The Webpage, an online RSS reader and news aggregator, styled like a newspaper - <AUTHOR> https://news.russellsaw.io <comment><USER2> Hello! author here, i just wanted to address a few things i've seen in the comments:

* i absolutely built this for fun, it's an idea i had late at night and needed to scratch that itch

* the scolling sucks, laying out arbitrarily sized articles into a given layout is a challenge, and the scrolling hides a lot of the sins. I'm going to switch to truncating articles this evening, and linking to a single article page.

* thanks for the suggestions on hyphenation, i've been playing with a few different approaches but none have worked with all the browsers i tried, i'll give a few suggestions a go this evening!

<comment><USER3> Have you tried using a CSS "masonry" approach to address the varying sizes of the articles?

For example: [https://w3bits.com/css-masonry/](https://w3bits.com/css- masonry/)

<comment><USER4> Also, check out Isotope. Seems to handle different-sized "cells" fairly neatly - [https://isotope.metafizzy.co/layout- modes.html](https://isotope.metafizzy.co/layout-modes.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The content is wrapping at every character, rather than on word boundaries or with hyphenation.

The relevant styles:

      .subcol {
        hyphens: auto;
        word-break: break-all;
      }

`word-break: break-all` should be replaced with `overflow-wrap: break-word`. Those two properties are quite subtle in their meaning and interactions.

<comment><USER6> Also toss in for full effect:

        text-align: justify;
        -webkit-hyphens: auto; /* Safari */

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks cool, just one suggestion about the photos: that effect looks like the dithering of a dot matrix printer and not like a newspaper photo, for that I would go with this kind of effect: [https://i.pinimg.com/474x/9d/76/f0/9d76f0c303e7ea8352d10465d...](https://i.pinimg.com/474x/9d/76/f0/9d76f0c303e7ea8352d10465d8462b5d.jpg) \- I think it's called a "screening" effect?

<comment><USER8> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halftone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halftone)

They used to generate this by holding a "screen" up to create the grid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I remember the Wall Street Journal's tablet apps having a layout just like this, so it resembled their broadsheet look. It was a pleasure to read, as clicking on individual stories took you to the full story, still laid out like a newspaper, and not to their website inside of a web wrapper view.

For whatever reason, they changed that and now the app looks like their website, except with more ads and tracking.

</comment><comment><USER10> You might have to be a subscriber to access it, but I suggest taking a look at the L.A. Times enewspaper for inspiration. It's like a full color scan of the newspaper. If you click in an article, you are taken to a separate page to read the article in full.

[https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/latimes/default.aspx...](https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/latimes/default.aspx?pubid=50435180-e58e-48b5-8e0c-236bf740270e)

<comment><USER11> Wow. clearly designed only for touch screens. Needing to click and drag the mouse to pan on a desktop is absolutely terrible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Could work nicely with that eink project that was showing the NY Times full size. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22831323](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22831323)

</comment><comment><USER13> Not sure if I'd use it with the scrolling, since this format is ill suited for smaller screens, but I love this idea!

One more suggestion for you to consider: a variant where each article is a link that takes the reader to a separate article page (like a normal web page) may be good. The use case is to have this print layout to skim through headlines and snippets, and dig into an article by itself if one wants to read more (and the article doesn't fit within the non-scrolling area).

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm interested in the concept, but I think the execution needs some improvement to be comfortable. For instance, no actual online newspaper right now has internal scrollbars; there are probably reasons for this.

Online newspapers look something like print newspapers, but the most successful designs are successful at adapting the design for the particular affordances of the screen. (Granted, internal scrollbars ARE something you can't do in print, unique to the screen! They just aren't, I think, something anyone wants...)

</comment><comment><USER15> This is really cool! It would be nice to see h tags used for article headings. That way people using assistive technology can navigate around faster.

And this may be a good opportunity to use the article tag.

</comment><comment><USER16> Newspapers have margins!

</comment><comment><USER17> This seriously needs some paragraph breaks in the articles. Every article reads like one huge sentence.

I think print newspapers do this with a slight indent to every paragraph.

</comment><comment><USER18> "RSS Feeds for the 20th Century" feels pretty dated. I want to see "RSS Feeds for the 19th Century".

</comment><comment><USER19> Love the idea. Really hard to navigate and read, because content ends up in little boxes. But I love it as a bit of fun!

</comment><comment><USER20> I do not hate it despite its limitations

</comment><comment><USER21> I got caught out by the nested scrolling

</comment><comment><USER22> Pretty sure it violates copyright of the publishers.

Given that Google is not allowed to show more than the headline and a few words in their search results in the EU, I suspect this is just plain illegal.

This is sad. We should have better laws. Hope you don't get sued.

EDIT: Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect.

</comment><comment><USER23> Woooooooooooooooooow. I could be downvoted, but I can't say nothing other than that. WELL DONE !

</comment><comment><USER24> Hi, this was fantastic but it doens't work anymore. Any reason why? Victim of success ?

</comment><comment><USER25> If you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all :)

That said; I've been on HN long enough where news sites (some of which I worked at) took this approach on some products where they directly took print- styles and applied them digitally. They were vocally criticized (rightly so) for completely mis-understanding the new digital medium.

This is a fun and interesting project - buts its entirely unusable and provides a very poor reading experience.

Among many other points, it misses the point that the full-page physical newspaper was entirely scannable in large areas. This is the opposite of that.

Kudos to the developer trying something for fun but I hope this isn't a serious approach to reading news.

<comment><USER10> The L.A. Times has a really polished version of this, which I sometimes prefer over the regular articles. It has the effect of a full color scan of the entire newspaper. If you click in an article, you are taken to a standalone page for reading. You might have to be a subscriber to access it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Reminds me of this old Mac and iPad app: [https://acrylicapps.com/pulp/](https://acrylicapps.com/pulp/)

</comment><comment><USER27> Would love to be able to use a personalizable version of this

</comment><comment><USER28> Funny how this is a good settling of information presentation .. most websites are low signal high noise (visuals count as noise for me now, I'm old).

</comment><comment><USER29> I love it. Instant fan. Different experience than usual.

</comment><comment><USER30> Unfortunately images look like crap, due to them being way too low resolution.

Probably because the images used are dithered and upscaled from small original images.

</comment><comment><USER31> I've always loved the idea of having a personally-curated newspaper laid out in the traditional way. This could be fun. Thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER32> Feels great not having the usual information overload that websites have. Lovely project well done!

</comment><comment><USER33> This looks so much like an e-paper but only better and way easier to navigate!

</comment><comment><USER34> I wonder, can somebody turn it into an XSL stylesheet?

</comment><comment><USER35> Good work. Scrolling was tricky in mobile.

<comment><USER36> Phone or tablet?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> What, no comics?

<comment><USER38> Or the crosswords section?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Offline already?

</comment><comment><USER40> Interesting, but hard to read.

<comment><USER41> It takes a lot of work, in terms of text content editing, typography and layout to make a newspaper actually readable. It is a lot of work, and takes a lot of very specialised skill.

This page does none of that, and it makes something that is otherwise very invisible suddenly come into stark contrast when it is missing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> A scroll trap</comment>


The Equality Conundrum: What kind of equality is good? - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/13/the-equality-conundrum <comment><USER3> This piece is jumping from (un)equality in the family to (un)equality in the state. That itself does not seem to be a good idea. The state cannot be run as if it were a family.

Regarding the family conundrum I would say that the four children should get an equal amount unless there is a very severe reason not to do so. One does not want to risk poisoning the relationship between the children after one is gone.

Regarding equality in the state the answer is that the state should strive to not have severe inequalities of opportunity, especially if they are so severe that they inhibit social mobility. This can never be done perfectly, though. Also, a situation of equality of opportunity will not lead to equality of outcome because, as this piece also discusses, people have different abilities, interests, and other attributes.

<comment><USER4> _> Regarding the family conundrum I would say that the four children should get an equal amount unless there is a very severe reason not to do so._

There's also evidence from the _Talent vs luck_ model that doing so must be the most beneficial strategy to maximize the potential benefits of their talent. It shows that giving opportunities among all players is a superior strategy to giving more resources to those who have performed better so far.

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so- smart-...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why- arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The best we can do as society is to offer equal opportunity at success. Success is multifold: physical, mental and economic health jump to mind.

Beyond opportunity equalized, an equitable society should bestow success proportional to the ambitious, persistent hard-working individuals. That might be imperfect, as a few statistical outliers who tend to have outsized innate advantages (Einstein, Ramanujam & Usain Bolt for instance) are likely to be more successful, but that's the most equitable design possible, within the bounds of reality, including evolution - where the fitter tend to survive better

<comment><USER6> More than that. In my opinion, it's better to offer lots of small equal opportunities (which means certain forgiveness) than one big equal opportunity (which you can get easily wrong). That's why I would favor a minimum basic income, which gives people a small opportunity to do better every month, although it has its downsides, too (I wouldn't want to replace all public services with it).

Also, this only addresses the low-end of the inequality, for example people being poor. But inequality (of power, money are just a proxy for that) also causes problems at the high-end, because power corrupts and the more power you have, more corrupt you can become. So it is desirable to limit that too.

