not unemployed, and am actually saving money by not having to commute.

If this is "universal income", I fail to see how creating a massive government bureaucracy to take my money and then give it straight back to me is beneficial to anyone except bureaucrat middlemen performing glorified ditch- digging jobs.

<comment><USER4> > creating a massive government bureaucracy

Huh? This whole program was put together and executed in a matter of days, and mostly via the bureaucracy of the IRS as I understand it.

The point of a UBI is in part that it is explicitly _not_ means tested to avoid "welfare trap" incentives, and it's tremendously cheap to implement relative to, say, food stamps or what's left of cash welfare in the US.

<comment><USER5> The reply is referring to a UBI program where the rich pay it back in taxes so it effectively becomes means tested.

<comment><USER6> That's not what "means-tested" means.

"Means-testing"—as in welfare programs—specifically refers to payouts that have cliffs, that create bad incentives like people choosing to _not_ get jobs because they'd lose access to the welfare payment, and end up with _less_ money than they get with no job.

Progressive taxation has no cliffs; there is never† a tax-related reason to refuse to take a higher-paying job. You'll always be able to keep _some_ of the additional pay. Thus, it's not "means-tested."

† Unless there's a 100% tax bracket. But I don't think there's any country that bothers with these, because of the clearly-wonky disincentives.

<comment><USER7> > there is never† a tax-related reason to refuse to take a higher-paying job

This is usually true but not always.

Where I live, if you as a self-employed contractor make revenue over the VAT threshold you must start charging VAT.

If the clients are VAT registered business, they won't mind, they can reclaim it. But if they are not VAT registered, or if they are regular people not businesses, your price will effectively increase by 20% for them.

To avoid losing business with the people who cannot reclaim the VAT, you may decide to lower the prices you charge to compensate.

That's a cliff. You can be better off turning down a higher-paying job (such as a 3 month contract) that would put you over the VAT threshold, if you are close to it and would have to lower prices to everyone else to compensate, depending on your line of business.

<comment><USER8> The commenter you're replying to is definitely talking about the US

<comment><USER7> I think they were talking about progressive taxation anywhere, however just to compete the point:

In the US, sales tax is a bit like VAT in the EU.

As with VAT, there's a registration threshold, and if you reach it you may need to lower your prices to end customers.

The sales tax registration threshold rules are called "nexus", and are a lot more complicated than VAT!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As I understand it, the basic income idea is based on that realistically almost everyone at some point uses government aid or finances (directly or indirectly). basic income is just making sure that when you need to make use of that aid, you don't have to jump through hoops, requirements and paperwork.

By giving everyone enough to live and not starve, you can do that. Without needing bureaucracy. It goes together with other great ideas like a minimum livable wage[0], pensions, public education and public healthcare.

If we are the rich west, why can't we just take care of everyone? we'll still be plenty productive. And if you want more go work, go study, go for competitive jobs.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage)

<comment><USER10> It is a very complicated issue. I'm all for needs based aid from the government without all the bureaucracy. It would even allow us to help more people on the fringe.

However, one thing that no one ever talks about or thinks through is that a _lot_ of that "waste" is someone else's job and pension. If you cut 90% of the staff at all welfare and other programs offices, those people need other jobs or have to go on the same programs. Additionally, it is the universal part of UBI that people struggle with. If everyone gets it, do prices just rise to meet that reality and soak up the "free" money. We'll need regulations (and people to enforce them) to make sure housing prices stay reasonable for lower income people. This is why government housing exists today, the cost can be locked. All said, I think UBI doesn't work because it can't be universal, but we should be helping more people and the well off can afford to pay 1% more of their largess to do so.

<comment><USER11> > Additionally, it is the universal part of UBI that people struggle with. If > everyone gets it, do prices just rise to meet that reality and soak up the > "free" money.

Think about this another way: if it is true that the prices are going to rise because of UBI, i.e. because everyone can afford the "basics"(the B of UBI), then it means that the lower prices of today require that some people do without these basics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The one question about UBI I haven't seen a satisfactory answer for is what's stopping landlords from raising rents to match the UBI? If everyone suddenly has an extra $1000/month, what's stopping my landlord (together with every other landlord in my city) from raising my rent next year by $1000/month? It's very plausible this would not show up in small scale pilots where only a small percent of a population received income, but would show up at scale when everyone does.

Unless UBI comes with a massive overhaul of zoning restrictions and a shift of the housing supply, I don't see how this doesn't end up as an indirect way of increasing income inequality by routing the UBI from poorer tenants to wealthier landlords.

<comment><USER13> What's stopping anyone, anywhere from raising their prices by some arbitrary amount? There are lots of examples of inelastic goods that most people would continue to buy if the prices went up. Why aren't the prices on those things higher? Generally the answer is competition, and there is still competition among landlords even if everyone suddenly has more disposable income.

<comment><USER14> Competition is one half of the equation here, the other half is the price threshold of renters...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The problem is that governments don't seem to be doing the other half of universal basic income

1) Realistically, you're going to have to raise taxes to fund it, not just deepen deficits

2) You're going to have to cut many social programs as well that overlap with basic income. For some people this isn't really a good trade-off. I saw one blog-post proposing a long list of social programs such as disability support and wheelchair funds, and a local activist parent of a severely disabled child pointed out that this would devastate his family financially.

I get the appeal of an anti-bureaucratic one-size fits all solution to the social safety net, but I'm skeptical.

<comment><USER16> It may not actually be absolutely necessary to cut taxes. Under the (dubiously named) Modern Monetary Theory, you can just print the money. That causes inflation, but that's not necessarily the worst thing in the world. It encourages people to spend money rather than hoard it.

No, you don't need to worry about hyperinflation, the big bugaboo of Chicago/Austrian economists. Hyperinflation is associated with economic collapses like wars or industry failures, where suddenly goods are in short supply. What you get out of this is ordinary inflation, not hyperinflation. If you print 1% of your economy in new money, then you get 1% inflation. Hyperinflation is a different problem.

Ordinary inflation can be dealt with in a number of ways. Taxes are one of them: you don't pay down the debt but just burn the money. You don't need a separate account book for government debt: outstanding currency _is_ government debt.

Not all economists buy this theory. It's not mainstream, but neither is it exactly fringe. I bring it up only because the notion of a separate government account book that has to be balanced is worth reconsidering. Ditch it, and there are tradeoffs that might be worth it -- including simplifying how you handle basic income.

<comment><USER17> It's pretty fringe; virtually all economists either Disagree or Strongly Disagree with the theory[1]. When weighted by confidence, 72% of economists strongly disagree.

Also, this works both ways — if we can MMT unlimited money to fund spending, why pay taxes at all? We should, in theory, be able to cut taxes to 0 (or as close to 0 limited by real scarcity) and MMT the entire budget.