I wouldn't mind if there was a cap on personal wealth (say $10M), but many people feel it's wrong. I don't think it's necessarily unfair, I mean if economics is a competition (and not a power grab), in other competitions you don't get an advantage if you have been previously a winner (for example, Usain Bolt doesn't get to start 10m ahead because he won all the races up to that point). Even though people in other competitions start at the same line again, it actually doesn't seem to affect their willingness to participate. I don't know why people believe business should be any different.

<comment><USER7> If you have a system that caps personal wealth, you've just given more power to the people running the system. And if it's like any such system that's existed historically (e.g. communist Russia and China essentially capping personal wealth at zero), the people running the system will end up accumulating way more wealth than the cap (and way more power than in a system that didn't give the rulers such strong influence over people's lives).

<comment><USER6> Capping personal wealth at zero (or less than wealth per capita for that matter) is obviously a nonsense, so you should be careful with this strawman. Reasonable amount probably starts at some multiple of that.

Of course, you need democracy too. Since the beginning, the democratic concept was about equality of access to political power among citizens.

In many ways, it's what traditional anarchist/liberal left is about - <USER2> in power (egalitarianism?) and not necessarily in the outcome.

<comment><USER7> >Capping personal wealth at zero (or less than wealth per capita for that matter) is obviously a nonsense, so you should be careful with this strawman. Reasonable amount probably starts at some multiple of that.

There's not much more power needed to cap wealth at zero than at 10 million: the enforcement infrastructure would be the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We should use inequality whenever it is more efficient than equality to reach our goals. No free society will ever get rid of the following list of inequalities, we can reduce them but never completely eliminate them:

Having leaders is a good thing, it makes decision making a lot more efficient. But having leaders is a direct source of inequality.

Having owners is a good thing, it incentives people to take care and grow humanity's wealth and resources instead of falling for the tragedy of the commons. But having ownership is a direct source of inequality.

Having highly skill dependent jobs be better paid is a good thing, it incentivizes top talent to solve more important problems. But this is also a source of inequality since not every person is equally talented (hard work is a part of talent).

Valuing what you know and are used to is a good thing, it helps you reduce variance and risk so you can focus better on other things. But this is a source of inequality since it means that you discriminate against people who are different than you are used to.

</comment><comment><USER9> Some may find this trite, but for me, the best part of the article is how one of the twins, James, gets absolutely thrown under the bus for being a stoner. Utterly savage.

<comment><USER10> I thought it was funny too, in that it was a super-obvious attempt at reversing the typical gender-stereotypes:

> Chloe, the oldest, is a math wiz with a coding job at Google; she hopes to > start her own company soon.

Smart. Successful. Can't be man. Must be a woman.

> Will, who has a degree in social work

Man assigned to non-stereotypical female role? Check!

> James, a perpetually stoned underachiever, is convinced that he can make it > as a YouTuber.

The typical guys being lazy and stupid stereo-type, that's a _bad_ stereotype... Can't put women in that one, can we? That would uh... not serve equality?

So by desperately trying to reverse gender stereotypes, but bailing out where it's not beneficial to women to do the gender juxtaposition, this article helps highlight the gender stereo-types it wants to avoid more than anything else.

Modern PC equality is pretty funny at it's heart :)

<comment><USER11> They are literally just talking about what their children do. What do you expect them to say? Make up careers for them?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > We all agree that inequality is bad False

I don't like blanket moral labels like "bad" and "good" used for things like inequality. It's simply a fact of existence... it is what it is.

<comment><USER13> A great many things that were facts of existence (such as warlordism and human sacrifice) no longer are, at least partially, I think, because people go as far as to apply those labels, in order to change them. Recognition of what is and isn't does not go as far as what will be or could be.

<comment><USER12> Inequality is always seen as negative, but the best art, literature, anything are also products of inequality. Diversity of skills and circumstance cause people to do great things. It's a universal truth, a law of nature.

Warlordism and human sacrifice are not.

<comment><USER13> "Inequality" here clearly does not refer to the idea that diversity of skills or circumstance (circumstance considered above a certain baseline) should be eradicated[0] - of course, they cannot be, as you point out. However, both warlordism and human sacrifice also had their uses within the societies that used them (or they would not have emerged as cultural phenomena). The fact of a positive (such as literature or art) obviously does not outweigh whatever negatives there may be - after all, it is possible to create an artistic threatening letter, or artistic child pornography. But we are justified in prohibiting both of these regardless of their artistic merit.

People having different qualities and experiences is a positive. That inequality is generally agreed upon to be good. People living in poverty in first world nations which hosts billionaires is generally agreed upon to be bad.

[0] If you don't believe me, here is a quote from a famous Russian who advocated against inequality, dated 1914. Your objection was replied to more than one hundred years ago: "It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. [...] he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes."

<comment><USER14> That quote doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny. Perfectly normal differences from one person to another will result in perfectly normal differences in economic outcomes from one person to another. To eradicate classes, you must eradicate differences in economic outcomes, or at least make the differences so small that they cannot possibly be classifiable. The first half of the quote contradicts the second half.

<comment><USER13> "Classes" to the person writing means ownership and control of major productive capacity in society - i.e. the Marxist concept. It does not refer to people with different wage levels, different skills, or people with physical differences. Considered as that, the quote is not contradictory at all.

<comment><USER14> Even within the Marxist two-class world view, it is still contradictory. "We recognise people are unequal, but we will ensure that their economic outcomes are". If the first part doesn't contradict the second, then it certainly isn't a relevant part of the message.

But even then, the strict two class world view doesn't describe Marx' entire philosophy regarding class, which was founded on ideas of social isolation. Something any level of class inequality will create.

Though in any case, the two class world view doesn't fit into reality at all. According to that theory, anybody with capital is in the upper class. That's a huge majority of people today. The moment you let people use capital, you have a Marxist theory class system. How could you possibly eliminate that? There's no way? Well this was actually a problem Marx solved, and the quote makes much more sense when you account for that:

> The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all > private property.

<comment><USER13> >"We recognise people are unequal, but we will ensure that their economic outcomes are".

That's not the message at all. Marx makes no mention of equality of outcomes, and in fact, he is known to be one of the first socialists to speak against the abstract idea of "equality". The class system, determined by ownership and control of large scale productive capacity in society, is founded on (but, supports in turn) the notion of private property. For Marx, alienation was not a by-product of class inequality, or even the class system, at least not directly - it was a result of the nature of the capitalist production process in which people do not see themselves in the goods they make at another's direction.

>According to that theory, anybody with capital is in the upper class.

This is the problem with strict definitions of "capital" and "upper class". You end up saying that most people in our society are capitalists, which while it may be terminologically true, it misses the point of the critique, which appears to apply whether people are termed capitalists or proletarians. Most people are wage labourers - the fact that they may also own some mostly immobile capital, stocks and shares in public companies does not make them capitalists, any more than fur makes a wolf. This is because capital is about the production process: its appropriation of the product of labour at the end of the day, its extraction of surplus-value (or, if you don't care for Marx's value theory, UE-exploitation and domination) and its totalization in society.

The majority of people may have some kind of capital (do they?), yet given they can't live from it, it still rings strikingly true to say that a proletarian is defined by being only the possessor of his capacity to labour.

<comment><USER14> > Marx makes no mention of equality of outcomes

This is an absurdly revisionist view, that can be falsified simply by reading his work. The only way to dismantle class structure is to institute equality of outcomes.

His view of equality of outcomes is perhaps the most extreme view of equality possible. His view was to abolish private property all together. Something he passionately and repeatedly promoted.

> In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single > sentence: Abolition of private property.

> But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears > also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave > words" of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, > only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered > traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the > Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of > production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

> You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in > your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine- > tenths of the population

> In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. > Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

The nice sounding quotes about dismantling class structure don't stand up to even passing scrutiny. These ideas are not compatible with a free society, and by presenting them in that way, you are concealing the oppressive nature of the system they are promoting.

<comment><USER13> >This is an absurdly revisionist view, that can be falsified simply by reading his work.

Cite some, then. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy actually makes quite a point about Marx on this[0]. There is no "equality of outcomes" in Marx, or as I cited earlier, Lenin. Marx repeatedly and ferociously argued against these abstract notions such as "fairness", the equality of wages, and other things you associate with him.

>The nice sounding quotes about dismantling class structure don't stand up to even passing scrutiny.

Why not?

>These ideas are not compatible with a free society

It's ironic that before approximately the middle of the 20th century, there was hardly a single philosopher who argued that "free society" or "freedom" should be understood as private property (state-protected large scale means of production). Seriously - look at almost any major modernist or pre-modern philosopher concerned with political philosophy, from Rawls and Sen today, to Nietzche, Marx, Proudhon, Rousseau, Stirner and perhaps even Hegel in the past.

These figures were arguing for free society, and precisely from the same premises of self-actualization that Marx was.

[0] "Hence with the possible exception of Barbeuf (1796), no prominent author or movement has demanded strict equality. Since egalitarianism has come to be widely associated with the demand for economic equality, and this in turn with communistic or socialistic ideas, it is important to stress that neither communism nor socialism — despite their protest against poverty and exploitation and their demand for social security for all citizens — calls for absolute economic equality. The orthodox Marxist view of economic equality was expounded in the Critique of the Gotha Program (1875). Marx here rejects the idea of legal equality, on three grounds. In the first place, he indicates, equality draws on a merely limited number of morally relevant vantages and neglects others, thus having unequal effects; right can never be higher than the economic structure and cultural development of the society it conditions. In the second place, theories of justice have concentrated excessively on distribution instead of the basic questions of production. In the third place, a future communist society needs no law and no justice, since social conflicts will have vanished."

<comment><USER14> > Cite some, then

I cited several quotes from Marx claiming he planned to abolish private property. Did you not see that? It doesn't matter what he called it, if you're promoting one outcome for everybody, you're promoting equality of outcome.

<comment><USER13> I'm starting to think we're talking past each other. Abolition of private property, in the sense Marx (and the philosophical tradition of the time) meant it, is specifically either land for rent, or large-scale productive capacity. It does not refer to your house, laptop or toothbrush. Nowhere does Marx claim that under a Communist society, each would be allotted a certain amount invariably. I quoted the most respected freely available encyclopedia of philosophy on this matter.

Marx does not, and never has, promoted one outcome for everybody, in the same way that capitalism does not promote one outcome for everybody just because everyone has the right to acquire property.

<comment><USER14> This is simply a convoluted fantasy. Marx' own words prove you wrong.

> The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all > capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in > the hands of the State

> We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products > of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and > reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command > the labour of others

The state will control all property, any property an individual possesses will be exclusively granted by the state, and no person will possess any property in excess of their basic needs.

This is the philosophy of Marx. He wrote it down for all of us to read. You can clearly come up with contrived arguments for why this doesn't represent a perfect equality of outcomes, but Marx' visions would be clearly considered an enforced equality of outcomes by any reasonable person.

<comment><USER13> >This is simply a convoluted fantasy. Marx' own words prove you wrong.

Please, for the love of God, read Marx. Actually read Marx and understand the context he was writing in. Talk to any Marx scholar or go to any encyclopedia of philosophy. Ask a political science professor, or even just read Wikipedia. But don't misrepresent someone's thought because you don't understand it.

>The state will control all property, any property an individual possesses will be exclusively granted by the state, and no person will possess any property in excess of their basic needs.

The part you quoted does not actually claim this. When Marx talks about "appropriation that is made for [...] of human life", if you read his Critique of the Gotha Program, he specifically explicates on this: products of society to fund education systems, healthcare, expansion of production, funds for those who are physically unable to work, and protection against natural disaster. This is exactly how taxes work today. Furthermore, Marx clearly says "all instruments of production". This does not include, as you falsely claim, "all property, any property".

What you are claiming is that because Marx talks about appropriation of _surplus_ , then he must therefore be talking about all labour. This is false and not backed up with any quote you have shown. Marx is talking no more about taking away your toothbrush or laptop as much as a Western European state today takes them away through taxes.

Don't just believe me. Do your own research. Read more than the Manifesto (since this seems to be your only source, it's worth noting that Marx changed his views significantly afterwards, and with the publication of _Capital_ ). If you want a short read as to why you're wrong, where Marx specifically responds to people who want "equality of outcome", where he specifically explicates what he means by "instruments of production", read Critique of the Gotha Program. Consult a scholar on Marx.

This has to be one of the most unproductive conversations I've had on HN, in which you quote one propaganda document written years before Marx had published anything serious, in which all Marxologists and philosophers agree his views and philosophy had changed. _Read, and don 't stop reading._</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple WWDC 2015 - <AUTHOR> https://developer.apple.com/wwdc/ <comment><USER2> A cheeky list of sessions whose titles will be revealed after the Keynote: [https://developer.apple.com/wwdc/schedule/](https://developer.apple.com/wwdc/schedule/)

<comment><USER3> Haha, yeah:

      'Well, looky here..'

<comment><USER4> Yeah, a lot of the session titles are still embargoed until the Keynote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For those in different timezones, keynote's at 5PM UTC.

Countdown: [http://www.appletimer.com/wwdc/](http://www.appletimer.com/wwdc/)

</comment><comment><USER6> It's probably premature, but I'm hoping they will make good on this statement:

> When the binary interface stabilizes in a year or two, the Swift runtime > will become part of the host OS and this limitation will no longer exist.

The current ~10Mb overhead is a hard sell to your manager when it will double your application size and slow down the development team in the short-term.

<comment><USER7> Yes, but program correctness and the ability to scale should easily offset worrying about 10MB.

Look at all the work so me like John Carmack puts into correctness, for instance.

[http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/128836/InDepth_Static_Cod...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/128836/InDepth_Static_Code_Analysis.php)

"NULL pointers are the biggest problem in C/C++, at least in our code"

<comment><USER8> I'm not convinced about this at all.

Adding 10MB to the size of an app is actually a really big deal, especially in countries where 4G has not reached the majority of people yet.

It is not hard to deal with null pointers, and the way Obj-C handles them is particularly friendly (returning nil on any message to a nil pointer).

<comment><USER9> If your target audience is countries with those limitations (and no wifi) and the 10 MB overhead is too much, you'd probably opt to stick with objective-C for a while longer, then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So, what will we see?

A new Apple TV/homebase?

Updated Macbook Pros?

<comment><USER11> Updated iPad Pro with Stylus and Kickstand, connect a keyboard / keyboard cover and mouse/trackpad, able to run full OS X, but also touch optimized iOS Apps.

<comment><USER12> Apple isn't going to turn into Microsoft. And there's a reason why this is the wrong product. iOS is already OS X enough. Running a desktop operating system on a tablet doesn't make sense.

If you want a laptop that's as small and lightweight as the iPad you can get a Macbook Air.

<comment><USER13> You're sort of right, but laptops with dumb screens that are incapable of understanding touch events also don't make sense in 2015.

Even if it only gets used one in a while, every laptop (and desktop) should be able to let you scroll and tap buttons and UI elements with your finger in a pinch.

<comment><USER14> Software here is more expensive than hardware. Apple wouldn't do it unless they can provide a good experience for it, and they really don't know how to do that yet. It isn't just a few gestures, but the whole guerrilla arm thing, which is why you don't see touch being used often on PC laptops that don't have flat tablet configurations.

<comment><USER13> I totally used to agree with that, but it only took one hour with a touchscreen windows PC to make my MacBooks all feel _broken_.

I still mainly use my MacBook Pro, because overall, Windows just doesn't cut it for what I need to do. And I personally don't really need touch that often -- but every single time I do (on the phone, holding a baby, jerking off with right hand, whatever), it is _maddening_ that it doesn't work.

Even if limited to just basic scrolling and tapping, basic touch screen support is still way better than _nothing_. I think you are right about why Apple doesn't do it yet, but I think Apple is utterly wrong not to do it for that reason.

It's a classic case of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Truly awesome touch (and stylus!) support would be great; no touch support at all just feels incorrect.

<comment><USER15> Apple is going to talk down about it right up until the day that they do a 180 and finally catch up or surpass Microsoft in this arena.

The nay-saying Apple apologists around here just can't wrap their heads around the fact that Apple are masters of bullshitting people into thinking that they know best, even when they leave out obvious features like a second mouse button. I remember back in the 90's, Apple lovers would actually argue that a single mouse button was somehow better because you had to "think about it less". What a crock of fucking shit! :)

<comment><USER14> And they don't even talk down on them. These days, Apple's silence on the issue is taken implicitly as a dis, when in reality they could be working on it right now, having yet to find something that lives up to their rep.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> * millions worldwide will be able to watch sessions streamed live.*

I'm guessing that's hyperbole, but it's rare for Apple to exaggerate on anything. Does the keynote (presumably the highest volume streamed session) actually hit two-million viewers?

<comment><USER17> Many non-developers treat the keynote as the source of information for future products. Many proto-developers start with the iOS platform. Sounds a lot, but non unreasonable to me. Are there estimates of how many people have registered a developper account?

<comment><USER18> At WWDC 14 Apple said they had 9 million registered developers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I couldn't see a time? Anyone know what time it starts?

<comment><USER20> 10am PST / 1pm EST / 6pm UK

Liveblogs on the usual Mac sites, Ars, etc. [http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/06/liveblog-apples-wwdc- ke...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/06/liveblog-apples-wwdc-keynote- starts-at-10am-pacific-on-monday/)

Edit: EST mindfart

<comment><USER21> >10am PST / 3pm EST / 6pm GMT

I think you mean 1pm EST :)

<comment><USER20> Yes. Yes I did.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hanging the Linux core dump pipe helper - <AUTHOR> https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2018/04/29/core/ <comment><USER2> In re the 'and nothing improves' sentiment at the end: there _is_ a safety limit and it's even documented in dump(5):

 _/ proc/sys/kernel/core_pipe_limit

When collecting core dumps via a pipe to a user-space program, it can be useful for the collecting program to gather data about the crashing process from that process's /proc/[pid] directory. In order to do this safely, the kernel must wait for the program collecting the core dump to exit, so as not to remove the crashing process's /proc/[pid] files prematurely. This in turn creates the possibility that a misbehaving collecting program can block the reaping of a crashed process by simply never exiting.