[1] [http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/modern-monetary- theory/](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/modern-monetary-theory/)

<comment><USER18> If you lower taxes to 0 then there will be no demand for your money because people will start using other currencies as a medium of exchange.

<comment><USER17> Forget about cutting taxes, MMT holds that we can in theory institute a regressive UBI program that gives cash to people == to their effective income tax (thereby zeroing it out). The only limit, per MMT, is real resource scarcity.

Now skip the extra step, and have bondholders just get paid back directly by the money printer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think it's disingenuous to call this a "test". How do you control for the pandemic? Surely, spending habits and measures of "livelihood" are affected by COVID-19. How UBI works or doesn't work during a global crisis isn't really indicative of how it might work out under normal circumstances, right?

<comment><USER20> It's not true UBI either, it's a "guaranteed minimum income" of about the equivalent of $1000 for households, $500 for individuals, specifically for the "poorest".

Personally I favor a UBI but I think it needs an intellectual basis, i.e. I am not for "stealing from the rich". Perhaps part of this intellectual basis could consist of an appreciation that natural resources are not distributed equally.

<comment><USER21> Wealth is not distributed equally either, those with a lot of resources find it much easier to maintain and gain wealth. Wealth provides a shield against consequences and accidents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The minimal financial support to the most unfortunate during the quarantine (3 months) has cost my country half of its usual _annual_ budget. I don't see how that shows UBI in a positive light.

<comment><USER23> Well it went to basically everyone (in many countries, obviously don't know yours) and was rushed out the door with no sustainability in mind. I'm sure it can be retooled and refined. You can't toss it out completely already.

<comment><USER22> In Czechia it went only to those severely affected by Covid and was one time payment around a quarter less than monthly average wage. Only selected firms have received some, also very small support.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> UBI would never work. It ignores basics of how humans operate. We have it in some sense in France. The problems it tries to address are only amplified after UBI.

<comment><USER21> Do you mean RSA[1]? My french is quite bad, but as I understand it, the RSA is tied closely to employment and has complicated work obligation and subsidizes employers for keeping employees at low hours. RSA appears to be extensively means tested as well (which UBI is not supposed to be).

[1] [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarité_activ](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarité_activ)

<comment><USER24> There are numerous independent social programs in France. RSA is one. People could receive input from up to 3-4 social programs.

Consider CDI contracts at universities. It has become a sort of UBI. People show up once every few weeks. Never publish papers; never teach properly; never go to any conference; etc. Totally detached from academic life. And they can't be fired. You know what they do with the UBI?

\-- Become members of unions. Unions were supposed to protect workers in 80s. Now the least productive members of the institutions join unions to protect themselves. They kill reform policies and maintain status quo.

\-- Work is associated dignity. You can't have two classes: workers and suckers. So UBI recipients, holding into administrative roles and unable to do meaningful work, try to fail non-UBI takers.

\-- Fail those who actually do their jobs. Otherwise, the gap is going to be problematic.

At the end of the day, UBI would only shift the baseline. The same problems it tries to address exist after the administration of UBI.

You would be surprised if I go over details. America's left does not understand what it's getting into. France's system has really been an eye opening experience for me. I highly recommend people spending time in Europe.

<comment><USER25> That sounds more like a jobs guarantee than a UBI. Many UBI proponents are against a jobs guarantee for fear of these kinds of outcomes.

UBI is untethered to any conditions on people. So there are no bad incentives created by the system (no good ones created either, of course) nor is anyone part of some group that they try to homogenize into something unproductive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I really like the idea of scaling basic-income through a series of stages, starting with negative income tax ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax)) and moving to more encompassing strategies like guaranteed income or a social dividend as automation makes up a larger portion of economic output.

Negative income tax has a couple advantages, namely:

* It benefits those who actually need the help the most * Shortfall checks will come from tax agencies. People who need real help can save their dignity, they're just getting a tax refund.

</comment><comment><USER27> "The US economist Milton Friedman proposed an idea related to UBI called a negative income tax in 1962, in which those earning under a certain amount would receive supplemental funds from the government rather than paying tax."

The whole point of UBI is that it's universal. What Friedman is describing is essentially a social safety net, i.e., one that only those below a certain level of income receive.

"'If you can only qualify if your income is below this threshold, it creates a very strong disincentive for anybody to earn above that threshold because they would be losing their benefits," she says. 'We call it a poverty trap.'"

Yes, and that's a major reason why poor Americans, perhaps especially the black community, is stuck in the poverty trap. Marriage rates among blacks were higher than rates among whites in the 1940s and we know that children with a father in the home tend to grow up to be better adjusted and less likely to engage in crime or remain/land in poverty. Twenty years later, government programs coupled with the social upheaval of the sexual revolution destroyed the black family. Now three quarters of black children are born out of wedlock (we see something similar among poor whites, but poverty afflicts blacks more than whites). Poor black women are discouraged from marrying because doing so could or would cause them to lose whatever benefits they receive.

<comment><USER28> The NIT ends up acting similarly to UBI + increased taxes, but it has to be phased out perfectly linearly to remove these incentive gaps.

UBI seems more simple to administer and being universal would likely make it more resilient to cuts (as we know from other universal services).

<comment><USER29> A negative income tax is not phased out at all.

You are probably familiar with income tax brackets. So for example in the US, your first $0 – $9,525 of income per year are taxed at 10%, the next $9,526 – $38,700 are taxed at 12%. And so on.

That applies to billionaires just as much as it applies to dishwashers. The low brackets never get phased out. The billionaire just has most of her income fall into the higher taxed brackets. So her average tax rate is higher than the dishwasher's tax rate, but their first dollars are taxed exactly the same.

A (refundable) negative income tax is just another somewhat special tax bracket placed in front of the normal progression. It never gets phased out. It just nets out at higher incomes.

And because nothing is ever simple in taxes, here's a weird real life example to the contrary:

The British have a weird system where they DO phase out their lowest tax bracket, called the 'Personal Allowance' at higher income. I don't know why they do that, instead of just raising the marginal rates.

> On 22 April 2009, the then Chancellor Alistair Darling announced in the 2009 > Budget statement that starting in April 2010, those with annual incomes over > £100,000 would see their Personal allowance reduced by £1 for every £2 > earned over £100,000, until the Personal allowance was reduced to zero, > which (in 2010-11) would occur at an income of £112,950. This had the effect > of creating an anomalous effective 60% marginal tax rate in the income band > between £100,000 and £112,950, with the marginal tax rate returning to 40% > above £112,950. As the Personal allowance has grown over the years, this has > resulted in a corresponding increase in the size of the effective marginal > 60% tax band. As of 2019-20, the effective 60% marginal tax rate now arises > for incomes between £100,000 and £125,000.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_allowance#Personal_al...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_allowance#Personal_allowance_tapering)

<comment><USER28> Apologies, I think I'm describing something more like the EITC which is phased out. I remember reading something by Mankiew briefly describing their equivalence.