Since Linux 2.6.32, the /proc/sys/kernel/core_pipe_limit can be used to defend against this possibility. The value in this file defines how many concurrent crashing processes may be piped to user-space programs in parallel. If this value is exceeded, then those crashing processes above this value are noted in the kernel log and their core dumps are skipped.

A value of 0 in this file is special. It indicates that unlimited processes may be captured in parallel, but that no waiting will take place (i.e., the collecting program is not guaranteed access to /proc/<crashing-PID>). The default value for this file is 0._

(edit: in case if that came off as curt i didn't intend it to, i do agree that far too many things suck because "it's documented in a defunct mailing list somewhere and if you don't know it's your own fault")

<comment><USER3> I find more often than not that the kernel people are reasonably good with documentation. User space on the other hand seems to treat documentation either like a chore best avoided, or something to bludgeon people with when and API is mangled between releases.

<comment><USER4> Kernel space has the benefit of a very clear public/private boundary. The kernel internals have much worse docs than user space once you get over that wall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Certain types of script really really really should always start with

        alarm 10

or similar. This has saved me from myself way too many times.

<comment><USER6> What does that do?

<comment><USER7> Probably sends a SIGALRM signal in 10 seconds.

[https://linux.die.net/man/2/alarm](https://linux.die.net/man/2/alarm)

<comment><USER5> Which, if you haven't taken precautions to make it otherwise, will shoot your process in the head.

"Dear operating system, please shoot me in the head in ten seconds if I haven't already finished" is a really useful thing to ask for sometimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Can't you just make core-files land on a FUSE-mounted filesystem, and from there decide if you want to keep the file?

<comment><USER9> That only moves the point of failure from one userspace process to another. The FUSE handler can hang just like the core dump pipe helper.</comment></comment>


The Book of Life - <AUTHOR> http://www.thebookoflife.org/ <comment><USER2> The site is nice but, having read through most of it I don't think I care for it.

It seems to promote (among other things) aristocracy, dictatorship and censorship (to varying degrees). It glorifies mindless ritual. It seems to believe that those who know best should be in charge (De Botton himself?) structuring life for others around them. It concentrates far too much on supposed motives (jealousy, envy, ambition, desire for respect, the desire to remake the world etc.) which may apply to the author, but are not necessarily as universal or basic as he seems to believe. Maybe, just maybe, on occasion, a person might buy a nice car not because they want to be seen in a nice car and thus respected, but simply because they like nice cars. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

To me, the individual is paramount. The society where the individual can expand is a beautiful and increasingly vanishing thing. I'm always wary of want-to-be kings dressed up in talk of a better world. Traditionally, not much good has come from them.

</comment><comment><USER3> This looks interesting. I love Alain de Botton and what he's trying to do by inspiring a type of secular Renaissance in traditions, religious activities and culture. Doing things like having church-like sermons on ideas, the importance of rituals and other concepts covered in his book, Atheism 2.0. He also has thephilosophersmail.com, a news site that's like a positive spin on the Daily Mail.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is great.

I love the way it's written as well as the design of the website.

The chapters are not too long and very easy to understand even for a foreigner.

Great job :)

<comment><USER5> The chapters are longer than you think, they have sub sections: Chapter 1 ... [http://www.thebookoflife.org/category/capitalism/](http://www.thebookoflife.org/category/capitalism/) Chapter 2 ... [http://www.thebookoflife.org/category/work/](http://www.thebookoflife.org/category/work/)

The design is nice and clean but the navigation is unclear between these sub- chapters.

<comment><USER6> Agreed, the navigation for sub-chapters shouldn't be so hidden by default. Alternatively a 'next' button to take the reader to the next sub-chapter would be great.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Don't really agree with it at all. I like a reliable partner who has supported me for a long time, not just going after someone new like it recommends. I don't like censorship. Seems very European, I guess, so maybe better for that audience.

<comment><USER8> I haven't read through this myself and I might not agree with what's in there but then again it seems to be a thoughtfully laid out format. Do we always have to agree with what we read?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've bookmarked this, since my CompSci education was very light on humanities and especially the 'Curriculum' chapter seems valuable to me. Would be even better if they had .mobi/.epub download links!

<comment><USER9> One thing I would like to see represented in the Curriculum>Philosophy section is Spinoza's Ethics.

<comment><USER10> The "founder" of this is Alain de Botton. He studied philosophy and started writing books. His greatest success is "How Proust can change your life". In it he explains how to become a happier person by reading Proust for a big public. In interviews at that time (end 90's) he talked about erecting a school of happiness and he did that. The list features philosophers who can make you happy not the ones looking for the "truth". Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Spinoza the whole school of rationalism is missing here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is it just me or does the site design remind you of Frank Chimero's [http://shapeofdesignbook.com](http://shapeofdesignbook.com)?

</comment><comment><USER12> Nicely written! I like the way writer thought and wrote differently.

</comment><comment><USER13> Nice format.

</comment><comment><USER14> more like the book of trife</comment>


Ask HN: Hackers falling in love - <AUTHOR> I quit my job around six months ago to start my own thing. Thought through a lot of possible distractions, technical/financial blocks, how much runway I had, etc. What wasn't anticipated was meeting someone and falling head over heels. Well, it's a few months later, and I feel a bit like waking up from a dream, but the project seems to be on the right track again, slowly building momentum. But I wonder if I could have done things differently, taken on a different attitude, basically done more in the past few months instead of behaving like a smitten puppy with all the time in the world.<p>The amount of focus and effort required in building a startup is incredible, but molecular chemistry is a tough adversary that doesn't fight fair. I'm curious how others have dealt with similar situations. Really love to read some war stories. Anyone? <comment><USER2> I was at dinner with a young lady who is now my girlfriend a few months ago, and she asked me my plans for the next morning (Saturday). I told her that I was going to be programming (it was during the last week or two prior to AR's launch).

She said: Of course, after all you are a businessman. The job comes first.

I said: No. Not first. Not second, either, unless first is "all the things I love in life."

I had a really really awful no-good bad day today, buisnesswise. It was easily my worst ever on that score. But you know, in the greater scheme of things, if the code fails and the disk dies and my database goes to meet the great truncate in the sky, it will be very stressful for a few weeks, but I'll still have my family, my friends, my girlfriend, my faith, my health, etc.

We've got a lot of pressure and responsibility running companies, but at the end of thhe day, it is a job. You don't live to work, you work to live.

<comment><USER3> Though I agree that love and family come above all else, of course, I do quite dislike the whole 'it's just a job' attitude. Isn't the whole point of all this that we do what we love and are passionate about?

I, for one, adore programming and would do it even if I was working as a bank clerk.

Obviously there are awful days and truly crap aspects of running a business, and even when coding, as things you love aren't a pure, crystalline edifice of positivity but necessarily embody suffering within them. What counts is the net meaningfulness of what you are doing, I think. And I believe when you are doing something you love it pays infinitely more than it costs.

I say this with all respect, as you have achieved amazing things, and are clearly a very competent (far better than me) hacker.

<comment><USER2> I love my job and find a great deal of meaning in the work, but there is no level of Yay This Is The Best Job Ever that would make it more important than those other things. (It _is_ my favorite job ever. This morning aside, I practically bounce with enthusiasm about it. I am probably spoiled for doing anything else. But if it were ripped away from me, I'd still be living a very blessed life.)

I appreciate the praise, but folks overestimate my skill at hacking. I'm good at it. There are a _lot_ of people better at it than me, including on HN.

<comment><USER4> > folks overestimate my skill at hacking

Actually, I was under the impression that you were mainly known for BCC, which doesn't look _that_ technically sophisticated (of course, it does require good marketing/SEO/etc, and your candid posts and expertise are very welcome).

Care to brag a little?

<comment><USER5> The Bingo Card Generator is not the part of BCC that is technically sophisticated.

<comment><USER4> Didn't you describe it as a "hello world project hooked up to a random number generator" at some point? ;-)

I do recall that Patrick has written a supposedly-neat A/B testing framework - is that what you're referring to?

[I'm not trolling, just honestly curious!]

<comment><USER5> The bingo card generator is, in a sense, "hello world" hooked up to a random number generator. The mechanisms built around that small piece of software to demonstrate and provide value are what's sophisticated about BCC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A good relationship will help you through the stress of a startup.

A bad one will make it much, much worse.

Either way, it's out of your control. If you're in love, you're in love. Make the most of it.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is not so much a possibility as an inevitability. Chances are you will fall in love and it will disrupt your life whether you're starting up or doing something else entirely. If you're fortunate, you're new significant other will be a disruptive, yet motivating force. Moving you towards new heights that you had not imagined. But, it's more likely to be a struggle to balance your life's goals with your desire for this new person. Ultimately, you're startup hopes might be replaced by new goals: a family and all that entails.