[http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2016/07/a-quick-note-on- unive...](http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2016/07/a-quick-note-on-univeral- basic-income.html)

<comment><USER29> No worries.

For something like an income tax, you can basically always describe any phase- ins and phase-outs equivalently in terms of marginal rates on different brackets without any phase-ins or outs. No matter whether you talk about EITC or negative income taxes.

Even the British example I cited can be re-contextualised as just a 60% marginal rate for people with around 120k GBP of income, that then slides down again to a 45% marginal rate at a higher income. (Or something like that. You do the arithmetic.) Even though the law as written is formulated in terms of a phase-out.

The blog post you linked talks about exactly that reframing.

Many economists find it useful to talk in terms of the marginal rates instead of phase-in and phase-out. Mostly because the former lends itself more to a net perspective over all taxes and welfare programs.

When those net marginal rates approach 100% or even go over for some people, you can immediately see that earning an extra dollar from work would make people worse off after taxes.

That's less obvious in the other formulation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "monthly payments ... to the nation's _poorest families_ ... the largest test yet of an idea called _universal_ basic income"

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

<comment><USER31> My understanding is that most proposals for UBI would be funded by raising taxes making it a net-positive income increase only for the "poorest" families (the bottom X% of tax payers, for some X). So the only difference here seems to be a lower-than-desired X, which would be a reasonable test.

<comment><USER29> Yes. Not just most proposals, but all:

Unless you get foreigners to pay for your UBI programme, it's always going to be funded by raising taxes, shifting existence welfare around, or something equivalent.

But a big part of some people's understanding of UBI is that you want to move all means testing into the tax system, and out of the welfare system.

The tax people already keep track of how much money everyone makes. So we don't need to duplicate that bureaucracy.

<comment><USER31> I added "most" specifically because one of the other threads in the comments here is about _not_ funding it through taxes (instead, through printing money).

<comment><USER29> Well, that's just taxing people through inflation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> My biggest observation is the large scale social impact of people not needing to work. In the US many people got unemployment benefits and were unable to work. We also had nationwide protests by both liberals and conservatives for various causes. Some looting in there, aggressive police response and crazy people waving guns.

It seems to me that given UBI people will spend their time championing their causes at the expense of those who are working (blocking areas with protests is just that). Seems a very unstable dynamic as I'd imagine both conservatives and liberals would escalate until mass violence breaks out.

</comment><comment><USER33> Why bother testing it? We all know where this is going. UBI is going to happen, whether the tests are successful or not, and it's not going to look anything like the UBI we were promised; instead of repealing social safety net programs in favor of one payment, it's going to be just another program on top of the pile.

</comment><comment><USER34> I really wish somewhere would run an actual trial on this. We've had dozens of sub-trials (not universal, not instead of other benefits, not very long or cancelled before end date etc). Then we would KNOW. Until then, everything is just speculation.

</comment><comment><USER35> We already have a widespread incomplete test of basic income. It's called "a state pension".

<comment><USER36> Which is also unsustainable in the current form because it is a ponzi scheme that works only when each next generation has more children than the previous one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Has UBI ever worked? What does success look like with a UBI program?

<comment><USER38> To me success looks like canceling the mountain of other welfare programs and removing vast inefficiencies of bureaucracy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> As usual there seems to be nothing "universal" about these.

</comment><comment><USER40> Universal basic income requires elimination of food stamps, rent subsidies, welfare, unemployment, etc....

None of these places are doing that.

The entire argument is that you can get rid of administration and people can spend money on what they need.

That said, after seeing how many people listen to Dave Ramsey's Snowball method + anti vaxxers, I'm personally convinced UBI will not work. The people that need it the most cannot make rational decisions.

<comment><USER41> I think part of the goal too is to remove the stigma associated with those programs. I know some people look down on those who use food stamps, or suspect that people use food stamps to buy lobster and filet mignon, or barter their food stamp purchases for things that you can't buy with food stamps.

With UBI, everybody's using cash.

<comment><USER42> "...or suspect that people use food stamps to buy lobster and filet mignon, or barter their food stamp purchases for things that you can't buy with food stamps."

Rare, but it happens. The people who think this is more than a rare occurrence are not well educated on the needs of the poor.

<comment><USER43> Having grown up with and around welfare recipients, back when it was not an EBT card but paper bills, it was exceptionally common to see it traded at a loss for real money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Even though he was talking about minimum wage, Walter Williams line is apropos: "People think minimum wage is an anti-poverty measure, but this doesn't pass the smell test. If it did, our state department could stop all foreign aid, they could instead say to all those countries, if you want to be as rich as us, simply set a minimum wage for all your workers!"

Edit: He repeated this line in a documentary about him: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZGvQcxoAPg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZGvQcxoAPg)

<comment><USER45> I'm confused, how does that show minimum wage is not an anti-poverty measure? Doesn't that just indicate it's an anti-poverty measure for wealthier nation's?

<comment><USER44> I suppose it's not an ironclad refutation of the idea, but I think it does suggest minimum wage isn't the magic bullet one might hope. If it doesn't work for a poor country, you had better be able to explain very convincingly why it will work for a rich one, and not turn it into a poor one instead. And also explain, why the techniques used to go from a poor country to a rich one... must then be abandoned at some point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> People that champion UBI don't understand market incentives. It won't work without price controls, and we know that price controls don't work.

Let's go crazy though, and say price controls will work. How universal is universal? Is it $600 for every person alive, including children? How is that going to incentivize people's behavior? If it's not for children, how is that going to incentivize people's behavior?

Are you expected to pay housing costs out of this amount, or is that granted separately? Would a family of 5 splitting a single family residence be building wealth faster than a someone living in an apartment?

If you want to wreck the economy, UBI is the best way to do it.

<comment><USER28> The answers to those questions vary by UBI proposal. Here's a proposal from a conservative economist who might understand market incentives and how the existing welfare programs completely distort them: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for- every-a...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every- american-1464969586)

<comment><USER46> If you support UBI or welfare, then by definition, you do not qualify as a 'conservative economist.'

<comment><USER28> Well, feel free to edit his wikipedia page to correct this terrible misunderstanding...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Anyone here start a startup after failing to get a job?  How is it? - <AUTHOR>

I've tried to be hired.  No interviews let alone offers.  I'm thinking it's time to move on.  Too many recruiters saying they can find someone better.  Too many hiring managers rejecting my resume after first sight.
I'm tired of jumping through hoops for just the sake of jumping through hoops.  I just want to make something cool.
Of course, I'm in the doldrums, but I'd rather work harder on something I care about than just sit here and wallow in pain and negativity.  I still want to stay in tech.
So for those of you who were forced to start a startup because nobody else wanted you, how did it work out for you?  What did you have to do to make it work?  How did you deal with the negative emotions?
Thank You <comment><USER2> I haven't been in that exact position, but I've certainly started a startup instead of looking for work. In general, it's really really stressful. You're pulled in two directions: wanting to save money, and wanting to spend it.