These things are not mutually exclusive. If you take an all or nothing view, you're being naive. You can have some percentage of a solid relationship and career (whether a startup or something else).

Life is messy. You'll have to decide if your relationship allows you enough time to meet your personal goals and if that even matters. Only you can make this determination.

As for me, I've been with my wife for over 10 years (most of it dating), and... honestly? I think this relationship has had an adverse effect on my goals. I, kind of, think I'd be much more rich and successful had I never met my wife. On the other hand, when she's gone for a weekend, I always think, "I'll get so much done when she's gone"... but, I often end up mired in the "blahs" until she returns. And, honestly...

I think I've slowed down a lot as I've gotten older. I think back on things I accomplished in 3 week coding marathons when I was in college and, while I think I'm a better programmer now... well, I don't repeat those accomplishments. I get more done in less time, but I'm not able to sustain a marathon for multiple weeks. You may be different, or that might be part of getting older.

Ultimately, I've been moderately successful (my business represents the bulk of our income), but not wildly successful. I've come to think less is more... and, I'm happy with that. I doubt I'd be happier single with a larger business and more money.

But that's me...

<comment><USER8> > As for me, I've been with my wife for over 10 years (most of it dating), > and... honestly? I think this relationship has had an adverse effect on my > goals. I, kind of, think I'd be much more rich and successful had I never > met my wife.

Define successful?

<comment><USER9> Probably "fame", "power" and "money". Notice how happiness is not there.

<comment><USER10> I think everyone has his own definition of the word. It'll depend on what happiness to him is. If he's happy with his family, so happiness is having a family.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As a woman who sees these young entrepreneurs in their twenties who routinely put work before relationships, I am sometimes dismayed. I've wondered more than once if their growth as men is being stunted. I suspect the stories of sacrificing love on the altar of your startup and the pain involved in doing so are just the stories you _don't_ hear.

New love and startups have about the same failure rate. No?

<comment><USER12> Yes, but when you succeed your start-up takes you to the bank, while your wife takes you to the cleaners ;)

<comment><USER13> This describes my experience quite well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am fairly young - 27, been married about 5 years, have two kids (both under 3) and am madly in love with my wife.

She doesn't work, and building my startup full-time is VERY stressful - especially since I am bootstrapping, more or less.

As al3x pointed out though, a good mate can really make it MUCH better. I am blessed to have a wife that is understanding and doesn't NEED to go shopping and is high maintenance. Of course, every girl likes to be pampered - but she is very laid back and supportive of what I am doing.

That makes the tough days when everybody else is suggesting that maybe I should 'get a real job' much easier to handle and brush off.

I actually think it is easier to do a startup with an understanding wife, because it adds balance and sanity to your life.

But if you get a bad match...yikes...run!

</comment><comment><USER15> Falling in love is not one of life's distractions, its one of life's points. Time well spent.

<comment><USER16> True. I agree that it's one of life's points. However, oftentimes maintaining a relationship can be distracting.

<comment><USER17> If it's a relationship you want to be in, embrace the time away from work to be present and enjoy being with someone you love.

If you find your relationship distracts you from work you want to be doing, and find yourself wishing you were doing work and weren't with your significant other, end the relationship.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A muse helps so much.

I know I am supposed to be naturally deeply passionate about every single thing in my life all the time -- that is apparently now standard for educated people, nobody ever feels blasé about anything; feeling blasé is for poor people and stupid people -- but (gasp, horror of horrors) passion is sometimes hard to come by for me. Loving someone gives everything a special glow. Loving someone makes my accomplishments meaningful. Loving someone gives me a reason to rewrite something that was good enough the first time. Loving someone gives me a reason to stay late doing something that will make an impact but won't translate into pay or advancement.

A muse brings everything into sharp relief and makes everything feel more vital and dramatic. It doesn't have anything to do with sex -- a muse can have this effect even if you can't have her, and sleeping with girls you aren't so excited about has the opposite effect, flattening everything out so that accomplishment and slacking off feel exactly the same.

It may even work better in the short run when your muse is inaccessible. In that case you have freedom to manage your side of the "relationship" without worrying about the consequences for her. A muse who loves you back has staying power, though.

<comment><USER19> I think "blasé", by definition, isn't for poor or stupid people, unless you're using it ironically.

<comment><USER20> Nah, in this age of plenty that's about right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> You seem to regard having fallen head over heels as a bad thing.

Be grateful as hell. It doesn't happen to everybody.

</comment><comment><USER22> Sorry; I can't tell if you're just back down to earth and you're in a steady relationship now or if it's over. In case it's the former, here's my two cents. This comes from a place a little further down the road, and therefore it is a little OT, but I'll mention it because I wish I would have heard the same.

You might find that your professional success--perhaps your emotional investment in your business--gives rise to turmoil in your relationship. Many of us strive to get big, go public, get acquired, acquire others, merge, etc. These events are typically wins, but the downsides are loss of control, loss of interest, and perhaps even a bit of depression as a result.

I hope you're successful. If you feel a little off in the course of things, don't let it poison your relationship. Recognize it, act on it, but don't _react_.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm reminded of the best personal advice ever given by a Physiscist:

 _"Dear Mrs. Chown, Ignore your son's attempts to teach you physics. Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is. Best wishes, Richard Feynman."_

</comment><comment><USER24> As long as the feelings are mutual and are able to grow beyond the initial smitten stage then nothing wrong with falling head over heels in love.

I've done it, and come through the other side with the love of my life. ^_^

</comment><comment><USER25> The time you've invested in building the relationship will come back as support in the form of a partner telling you to keep pushing even though everyone else thinks you're crazy. No matter how much discipline and confidence you have, it's always great to have the person you love tell you they believe in you.

</comment><comment><USER26> You have your whole life for startups. Indulgence in love is mostly limited to your 20s. I would suggest enjoy the chemistry till it lasts - startups can wait. The chemistry will bring you more happiness then any amount of big company building would.

Destinations are always pointless, its always the journey. Think of this as a detour from your startup life. In the longer run, detours will give you valuable perspective and make your journeys more meaningful.

</comment><comment><USER27> Happened to me too, girl wasn't worth the time though. Dev is now at full pace...my personal belief is that no love life is a better startup life. Others have pulled it off though!

</comment><comment><USER28> My experience is a real relationship seems to constrict me. A girl I love and think about all the time, but never know her name... that will make me a deity in production and development.

</comment><comment><USER29> I had to check to make sure I didn't sleepwalk and submit this because almost the exact same thing happens to me. I quitted my job 8 months ago to travel and work on my ideas. 2 months in, I fall in love with my current girlfriend. After a few months of long distance relationship as I traveled around the world, we now live together in the most romantic city in the world, Paris.

During the day when she goes to school, I work on my project. At times when I can't stand the loneliness, I get out and just hop on a random metro to read or observe people. At night, we cook, talk, and watch movies together. I'm having the best time of my life even though the future is a little scary to think about. I hope you enjoy yours as well, best of luck to your startup.

</comment><comment><USER30> Personally falling in love motivates me to do stuff more than anything else. Even if it didn't, I would still want to fall in love more than work on a startup. Why work on a startup now, so that you can fall in love and be happy later?

</comment><comment><USER31> Working hard and long hours is a part of my life–so if a partner doesn't mesh with that they don't mesh with me. I luckily tend to only be attracted to similarly driven people, so it usually works out for me. The few times I've strayed personality types there have been problems.

All and all, I do consider the force that makes me obsessed with a project to the point I can't get up for hours on end the same one as the one that makes me neglect the project a week later to experience a wonderful new and intense experience and I'm grateful for it. I'm lucky that I have the freedom to wander wherever my passion is at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER32> I love startups and the thrill of success. But there is nothing that a successful startup can bring you that is anywhere near the feeling of having the love of your life tell you that she loves you back.

</comment><comment><USER33> I think you have all the advice you need here. Life is messy, it's not always the dream you watched in movies growing up. There is a reason musicians and poets alike have written so much about it. People talk on HN about start-ups being life, as with anything in life that gives you great reward there is a great risk. Love is no different. For you to find happiness you need to enjoy the risk of both. How you do this and manage these different aspects of your life depends on how you tell your stories.

</comment><comment><USER34> I can't speak from personal experience, but in this interview Max Levchin mentions how his girlfriend was key in pushing him forward and giving him the strength to not quit during the days before Paypal - [http://gigaom.com/2010/11/08/in-his-own-words-the-story- of-m...](http://gigaom.com/2010/11/08/in-his-own-words-the-story-of-max- levchin-video/)

</comment><comment><USER35> I think Shakespeare puts it best...

'poor and content is rich, and rich enough'

If we base our self esteem and judge our success by the work we do, then we'll always be found wanting. The ultimate goal of life is happiness in ourselves or others (which in turn often brings us happiness). While a successful start up may bring us satisfaction/money, it is ultimately only a cornerstone in our lives.

</comment><comment><USER36> "...but the project seems to be on the right track again, slowly building momentum"

Enjoy it! Looks to me like it's helping.

</comment><comment><USER37> Choose love over money.