On one hand, starting a company takes money. Lots of it. And some of those expenses just can't be avoided. On the other hand if you're living off a nest- egg all you want to do is save as much money as you can every month. I ended up getting stuck in a "I MUST release this product and get paying customers this week or I'm screwed" situation, and that's just not a good place to put yourself in.

In the end, I ended up taking on part-time work to pay the bills and subsidize the costs of my startup...and my stress level went way down. If you're in a situation where nobody wants to hire you, I'd say just keep lowering your bar until you get a bite. Just get _any_ job. Once you land one, you can keep on looking passively, and upgrade to a new job as soon as you land it.

<comment><USER3> Starting a company does not have to take much money. One of the wealthiest men I have ever met co-founded what is now "The Nation's Largest Sperm Bank" with a $2,500.00 investment, mostly to buy medical and lab equipment, like liquid nitrogen dewars.

If you can't start your company with the money you've got, you're doing something wrong.

Sure it costs millions of dollars to start certain kinds of companies.

Start some other kind of company, is what I'm saying.

<comment><USER2> Lol. I totally agree with you, I think we just have a different definition of "lots of money". To me (at least at that time) $2,500 was more money than I had ever seen or had in my bank account.

<comment><USER3> There are ways to start companies with quite a lot less than $2,500.00.

Consider that Bank of America was at first San Francisco's Bank of Italy. A fishmonger of Italian heritage - I don't recall if he was an actual immigrant - would use what cash he could spare to lend very small amounts of money, in return for interest.

Among my own more-significant expenses are technical books, however I _could_ borrow them from colleagues, sometimes I can find them at the library. I prefer to purchase them when I can, but in principle I don't really have to pay, I could borrow the books.

Consider: would you lend me forty bucks to buy a book, or would you lend me a book?

Most people are reluctant to lend money, even to close friends or family, but have no problem lending things like books.

Web hosting is quite cheap. In my own case, I get it for free because I helped out the founder of the hosting company with his marketing when he was just starting out.

To start an online business, you don't need a whole lot more than a cheap webhost, a cheap computer, and a few books - but you do need quite a lot of labor.

<comment><USER2> I agree with this as well. But, let's take the fishmonger for example: He didn't quit his fishmonger job, and try to live off the interest from the money did he?

I believe you can absolutely start a company for cheap (you can definitely work a low-wage job and afford a startup). But that is very different from trying to live off your savings _and_ start a company at the same time. Sure, you might get lucky and have instant-revenue that can support you, but I think you (and the business) will have a better chance of success if you're not trying to live off the profits (and can reinvest them in the company).

<comment><USER3> I understand that one-half of United States businesses fail within the first five years. I expect far more than that fail, if they are high-tech startups.

Consider that I read just a few days ago, that - overall - venture capital earns 5% less than the S&P 500. However, some VCs make out like bandits, it's just that there are lots of clueless VCs.

So if you start any kind of business, you really don't want to quit your day job, until that business is profitable, or if you do quit your day job, you want to have lots of cash in the bank.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A couple of years back I faced a similar situation. I was fresh out of college had no "experience" and apparently my college wasn't among the ones recruiters look out for. I tried to get my resume in through the door but rarely manged to succeed and when I did the offers were so bad that I thought it best to not take up the job.

To get by I started freelancing. Odesk is a pretty good place to work if you are starting out. The people there gladly trade inexperience for a tiny amount of salary(work!) and it can be a start. What I learnt though that it is more or less pointless to market yourself to the technology people (but if they do come to you on their own it is worth it to discuss the opportunity since you have a slightly upper hand in negotiations). Rather it is more profitable to market to people who _use_ that technology.

So for instance suppose you work on your programming skills and learn how to build a CMS. This feat will be "meh" for technology people. They do this stuff day in and day out and see no value in it(maybe they will even criticize you for using jquery). But if you can learn to sell this CMS to say a local travelling agency who is still marketing their services through blogger, by showing them how much more they can accomplish if they used a better tool, then you are on to something. A single sale can transform into managing the server for them which can be quite a good source for recurring income.

Another thing that I learnt is that it is very valuable to have a domain expertise (besides programming). Taking the above example if you learn how the travelling agency conducts it's business you will no doubt find ways to generate income from this knowledge. Maybe you will design a CRM for a them or maybe you will create a tool that makes it easier for them to find new leads or send invoices or whatever.... you will learn to look out for things that can be done better with a program and that is where the real money is. That's what these companies do after all don't they?

Unless you have a debt, or a family to look out for, may be you are better off without a job (or maybe not). Regardless of this take time to learn how to market yourself and the stuff that you build. Oh and how to deal with negativity I don't know what will work for you but I pick up a PG Wodehouse book and laugh till my stomach hurts :)

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't make it obvious that you're starting a startup, if you're trying to fund it by getting a job.

My most recent position on my resume is "Chief Executive Officer, Dulcinea Technologies Corporation", where I specifically say I'm funding my own product development by consulting for other companies.

It only recently occurred to me that that's losing me clients.

However, I've left it on my resume. I regard it as a Bozo Filter.

</comment><comment><USER5> Do you have an idea you want to pursue? If so, go for it. It might work, and if it doesn't you'll at least have something (a cool thing you made) to show for it.

But definitely don't "start a startup" for its own sake. That sounds like a guaranteed path to failure. To succeed on your own you'll need to have some deeper motivation than just not wanting to apply to jobs anymore.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've always found that when I'm working on side-projects or a business, job offers come to me much more easily.</comment>


Ask HN:  Favorite VPS  - <AUTHOR>

I loved Slicehost and have had them a long time.  Wondering if I should stick with Rackspace or move on to a new host.  Please vote up your favorite VPS host based on :  low cost, very flexible, allow you complete control of system, development environment that could easily become production if an idea takes off.  I'll add the first few I found in the slicehost thread. <comment><USER2> Polls are reserved for a karma level your account has not reached yet. Doing this as comments is nearly worthless now that point totals for comments are hidden.