Always.

<comment><USER38> Falling in love with a wealthy girl makes the choice even easier though, or at least one who makes a decent living. It's better when you can do your startup without having to worry about bread on the table tomorrow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> If you are, indeed, in mutual love, then you should be very thankful.

I personally can be more focused while I'm working when I am in a relationship, so I would see it as a benefit. When I'm not in a relationship, there often seems to be this extra "to-do" item that is never done :)

Some people, they fall in love, and that becomes the thing that guides their decisions in their life.

Other people don't - they love their work so much that they put it before anything else. Or, they just don't meet someone, and instead put their energy toward their work.

But it's still possible to use that support as fuel to motivate you. It's just a matter of prioritizing, and making sure you don't neglect either of these important elements in your life.

</comment><comment><USER40> Support structure, focus and continued encouragement is all I get. In small, daily and consistent doses. I'm diving in full time in March, and can't see myself doing it without the other.

</comment><comment><USER41> _> molecular chemistry is a tough adversary_

I hope you're sure the other party doesn't see this. Can't imagine that would go down too well.

 _That's all I am to you? Amino acid chains?_

If obsession with love can be reduced to chemistry, then obsession with business must necessarily be understood similarly, and with a similar inward scepticism.

But yeah. However much you enjoy your work, it's not going to benefit it long term to let it give you tunnel vision. However fulfilling it is, you cannot live a one dimensional life and still be happy forever.

<comment><USER42> If the person I was dating didn't find that amusing and endearing then we'd be doomed anyway.

I'm dating a psychologist, who has a reductionist approach to such things. She says things like "You just gave me a massive surge of oxytocin." It's awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> There is just one life...

</comment><comment><USER44> > But I wonder if I could have done things differently,

Well, sure. Should you have? I doubt it.

You'll be able to hack and do startups the rest of your life. Most likely you'll only have a few chances to fall in love. I recommend making the most of them. (This goes double if you want to get married and have a family.)

</comment><comment><USER45> Its all about getting the right balance and progressing in all areas of your life, not just one. Think about your ideal situation and work towards that. It's often helpful to think about your priorities using a four quadrant model - Self, Work/Money, Family, Community.

</comment><comment><USER46> I had only one real love so far and it actually helped me advance. It keeps me being motivated.

</comment><comment><USER47> Wish i could find it, but there's an HN'er who bootstrapped a business and during the same timeframe met someone and got married, and wrote a nice blog post about it recently. He seemed to pull it off just fine.

</comment><comment><USER48> Best HGH is <http://www.hghforsale.org/genf20.php>

</comment><comment><USER49> In my experience, money is much easier to find than limerence. Also, limerence is generally relatively short-lived. For the sake of living life, I recommend to young people that they take a 'gap year' of sorts, and that they pursue limerence or 'love'.</comment>


Neil deGrasse Tyson Doing an IAmA on Reddit - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/qccer/i_am_neil_degrasse_tyson_ask_me_anything/

<comment><USER2> "The problem, often not discovered until late in life, is that when you look for things in life like love, meaning, motivation, it implies they are sitting behind a tree or under a rock. The most successful people in life recognize, that in life they create their own love, they manufacture their own meaning, they generate their own motivation.

For me, I am driven by two main philosophies, know more today about the world than I knew yesterday. And lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you." -- NdGT

Probably the best thing I've heard in a while. I love when he does these AMA's.

</comment><comment><USER3> 50 minutes old and 4300 comments... best of luck to anyone hoping to ask him a question.

<comment><USER4> I just spent 20 minutes writing up a question that was important to me (would you become a public supporter of Copenhagen Suborbitals, working towards sending a man into space) only to see it being lost in a sea of questions.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/qccer/i_am_neil_degras...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/qccer/i_am_neil_degrasse_tyson_ask_me_anything/c3wgzpl)

<comment><USER3> I gave you a hopeful upvote. I'm generally not a fan of asking AMA subjects for money, but it sounds like a cool program and something that Dr. Tyson could be interested in.

<comment><USER4> We actually just talked about trying to get some international coverage on a board meeting the other day, so this AMA seemed a pretty good opportunity. Our goal for this year is to get more international members, it's currenlty mostly Danes.

Normally I'd agree with you on the money subject, but this just seemed too good of an opportunity to not act upon. Besides all the money will be spent building rockets :-)

And thanks a lot for the upvote.

<comment><USER5> You should try to contact him directly. Just posting a comment on a Reddit AMA, especially one as popular as this, probably won't make anything happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think to myself "I'm spending too much time on Reddit looking at stupid stuff" so I come to HN for some highbrow articles and see a link to Reddit of Neil deGrasse Tyson doing an AMA :/ ...back to Reddit.

<comment><USER7> that's why reddit is in my hosts file...

<comment><USER8> Here is a true story. I've curated the hell out of my reddit frontpage.

I went to reddit just now and while it was loading I thought "I'm so sick of the downward trend in my enjoyment of the unstoppable march towards extreme mediocrity in every corner of reddit... if I don't see anything on my frontpage that interests me this time, I'm going to add it to my hosts file"

I scanned the page, saw nothing that interested me (including this AMA... I don't even know who he is) and added reddit to my hosts file.

Then I opened Hacker News. Top link? This reddit AMA. Sigh.

<comment><USER9> I'm tiring of saying it repeatedly, but simply unsubscribe from those subreddits and visit less often. It's amazing, I know, but reddit is actually more enjoyable when you don't feel a compulsion to click it every hour. That, and quite frankly, you're missing out. deGrasse is extremely well spoken about science and progressing as a human race. Frankly, I'm not surprised it was posted here, the things he said on The Daily Show a few days ago really made my hacker insides glow with joy and pride.

I can't believe that "I have so little self control and lack of understand of how reddit works that I have to forcibly block myself from it via /etc/hosts" is applauded here. That or it's just tongue-in-cheek "reddit sucks [now]" that is applauded. Either way, it doesn't matter. Seeing it in every thread that mentions reddit just perpetuates the stereotype that HN has a bit of an elitist complex.

<comment><USER8> You mischaracterise me. I've been using reddit for 6+ years. I've pruned my subscribed subreddits down to a handful of ones with a high signal to noise.

If I pruned AMA, I'd be left with not much. truereddit, theoryofreddit, askscience and few niche interests (which disproportionately overwhelm my feed... I'd like a granularity slider for each subscribed subreddit "show me all <\---> show me only top posts").

Yes. I have 'so little self control' after using reddit for so many years. It's hard to ween yourself off a habit that was initially so rewarding but has gradually and ultimately become an unrewarding and depressing time-sink.

You would begrudge me trying to manage my 'addiction' by blocking reddit in my hosts file? I should man-up and not click when hovering over a reddit bookmark? I should not tap out cmd-t r enter to navigate there after deleting the bookmark?

"lack of understand of how reddit works" = false

"That or it's just tongue-in-cheek "reddit sucks [now]" that is applauded."

Do you deny the level of discourse, the level of signal to noise, the benefits from contributing or participating _haven't_ been dropping over time?

"Seeing it in every thread that mentions reddit"

This was my first comment about reddit on HN. And I can't remember seeing any others, so I can't comment.

"just perpetuates the stereotype that HN has a bit of an elitist complex."

Where is this stereotype being expressed? "Elitist" is a loaded term. Like those 'Rucola Eatin' Obama Liberals' that Sarah Palin liked to denigrate? HN is comprised of people who want to discuss content over fluff and humour. It's by design! Check out r/askscience. Is that elitist?

You may still get benefits from reading reddit, but after six great years, it's time for me to ween myself off and go cold turkey.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For those who are just interested in the questions that Dr. Tyson chose to answer (along with the answers, of course): <http://www.reddit.com/r/tabled/comments/qcyqa/></comment>


The Facebook Home disaster - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/the_facebook_home_disaster/

<comment><USER2> What a horrendous article. There is so much more to the story here.

Sure there are problems with it, but it's not quite a disaster... yet. It's limited to a small group of phones and is only the initial release. The idea is still solid and needs fine tuning.

Even Siegler can see its upside [http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/09/htc-first- facebook-home-rev...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/09/htc-first-facebook- home-review/)

<comment><USER3> I see what you're saying, but the fact that a $99 phone that's on the market today--in fact the only one offering a heavily-marketed selling point--didn't see enough demand to keep even that low price point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It bothers me that journalists take this view often with technology that can only be used by a small fraction of users. It also bothers me that companies feel it's necessary to do a big dog and pony show for a feature that's only available at launch to a minority of users. I feel for companies of all sizes. If you launch a product and for whatever reason it is not available immediately or to everyone, without fail it is lauded as a 'cool new idea' and reported almost in the same breath as a commercial disaster. A better strategy for almost all facebook products IMO would be a campaign that is much more targeted and limited in scope. especially when the product is similarly limited in scope. recent examples of Graph Search and Facebook Home come to mind.

</comment><comment><USER5> "From $99 to _99 cents_ " sounds like a comically drastic fire sale only if you know nothing about the mobile industry in the US and the basics of how handset subsidies work. If the retail price of the phone is $500 and the carrier normally shifts $400 of that into your monthly bill over two years, selling the phone for $100 less is a 20% off sale.