<comment><AUTHOR> Apologies -- had forgot about the hidden points, then hoped the sorting would take care of it. Wish I had the karma for the poll because I was genuinely curious. For those who want to know, at this point at least, Linode - 2, Pgrmr and ARP-1, Rackspace-0

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Linode

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Prgmr.com

<comment><USER3> I know that they boast absolutely no support, but is their IRC channel helpful at all? Or do they have a user mailing list?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Arp

<comment><USER4> F0-4D-A2-45-B9-A0

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Rackspace</comment>


HN RFS: Prove Paul Buchheit Wrong About Chrome - <AUTHOR> http://www.cloudwand.com/rfs I was reading the heated comment threads yesterday about Chrome and it occurred to me that what we really needed was an RFS. It would be great if others want to run with their own RFS ideas, but this is definitely is not meant to mock YC or HN or be disrespectful in the slightest. </disclaimer> <comment><AUTHOR> <http://www.cloudwand.com/rfs>

I was reading the heated comment threads yesterday about Chrome and it occurred to me that what we really needed was an RFS. It would be great if others want to run with their own RFS ideas, but this is definitely is not meant to mock YC or HN or be disrespectful in the slightest. </disclaimer>

It seems that just in the last few weeks, I've heard about a lot more startups basing their business (or at least their MVP) on Chrome apps/extensions. Is it just the apophenia, or is this indeed starting to appeal to the founders out there?</comment>


WebBundles are built for content-addressable networks - <AUTHOR> https://adlrocha.substack.com/p/adlrocha-webbundles-are-built-for <comment><USER2> The Brave post was discussed here extensively a few days ago, with several people (including me) pointing out how the author misunderstands what can be done today and what bundles make easier: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24274968](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24274968)

Afterwards I wrote up a response, explaining how bundles don't facilitate adblocker circumvention: [https://www.jefftk.com/p/webbundles-and-url- randomization](https://www.jefftk.com/p/webbundles-and-url-randomization)

(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google)

<comment><USER3> There is a very simple way in which WebBundles will be used to bypass ad blockers:

The tool to create WebBundles will, in all likelihood, be created and maintained by Google. Google will program this tool to detect script tags with a src of ads.google.com/js/adscript.js and replace them with a local copy of the ad script embedded in the bundle. (They may do this by calling the feature something like "embed common third party resources" and also use it for files like jQuery and Google Fonts.) Then, adblockers will be unable to block the ad script, because it appears with a different path in each bundle.

In other words, you're right that randomizing URLs to evade ad-blockers requires server-side coordination. Conveniently, though, adopting WebBundles _also_ requires server-side coordination, with the same company that stands to benefit from ad-blocker evasion.

<comment><USER2> I don't think what you're describing is at all likely, but let's accept the scenario for the sake of argument. The bundle ends up including the advertising JS, ok. This is the JS that inspects the environment on the page and sends the ad request. Then the ad blocker can just block the ad request.

<comment><USER3> I'm curious which part you think is unlikely: that Google will make a tool to create WebBundles (what, are they just going to sit on their hands and wait for someone else to write one?), that that tool will include well-known third- party resources in the bundle as a performance optimization (reduce the number of connections needed to load your bundle! browsers no longer cache resources across origins!), or that the Google Ads script is such a third-party resource?

The difference between blocking an ad script by URL and blocking a request sent by an embedded ad script is that the script can include arbitrarily complex logic to generate the URL to request. I would not be surprised at all if that logic starts getting more and more complex and hard to analyze -- perhaps under the guise of "reducing ad fraud" \-- and starts generating URLs that can't easily by blocked by Manifest v3 ad-blockers without breaking non- ad functionality.

<comment><USER2> _> that Google will make a tool to create WebBundles_

The tool exists: [https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/tree/master/go/bundle](https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/tree/master/go/bundle)

 _> that tool will include well-known third-party resources in the bundle as a performance optimization_

The tool doesn't do that. You tell gen-bundle what you want included and it builds the bundle.

You could imagine someone writing a easier to use tool that inspects your website and packages up everything it needs to make your website run, but including third-party resources that are cache-control:private (as Google ads scripts are) wouldn't work! For example, many third parties use user-agent sniffing to serve JS optimized for that particular browser.

 _> the Google Ads script is such a third-party resource?_

Imagining for the moment there was a tool like this and a way for scripts to indicate whether they should be includable, I don't think Google Ads scripts would be likely to opt in for the same reasons that Google Ads discourages publishers from rehosting these scripts today.

 _> I would not be surprised at all if that logic starts getting more and more complex and hard to analyze._

As long as third-party cookies are still a thing, ad requests are still going to go to well known domains, because otherwise they won't get the cookie.

I see the next step in the ad blocking arms race as sites CNAMEing over to an ad network which reverse proxies their site. The network is then in a position to rewrite anything they want as inscrutably as they choose. This is a service you can buy (from others) today. I really hope this doesn't become widespread: even though the particular ad network I work for would likely do very well if the world went this way, it would even further promote centralization in the industry.

<comment><USER3> > [...] including third-party resources that are cache-control:private (as > Google ads scripts are) wouldn't work! For example, many third parties use > user-agent sniffing to serve JS optimized for that particular browser.

This is relatively easy to work around: only embed resources that are included with SRI or match a whitelist of commonly-used third-party resources that don't do this.

And yes, Google Ads would either need to change its stance on rehosting or write a "wrapper" that uses the arbitrarily-complex JavaScript to generate the path from which to download the _real_ ad script. Both of these seem like things they could plausibly do.

> As long as third-party cookies are still a thing, ad requests are still > going to go to well known domains, because otherwise they won't get the > cookie.

Google owns several well-known domains, such as "google.com", that ad-blockers can't just blanket deny access to because that would break non-advertising functionality.

> I see the next step in the ad blocking arms race as sites CNAMEing over to > an ad network which reverse proxies their site.

This could work too (Google's currently developing their own version of this, which I think they call the "AMP cache"), but you're right about the drawbacks and it makes sense for them to be trying multiple approaches to see what sticks. After all, ad blockers are an existential threat to their primary revenue source!

<comment><USER2> _> only embed resources that are included with SRI or match a whitelist of commonly-used third-party resources that don't do this_

Essentially zero SAAS third-party resources are set up to be included with SRI, because (as you might expect) none of these third parties want to commit to serving one version indefinitely.

 _> ad-blockers can't just blanket deny access to because that would break non-advertising functionality_

Good point! I wasn't thinking about how that played out with Google (since display ads today are served from a doubleclick domain). Pretty much anyone running an ad blocker is also going to be blocking third-party cookies, though, so routing the ad request via a proxy on the publisher domain would work even better.

 _> Google's currently developing their own version of this, which I think they call the "AMP cache"_

AMP doesn't contain anti-adblocking, and an anti-adblocking-via-inscrutable-js approach would be incompatible with AMP's policy of requiring that all AMP code, including extensions, be open source. For example, this is the code that requests AdSense ads and renders the responses: [https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/extensions...](https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/extensions/amp- ad-network-adsense-impl/0.1/amp-ad-network-adsense-impl.js)

<comment><USER3> > Essentially zero SAAS third-party resources are set up to be included with > SRI

Right, but jQuery often is, which lets you sell people on the feature by saying it's for jQuery. The whitelist is just in case people forgot the SRI on their jQuery, and hey, why not throw a couple other trustworthy scripts on there while we're at it?