I don't know whether the writer is intentionally being obtuse to write a hit piece or genuinely doesn't understand the market, but a 20% discount sounds like the First isn't quite hitting sales forecasts, which is a considerably less interesting headline.

<comment> shock-value As I understand it, the phone buyer is going to have to sign up for the same two year contract, regardless of what phone is chosen. So essentially this indicates that consumers are basically assigning zero value to Facebook Home as a feature (or perhaps negative value compared to other phones). Seems like a significant story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I tried out home on my Nexus 4 and the biggest issue I had was that I felt weird having pictures of other people's kids scrolling by as the background on my phone.

<comment><USER7> I think the marketing and reality just didn't seem to mesh (although it usually never does). On the commercials and ads for Facebook Home everything was a professional picture that looked great. Meanwhile, in reality, you get today's toddler picture #4 from your co-worker and the plate of food your friend's dad just got from the Szechuan place in Kahului.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article gives _way_ too much weight to App Reviews. There are so many 1-star "haters gon' hate" ratings that probably should be [completely] ignored.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's easy to see Home as a failure because Facebook is so huge, but it's an early product. They can't develop all the capabilities to ship a mobile phone without getting their hands dirty, and Windows and Blackberry are proving that a good mobile OS doesn't mean you have distribution.

They have "Facebook phones" in stores and they didn't have to: \- invest in hardware \- develop a new OS \- fork Android \- bootstrap retail distribution

This approach is eerily like Tesla, where even if your initial product doesn't match your end goal, you have a realistic path from reality to vision.

Remember, when the iPhone came out, it had 2G internet, no copy/paste, no apps, and it cost _$600_. It wasn't competitive with the phone marketplace (it was better, but sold few absolute units compared to the whole market). But it got better every year, and sales ~doubled every year, and now there's no comparison between an original iPhone and the iPhone 5.

I'm not a FB fan but congrats to them for shipping!

<comment><USER10> > This approach is eerily like Tesla, where even if your initial product > doesn't match your end goal, you have a realistic path from reality to > vision.

Except people liked Tesla cars from day 1. People don't seem to like Facebook Home, even when it is free. It's not that they don't like Facbeook (the regular app and the Messenger app are both very popular), it's that they specifically don't like Facebook Home.

Update: Look at the reviews / install count and most importantly install trend. Brutal.

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.h...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.home)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What a garbage article. That guy should reconsider writing as a career.

</comment><comment><USER12> This article is light on content and heavy on sensationalism, but it's also not wrong.

How many of the people in this thread jumping on the author are actually running Facebook Home?

Exactly.

<comment><USER13> How many people on Hacker News criticizing the U.S. drone war on terrorists are actually terrorists?

<comment><USER14> I remember when I went through a phase where every HN comment I posted was likely to get downvotes. Now I think a little bit first and try to come up with a better way of making my points (usually).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Good info coming from <https://twitter.com/jguynn> on this press conference.

</comment><comment><USER16> Not every day you see a Salon article on the HN front page.

<comment><USER14> No, it's pretty much every day. Twice on Saturdays.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> They should just separate the chat heads functionality.

<comment><USER18> They did. Facebook Messenger app on android has chat heads without the obnoxious homescreen

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The thing is... and it's true for Windows Phones or Blackberry Phones... people think of iPhones as the standard. Android is a close runner up, but the others are all distant nobodies. To your average user, another interface is just annoying to learn how to use.

Try giving your mother this phone, see what she says. At this point with the evolution of mobile devices, people are just used to what they have. Could they be improved? Yes. Will they slowly? Yes. Are we all generally happy with what we already have? Yes.

Facebook doesn't need an OS, it needs an App.

<comment><USER20> _people think of iPhones as the standard_

The tech crowd does, but Android outsells iPhone by a ton each year. There isn't such a central concept of "an Android", but that means plenty of people are used to differing UIs, from HTC's Sense or Samsung's Touchwiz. A Facebook OS layer could work just as well as they do.</comment></comment>


FDA emergency use auth for the use of hydroxychloroquine against Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.fda.gov/media/136534/download <comment><USER2> US physicians have already been able to prescribe and administer those drugs to COVID-19 patients. This order merely opens distribution from the government stockpile to mitigate current supply shortages while production ramps up. So it's a good move. The efficacy in treating COVID-19 is still being studied but in the meantime patients who need the drugs for other conditions have had trouble filling their prescriptions.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> To those who think this is bad: why? What is the downside to trying this, or at least manufacturing a stockpile, that all of the health officials seem to be missing.

Essentially: if you could talk directly to the FDA, what new information would you give them that would cause them to reverse course on this? Same question for any of the countries who have made this a part of their standard treatment. What do you know about this that they don't, why are they wrong to have done what they are doing?

<comment><USER3> I'm not saying they shouldn't do it.

We don't know if it works, so if they're going to try it they can at least run it as an RCT.

We do know that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine can have significant side effects, especially if combined with azithromycin. This combination requires careful monitoring. That monitoring is harder to achieve during the current very highly pressured treatment environment, where we have a bunch of people with less experience in very busy wards and field hospitals using unfamiliar equipment.

<comment><USER4> If I have read correct information; those negative side effects are from long- term use (years), not from multi-day treatment dosages.

<comment><USER3> The heart problems are from short term use in combination with azithromycin.

Here's some guidance from the American College of Cardiology:

[https://www.acc.org/latest-in- cardiology/articles/2020/03/27...](https://www.acc.org/latest-in- cardiology/articles/2020/03/27/14/00/ventricular-arrhythmia-risk-due-to- hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-treatment-for-covid-19)

• Safety considerations for inpatient and outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin in clinical practice are outlined below. Additional sources of expert guidance are also available here.

• The intensity of QT and arrhythmia monitoring should be considered in the context of risk level, resource availability and quarantine considerations.

• Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine therapy should occur in the context of a clinical trial or registry, until sufficient evidence is available for use in clinical practice.

• IRB-approved protocols should guide use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for pandemic research; suggestions for researchers are outlined below.

• Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine use outside of a clinical trial should occur at the direction of an infectious disease or COVID-19 expert, with cardiology input regarding QT monitoring.

<comment><USER5> > at the direction of a...COVID-19 expert

There aren't any of those.

<comment><USER6> Au contraire, this thread is full of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is more and more evidence that the only proper trial where it worked was a "nothingburger"

[https://forbetterscience.com/2020/03/26/chloroquine- genius-d...](https://forbetterscience.com/2020/03/26/chloroquine-genius- didier-raoult-to-save-the-world-from-covid-19/)

[https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/29/mo...](https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/29/more- on-cloroquine-azithromycin-and-on-dr-raoult)

EDIT: Hmm I haven't seen this one before, that actually looks better [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v...](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v1)

<comment><USER8> These articles both seem to summarize the same set of evidence, and it primarily consists not of studies where it doesn't work but evidence that Mr. Raoult is untrustworthy. Which he does seem to be, don't get me wrong, but that's very different than affirmative evidence it's ineffective.

<comment><USER9> _" affirmative evidence it's ineffective."_

There's no such thing as affirmative evidence of ineffectiveness. You can't prove a negative.

Drug trials are designed to prove _effectiveness_ , because the null hypothesis is always that your therapy is ineffective.

<comment><USER8> Sure, yes, but evidence that the guy's untrustworthy isn't a failure to refute the null hypothesis either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There is still no compelling clinical evidence that it works either as a prophylaxis or "cure".

has any double blind study with more than 100 participants actually reported yet?

<comment><USER11> Thanks for setting out an arbitrary criteria for us ...

<comment><USER10> which bit is arbitrary?

the double blind study, or the number of participants?

<comment><USER12> Double blind isn't arbitrary. The number of participants sure looks arbitrary though. (Powers of 10 should be treated as presumptively arbitrary.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Personally my money is on Favipiravir if I had to bet on which of the drugs in trial is mostly likely to turn out to be the best treatment but there are lots of drugs in trial and we still need to know much more about all of them. In the meantime we're advancing our understanding of how to treat Covid-19 in other ways as well, such as finding out that proning patients can help in some circumstances.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why is your money on that drug?

<comment><USER14> Its a general anti-viral that targets RNA viruses in general so might be more effective.

<comment><USER15> Does the "general" make it more promising than Remdesivir to you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Good news. Lots of studies being done on this.

Here's a Recent promising study.

[https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v...](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v1)

</comment><comment><USER16> I can't help but feel that people are bending over backwards now to deny the potential efficacy of this treatment because Trump tweeted about it.

The potentially positive results are some 2 months old now, there have been multiple (admittedly nonideal) reports out of China first, then Europe, that these drugs may work, and we have a theorized mechanism of action.

These drugs were also reported to work on SARS.

A tweet may not be an appropriate venue but it was absolutely a good idea to give people hope, and these drugs undeniably do show promise. Any other president would have been lauded.

<comment><USER17> The TDS is very strong in the world today...

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I guess we never learn from history. I suggest looking into temiflu fiasco.

I even got it prescribed recently when I got diagnosed with influenza. Basically, the US and European governments have spent massive amounts of money on this drug to help with the flu. People soon learned that temiflu is very close to placebo in efficacy.

<comment><USER19> Tamiflu works, you just have to be within the window.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> There is a hospital in France using the Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin treatment on patients and publishing the ongoing numbers:

[https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/covid-19/](https://www.mediterranee- infection.com/covid-19/)

They don't publish demographics that I could find, but certainly the fact that 1,283 people have been given that treatment and only 1 person that received it for at least three days has died, that strongly suggests it's better than "nothing".

<comment><USER21> IMO the impact of the drugs should be, more than preventing deaths, in reducing hospitalization or even prevent going into the ICU, which can mean removing load off the healthcare system and make infections manageable (far more than waiting out for a vaccine).

In fact, some the remdesivir trials which will end next month (end of April) measure also the time spent in the hospital.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Part hail mary, part public relations?

</comment><comment><USER23> Did we do this because Trump pushed it through? Or do they actually think it might work?

<comment><USER24> So, as a foreigner that seems an entirely reasonable question. Interesting that you got downvoted.

Edit: why would I wonder? Not only because the commander in chief is quickly flipping between standpoints, but why is the CDC silent since March 14?

<comment><USER25> The NYT and other media is very friendly to federal bureaucrats who complain about political interference.

If the WH was directing them to approve something against their judgment there would have been headlines on major news sites.

<comment><USER26> You can't assume all possible things will get whistleblown, especially after what happened to the last couple.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tech Jobs without a Degree - <AUTHOR> https://techjobswithoutdegree.com/about <comment><USER2> If your only definition of "value" is "monetary value," I think you have larger issues. To quote Oscar Wilde (over a hundred years ago, to boot):

 _Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing._

To me, college was extremely valuable. College forces you to interact with people and ideas that you either disagree with and/or were completely unaware of. It's the single best way to reduce the number of "unknown unknowns." Was it overpriced? Yes. Were the loans "worth it"? Not sure. But the solution to this societal problem is surely to make attending college more affordable, not to erode the fundamental importance of an educated society.

<comment><USER3> "College forces you to interact with people and ideas that you either disagree with and/or were completely unaware of. It's the single best way to reduce the number of "unknown unknowns."

So does getting a job, volunteering, traveling the world, doing a mission trip, serving in the armed forces, etc, etc.

There is a social cost to having people spend 4-6 years in college. And colleges are increasingly becoming government-subsidized vacation from the real world. We should ask whether the core benefits of college that we want to actually subsidize - education, training, etc. - can be done cheaper and faster through other means. Cut the cruft.

Look, I was a humanities major in college and I loved it. But looking back, the four year experience seems like an extremely expensive exercise in upper- class cosplay. It was a luxury that the taxpayers, in effect, paid for.

<comment><USER4> "humanities major in college" \- i think i found your problem

<comment><USER5> you can learn skills outside of your classes and come out with the benefits of both. college isn't a job training program outside of a few majors

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I often see people pointing out that college has other pros other than just teaching people technical skills, which many can learn from other sources.

My 2 cents: College has also many cons. Apart from the monetary issue, college forces talented people to learn things way more slowly than they could, in a much less efficient way than its possible. College also forces you to go through some very uninteresting classes. Some people would argue that this good, since in the "real world" that is often what happens. I don't like this line of reasoning: that is part of the problem. You shouldn't do what you don't like, and college shouldn't teach you that. From a biological point of view, college is the most productive time in your life.

Should we really be forcing (and by that I mean: should the people hiring engineers require a degree) people to sit through slow, sub-optimal, boring classes during their most productive years, in the hope that they get used to being unhappy most of the time?

College may be good to some people, but it may also hurt a lot of talented people, who waste their valuable time and become used to the fact that its ok to be unhappy with what you're doing. It's not.

</comment><comment><USER7> I didn't go to college. I started teaching myself when I was 10 to write PHP/MySQL/HTML/CSS/JS. I got my first "real" job when I was 18, fresh out of high school. I'm now nearly 22, making more than either of my parents, with no student debt, and I am so glad I didn't decide to go to college.

My advice is to take a gap year before college. If you can become gainfully employed during that gap year, why bother?

<comment><USER8> This is mostly a US issue, though. In many European countries, for example, you can get a decent education without being left in large debt.

I prefer to live in a society where, when in doubt, people are usually more educated than they actually need to be. This is far better than the reverse.

The bad thing is the debt, not the college.

<comment><USER9> >The bad thing is the debt, not the college.

To add to this: the bad thing is that college is being peddled as necessary for career placement/advancement, when it's just another big business looking to profit off of young people who don't know what to do with their life.

College level education is great. The more educated and well-rounded a society is the more it will benefit from each other. The fundamental problem is exploitation for profit (much like our health care/insurance industry here in the US).

<comment><USER5> universities aren't for-profit institutions. the increase in cost was because states cut back funding for universities, forcing higher tuition and higher debt loads on students

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm a self-taught senior developer that has worked successfully without a diploma for decades.

Is bypassing college a viable path in tech? Yes, definitely.

Is college worth it? Hard to say. If you are going strictly to have a piece of paper and learn "job skills", no. If you are going for a wider education, connecting with other people and a world of ideas, absolutely. Those are experiences that I regret doing without.

However, there is one directly career-related reason to get an undergraduate degree: While many tech jobs don't require one (especially in the first few years of your career), many of the jobs you may want mid-career will increasingly require a _graduate_ degree.

For example, you can get pretty far doing User Experience work without a degree but I've noticed that more and more senior UX positions or UX architect positions strongly recommend, if not require, a Master's Degree. Likewise, you could be doing everything required of a Data Analyst at your current job but when you go to apply to other companies for a DA job you will likely be competing with and interviewing with people with graduate degrees.

So, my best "old timer's" advice is: Skipping college could very well be the best strategy for some, at first. After you've settled into a few years of work, though, go to night school and get the degree. That way, a graduate degree will be within reach a few years later when you want to pivot into a different or higher career.

</comment><comment><USER11> Where'd the title come from? This doesn't have much information about the value of college.

> Are companies willing to hire tech people who do not have a degree?

> I don't know, but I want to get some answers.

<comment><USER9> This seems more like a re-hash of the questions that have been asked hundreds of times already. There's not much critical thought beyond

>"I would recommend taking a few humanities and social science courses, even though most tech employers do not list them as job requirements."

I think at this point most people are skeptical of the viability of a traditional 4 year degree and the debt it creates. Non-traditional paths have been peddled and marketed extensively. Bootcamps, community colleges, DIY approaches.

It's been made clear that companies are willing to hire non-traditional students. The biggest question, in my mind, is what is cap for these types of students? Where does the career trajectory end, and how does that stack up to regular 4-year-degree holders?

What is the real value of college these days? Connection building? Prestige? It certainly isn't job security or prospects. Not to mention the dollar-cost trade off of average debts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > For these reasons, people should consider the possibility of starting a > career in tech without going to college, and employers should consider the > viability of hiring such candidates.

How does this differ from the status quo?

<comment><USER13> That's a good question.

I believe that a lot of people see not having a degree as an impediment to getting a job "in tech", and therefore never set out down that path. In my experience, the reality of that is much different: I don't have a degree and I know many others in my situation. What I _do_ have is professional experience. I don't think my lack of a degree has held back my career or limited my earning potential.

<comment><USER5> The problem is that many employers will toss resumes without a degree on them without a second thought.

<comment><USER13> First, why would you want to work for an employer like that? Second... why would you just submit a resume and do nothing else? If you're looking to land a job you need to be networking and making yourself known. The path here isn't to find a way through the HR filter, but to simply go around it.

<comment><USER5> This isn't just an HR filter, or something you can email your way around. Not having a college degree looks like risk, so unless you get lucky, your resume will not be considered. It sucks, but that's how things are at the moment.

Kind of how IBM stuck around for so long because 'no ones ever been fired for buying IBM'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Some companies require a degree, others will hire you but hold you back from some Senior level positions/professional advancement until you get a Bachelors degree.

It comes down to what is an HR filter and what is nice to have for negotiating advantage/advancement.

However as the industry evolves it would be nice for the entire pipeline from grade/highschool to career to facilitate a techcentric education and not even require 4 years in a college setting to prepare an individual for a career in tech.

</comment><comment><USER13> Note that this post links to the "about" page, and clicking on the page's title will take you back to the home page. It's a job board.

<comment><USER15> For me, at the moment, it's a "Loading ..." board. Nothing shows up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Education is not necessarily something that has value to the employer, but it certainly is valuable to the individual.

I for one value tremendously the fact, that I met so many people much smarter than me who had the time to have all those conversations with me and weed out some of my more ridiculous ideas.

That being said I studied in Europe, so I didn't have to shoulder the burden of student debts.

</comment><comment><USER8> The title is pure link bait. Why not use the original title "Tech Jobs Without Degree"?

</comment><comment><USER17> Atleast here in India a degree from a top tier engineering college matters the most</comment>