> AMP doesn't contain anti-adblocking, and an anti-adblocking-via-inscrutable- > js approach would be incompatible with AMP's policy of requiring that all > AMP code, including extensions, be open source.

Again, "Google currently has internal policies forbidding it" isn't a good argument that Google won't do something, especially when they are working on setting up systems that give them the ability to do that thing. Google used to have a policy saying that ads could never go in the same column as search results, but ad revenue turned out to be important to Google, so they changed that policy.

(In AMP's specific case, you might not even need inscrutable JS since pages are served from google.com and thus already include the tracking cookies. Just swap in the personalized ads server-side.)

<comment><USER2> _> Right, but jQuery often is, which lets you sell people on the feature by saying it's for jQuery. The whitelist is just in case people forgot the SRI on their jQuery_

There's a huge difference between libraries (versioned, can use SRI, open source, don't have canonical URLs) vs services (none of those, change a lot, JS you reference on your page is generally only the first link in a long chain of JS). When I worked on mod_pagespeed (disclosure: at the time a Google project) we had the "Canonicalize JavaScript Libraries" feature ([https://www.modpagespeed.com/doc/filter-canonicalize- js](https://www.modpagespeed.com/doc/filter-canonicalize-js)) which similarly only operated on libraries.

 _> why not throw a couple other trustworthy scripts on there while we're at it?_

I'm still confused how you're imagining this working. The bundler inspects the site (really hard!) and packages up the resources? If you're doing that, "trustworthy" isn't a thing the bundler would decide: the site owner has indicated their trust by referencing the JS in their page source (directly or indirectly).

 _> "Google currently has internal policies forbidding it"_

While Google started the AMP project and is its largest contributor, it's now an external project at the OpenJS foundation: [https://openjsf.org/blog/2019/10/10/openjs-foundation- welcom...](https://openjsf.org/blog/2019/10/10/openjs-foundation-welcomes-amp- project-to-help-improve-user-experience-on-the-web/) Modifying AMP policies to allow ad networks to run non-open source JS at the top level where it can't easily be blocked would be completely politically impractical.

 _> In AMP's specific case, you might not even need inscrutable JS since pages are served from google.com and thus already include the tracking cookies_

As sites adopt SXG this wouldn't work. From the browser's perspective a site that is served from site A and signed for site B is not connected to site A, and site A's cookies won't be included on the request.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Brave concerns about WebBundles are legit in a location-based addressing > Internet, _but all of them would immediately be removed the moment we switch > from a location-based addressing to a content-based addressing approach for > the Internet._

I failed to find any good case being made for why content-addressable content would be any less likely to try to perform malicious actions than URL- addressed content. Is this just utopian wishful thinking or did I miss something?

<comment><USER5> Brave's concerns aren't legit though. WebBundles don't change the request/response system or origin model of the web. They really don't change URLs or blocker abilities at all. Brave is ascribing them either powers they don't have, or that you can already do with plain servers.

<comment><USER6> What's the origin for addressable content?

<comment><USER7> Whatever Signed HTTP Exchange it can successfully claim. The whole point of this work is to separate origin from where you managed to download the bytes from.

Imagine CDNs that cannot forge content for your site.

<comment><USER6> Okay, so for single source content I can either derive or assert an origin. Composition, not so much...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't really get what the advantage is for making an big atomic blob as the resource vs independently updateable pieces as h2 streams / etags / client cacheable.

It's just PUSH gone crazy?

<comment><USER9> I think one of the reason larger companies like them is because they may end ad blockers once and for all.

You can read a discussion about some of the issues that it causes here - [https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/issues/551](https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/issues/551) Of course, the Brave browser also have some concerns about it - [https://brave.com/webbundles-harmful-to-content-blocking- sec...](https://brave.com/webbundles-harmful-to-content-blocking-security- tools-and-the-open-web/)

<comment><USER10> Widely disputed.

If this really did prevent ad blocking no one would expect it to ship. Inside the bundle are the same resources as without a bundle.

<comment><USER5> Same resources with the same URLs, access with the same request/response pipeline that's just as visible to blockers. If you can change URLs in the bundle, you can change them outside the bundle.

UAs are also completely free to request a resource from the URL rather than the bundle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> WebBundles seem like they would be a useful format for distributing PWAs - like a web standard alternative to Android's APK files.

</comment><comment><USER12> Isnt that already possible with mhtml?

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHTML](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHTML)

<comment><USER13> Mhtml tends to not have JavaScript run with it because there is no origin attached to it. That's one of the benefits of web bundles, they can run with an origin attached so they have access to the correct storage and other sandboxing primitives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The repo [1] appears silent for a few months. Is this being actively developed inside the google org, or is this just an experiment left abandon?

[1]: [https://github.com/google/webbundle](https://github.com/google/webbundle)

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm wondering if IPFS or other content-addressable networks handle version updates for documents as well as git handles code?

It might be nice to make websites that are more like PDF's that can be redistributed, downloaded, and stored. But when there are many versions of immutable content, the result is a mess, with people having random versions distributed all over the place. Having built-in history and being able to sync to HEAD would make this a lot easier.

<comment><USER16> I believe mutable pointers like that are outside the scope of IPFS itself, instead within the realm of name systems like IPNS[1] and DNSLink[2]. I'm not sure if/how those systems track history.

Unsurprisingly, some people want to use blockchains[3][4] (those definitely have history).

[1]: [https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/ipns](https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/ipns)

[2]: [https://dnslink.io](https://dnslink.io)

[3]: [https://www.namecoin.org](https://www.namecoin.org)

[4]: [https://ens.domains](https://ens.domains)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> So basically we can give up HTTPS for origin authentication (leave it for encryption/privacy) assuming the bundles are all signed?

</comment><comment><USER18> While I get the argument that things vaguely like AMP could be used with IPFS, these WebBundles in particular catting everything together would seem to undermine IPFS's ability to dedup. No thanks.

</comment><comment><USER19> WebBundles are the CDROMs of 2020 and solve nothing for the end user. It's all about those ads.

<comment><USER5> Are you claiming that everyone should stop using Webpack and Rollup too?

<comment><USER19> I know that rollup in particular is intended to collect all your JS modules, somewhat like an .a file in your filesystem, but Webpack can easily combine all the assets.

In both cases you're downloading globs of stuff that could already be in your cache, or that you don't want to download at all (e.g. ads). I have never approved of efforts to turn the web into a "TV remote with a 'Buy' button" (which stretches back decades) but indeed, I consider such projects pernicious.</comment></comment></comment>


At 21, Kylie Jenner Becomes the Youngest Self-Made Billionaire Ever - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2019/03/05/at-21-kylie-jenner-becomes-the-youngest-self-made-billionaire-ever/ <comment><USER2> How is she self-made when her father is famous, her sisters' father was rich, and her sister was made her a celebrity before she ever started working on her business?

What does self-made even mean if Kylie Jenner counts?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I opine she achieved a lot of her wealth courtesy Instagram.

But it's remarkable she became a billionaire within 6 years of entering the public spotlight.

PS - Haters gonna hate! :D Downvoters gonna downvote :P</comment>


Founder Friendly - <AUTHOR> http://avc.com/2017/08/founder-friendly/ <comment><USER2> For those wondering about the allusion to Hatching Twitter, it describes in detail how, when Ev was CEO, Fred and the board told him he was doing a fantastic job and while secretly meeting with Jack and coming up with a plan to push Ev out and bring in Dick Costolo as CEO (with Jack under him).

Here's a quote from the book after Ev was told he was out with a vicious quote from Fred:

Williams, stunned, picked up the phone and began dialing. Bijan Sabet was apologetic and insisted that they wanted to keep him on in a product-advisory role. According to several people at the company, Fred Wilson, however, said he thought Williams had always been a terrible C.E.O. "I never considered you a founder," he said. "Jack founded Twitter."

Other portfolio investments of Fred's have followed a similar pattern of having the original CEO pushed out once they get to a certain level of success.

<comment><USER3> This is a great example of how a company was undone by greedy VCs. A little history lesson. The founders of Twitter really believed in a vibrant ecosystem for Twitter. They gave the developer community a slew of APIs, gracious quotas, and support.

The ecosystem thrived and created dozens of major companies that made Twitter truly useful. The user numbers grew as well because those very same companies marketed their new and innovative solutions. Then Ev was fired. Dick was brought in and month of after month they lay waste to the ecosystem. Dozens of companies died and hundreds of millions of dollars in VC money was lost.

Why? Fred wanted to cash out with a lot of other VCs. They wanted to turn Twitter into a media company. Run up the revenue and go IPO to dump their shares. Sure, if Twitter went along with their founders vision it could have been much bigger over time but going that route didn't help Fred cash out his 100x return and report back to his LPs.

The reality is founders spend years even getting off the ground. The "board", represented by VCs, rarely add value to the operation and vision of the company. They invest because they believe in the vision. Make sure that reality is in writing so people like Fred don't stab you in the back so they can cash out early.

<comment><USER4> >This is a great example of how a company was undone [...] , if Twitter went along with their founders vision it could have been much bigger over time

For anyone wondering why parent uses "undone", "could have been much bigger", at a time that Twitter is a household name, the President tweets, people hold public conversations over Twitter, and list Twitter handles instead of their emails.[1]

It's because Twitter is "only" an $11.9 billion company by market cap, whereas Facebook is at $492B or 44 times bigger. I can't think of any other metric by which Twitter isn't a resounding success story.

[1] [https://levels.io/hoodmaps/](https://levels.io/hoodmaps/) \- Very bottom "I don't use email so tweet me your questions."

<comment><USER5> As a metric, popularity can be misleading.

Take Hollywood, for example: few things nowadays are as ever-present as motion pictures, but the total box office revenue for 2016 was around $11bn [1]. That's about 19 days worth of revenue for Apple, going by their last quarter [2].

Just because you see it everywhere, or everyone talks about it, doesn't necessarily mean that it's a huge moneymaker.

[1] [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/2016-box-office- record...](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/2016-box-office-record-year- crosses-11-billion-959300)

[2] [https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/05/apple-reports- second-...](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/05/apple-reports-second- quarter-results/)

<comment><USER4> I'm shocked you consider a tiny little $0.8t company like Apple to be a "huge moneymaker". Last year alone, which "hasn't been kind", just the top 25 oil companies made $2.6t in revenue¹: so what you call 19 days of revenue they made every 36 hours; in the year they made enough to buy Apple at its current market cap with its staggeringly high P/E multiple of 17.91, in its entirety 3.2 times. Just because everyone talks about them doesn't make Apple a moneymaker. Get some perspective. /s

Seriously though, I think you're being totally unreasonable. :) $11 billion is _huge_ revenue for movies. That's not chump change.

¹ [https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengensler/2016/05/26/global...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengensler/2016/05/26/global-2000-worlds- largest-oil-and-gas-companies/#17998b8e28b6)

<comment><USER6> If we get to lump all of big oil into one pool do we do the same for all of tech? The largest oil company, ExxonMobile, had only $3.5b more in revenue last year than Apple. Then again, you don't get to buy things with revenue, you need profit to pay for expensive baubles. Apple made as much profit in their "weak" (Q3) quarter of 2016 as Exxon made all year.

<comment><USER7> Don't you think you're comparing Apples to Exxons?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > But there is another important participant in the VC/entrepreneur > relationship and that is the Company the entrepreneur creates and all of its > stakeholders; the employees, the customers, the suppliers, and even the > community around the Company.

The stakeholders are - the employees! The customers! The suppliers! The community!

He makes it sound like that anarcho-syndicalist commune in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

I guess it slipped his mind to mention - the VCs! The LPs! The LPs looking for their exponential unicorn returns within ten years.

Benchmark is alluded to, and Benchmark has a long history now where you can look into their machinations on boards - Uber. Twitter. Epinions.

An LP is an LP. VCs have a few decorative ones for PR, but ultimately the LPs are just the LPs - the real ones.

There are those who work and create wealth. There are also those that do not work - like LPs. Rentiers who expropriate surplus labor time from those of us who do work. Since the dawn of civilization there has been a tug of war between those who do work and those rentiers who do not. This is yet another occurrence of the tug of that rope from one side to the other. Today it is Uber, but it has been a host of other companies before, and if they have the ability they will be pulling the rug out from those who built the company again in the future.

Wilson's doggerel here is a transparent apology for what is ultimately rentier parasitism. Parasitism on those of us who work by those who do not.

<comment><USER9> _> He makes it sound like that anarcho-syndicalist commune in Monty Python and the Holy Grail._

It as been successfully done at Valve

[http://hbhblog.blogspot.pt/2013/03/valve-steam-anarcho- syndi...](http://hbhblog.blogspot.pt/2013/03/valve-steam-anarcho- syndicalism.html)

[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/02/varoufakis_on_v.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/02/varoufakis_on_v.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> VCs used to oust founders and bring in experienced operators as soon as a company started scaling. Cisco is one of many high profile cases of founders getting kicked out [0]. With the success of Google and Facebook, VCs pattern matched and became enamored with the founder.

The pendulum swung too far with and things started going wrong. When things go wrong in founder controlled company, things can go really wrong. Uber is the poster child.

The question is how VCs can take back some control without being painted as founder hostile. You can see that happening with Benchmark. I am impressed that USV is speaking up. It is easy to hide in the shadows.

[0] [http://www.businessinsider.com/how-ciscos-founders-were- oust...](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-ciscos-founders-were- ousted-2014-12)

<comment><USER11> I have no inside information but from my vantage point it looks like benchmark just wanted to get out but under isn't ready for an IPO. Maybe Travis isn't a good guy but I can't see how benchmark is any better.

Also I think Google did bring in adults: notably Eric Schmidt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _The VC industry is highly competitive_

VC 'industry?' Please Fred, VC's don't produce anything. It's very charitable to call the class of people with access to money and the desire to lend it out under very favorable terms to company founders an industry.

</comment><comment><USER13> This blog proves the point of the initial tweet.

VCs are founder-friendly until they have to side with the company.

VCs are company-friendly until they have to side with their LPs.

</comment><comment><USER14> I am glad this whole charade of investors pretending to be founder friendly is finally getting over. There isn't / has never been such a thing as "founder friendly". Investors pretend to be friendly so that they can convince entrepreneurs to take their money. It's not their true nature, just something you need to do to get into the right deals. Investors are always worried about their reputation, not character - if you know the difference.

I learnt this lesson after getting kicked out of my company by VCs from NY (the story is not dramatically different than what Fred did at Twitter). My VCs always pretended to be incredibly supportive, but when we found ourselves in a tough spot, I saw the really ugly side of the VCs (making baseless threats to get the founders off the board, telling porkies to other investors to sullying the founders repuation, etc etc). In my experience, the east coast VCs are the worst - they play a lot more games / most of these guys are banker types. Most of them have never built a company before and have no clue what it takes to really build a successful startup (sorry, just because you sit on a board doesn't mean you understand the hard work, tears, daily ups and downs, personal sacrifice it takes to build a business).... These people know how to schmooze, and then stab you in the back if they don't get what they want....

Investors have 1 goal - maximize their ROI. They are your friend as long as they think they are getting the maximum return they can get. If you are an entrepreneur and you believe anything else, you are waiting to be screwed. As an entrepreneur, it's your job to protect yourself.

If you are an entrepreneur reading this, take the following advice from someone who got f __ __ __by people like Fred.

1\. Read Brad Feld's book "Venture Deals" before you take money from any investors. Make sure you know every single terminology in the term sheet (this is where the wolf in the sheep's clothing reference is really true - VCs will screw you over if you don't understand the term sheet).

2\. Hire an exec coach or a successful entrepreneur who has seen the ups & downs on your advisory board - someone you trust completely (Never trust your board member to be this person - no matter what anyone says). The advisor and the exec coach are your 1st phone calls - they are fully aligned with, unlike VCs. IA good exec coach can really help if you are dealing with tough board situations. f you are part of YC, you always have that support.

3\. If you are a valley based company, avoid all east coast VCs if you can. They are all made from the same dirty cloth.

4\. Maintain board control as long as you can.

5\. Try to negotiate and get a final say on the independent board seat (often hard to get).

6\. Learn how to manage your board - this is probably the most important advice. You need to know how to play the game, so that in tough times you have enough support to keep your job. If you don't have a board control, then try to build allies - perhaps build a strong relationship with 1-2 board members that will support you when others are trying to screw (which they will!).

At the end of the day, it's all about leverage - as soon as you are about to get your first board member, think how you build leverage. There is nothing wrong in taking money from VCs, you need them, and they need you. But if you get into the relationship knowing this is not about friendship/relationship - it's just business, and when it comes to money, people act in all kinds of ways, you will not be under delusion. You will protect yourself from day one. Good luck!

<comment><USER15> > Most of them have never built a company before and have no clue what it > takes to really build a successful startup (sorry, just because you sit on a > board doesn't mean you understand the hard work, tears, daily ups and downs, > personal sacrifice it takes to build a business)....

Couldn't agree more with you. There is one VC who echoes these very sentiments. Vinod Khosla never hires someone in his firm (especially those that sit on startups' boards) if they have not been entrepreneurs. When he does hire non-entrepreneurs, they don't sit on boards and within 2-3 years they're expected to go out there and do/join a start up before they can be allowed back at KV.

His logic being that, one cannot truly empathize with what an entrepreneur is going through without having started a business of their own or being at a start up during its infancy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is the principal agent problem in private, illiquid companies.

There are issues with founders, employees and VCs, where each invest in "the company" with an expectation of different payoff schedules, and each is not at all looking out for the best interests of the others.

So this is really a fight for the high ground - who gets to set payoff schedules: the founder, or the VC? Who gets to set strategic direction? And who's just along for the ride? [Note that the employee is not really in the running here, and that since they aren't allowed to set any rules, they should be as ruthless in extracting value (pay, career development & benefits) from companies as VCs and founders would be in extracting & securing their payoffs.]

In the end, these people aren't your friends, and any friendliness is simply another form of currency, which they can chose to invalidate at any time. Like Benchmark Bucks.

</comment><comment><USER17> Y'all know that there are business models where you don't need to take VC money to scale right?

</comment><comment><USER15> I think that it is incumbent upon an entrepreneur to apply they same magnitude of rigor (if not more) when conducting due diligence on investors as investors do when deciding whether to invest. This is, sadly, something that most entrepreneurs overlook due to eagerness to take up financing.</comment>


Show HN: Microsoft Garage, Microsofts sideprojects hub - <AUTHOR> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/garage/#garage-workbench <comment><USER2> Did you make this? Show HN is for projects you made yourself.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, I thought show HN was anything of projects related.. ( eg. No articles but things you can test out )

<comment><USER3> According to the rules [0], "Show HN is a way to share something that you've made".

Cool site, though.

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)</comment></comment></comment>


OpenKeywords. EverWrite's first #hackday is here. - <AUTHOR> http://myeverwrite.com/everwrite-hackday-1-openkeywords/

<comment><USER2> Congratulations both for EverWrite and OpenKeywords! Different researchers will greatly benefit from this open database.

It would be nice to have geo-location tagging.

</comment><comment><USER3> Working in pair programming with other developers is a great way to learn new stuff.

</comment><comment><USER4> Amazing job!!! When will it be available?

</comment><comment><USER5> congrats, guys, it is a great move indeed. Eager to check the code and the keyword base!

</comment><comment><USER6> Great job guys. Keep it up!

</comment><comment><USER7> Cool, guys! #lovestartup

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Would love to hear feedback and tips for the project!

</comment><comment><USER8> awesome! Let us know how it flows.

</comment><comment><USER9> Great news!

</comment><comment><USER10> UP!</comment>


People are still sending their condolences for the passing of Steve Jobs - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/stevejobs/ <comment><USER2> no, they are not.

"today is a sad day"</comment>


Throwing Cold Water on MacRuby for iOS - <AUTHOR> http://www.subfurther.com/blog/2011/12/06/throwing-cold-water-on-macruby-for-ios/

<comment><USER2> _The reason I can say that is that Ruby was already tried and rejected as a first-class language for Mac development_

Yes, but iOS apps tend to be much simpler and broader in scope than desktop apps. Ruby is a much better fit for this kind of small-scale development.</comment>