Inside Caracas' Tower of David, the World's Tallest Slum - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/inside-caracas-tower-of-david-the-worlds-tallest-slum <comment><USER3> Unfortunately, the story didn't cover the most interesting parts: where the residents get their electricity from, whether they pay for it, what about fresh water pipes. Are they treated by the utility companies as any other customers by taking their money and providing the service in return, or they have to hook into utilities without paying for them (in that case, why they are not being cut off).

<comment><USER4> I had the opportunity to visit two months ago. Amazing place. The residents pay about $6 per month towards the community fund. Electricity is stolen. There is no fresh water. All water is walked up.

We got up to the 24 floor and watched them take up some lemonade for some workers pouring concrete.

<comment><USER5> Why is walked up? This seems like major inefficiency. It is very easy to create a system (the building has elevator shafts after all) with pulleys and winch-es that could pull up and down the load.

You could jury rig some 40 horse power combustion engine from the auto morgue (almost free) as a power plant and you need 2 platforms to counter balance each other. It will not be safe for humans but workable for heavy loads.

<comment><USER6> "Almost" free is not free. Gas is not free. Otherwise unwanted human labor is free.

<comment><USER4> Gas is basically free in Venezuela. To fill up a car with 50L/13 gals was 4 or 6 Bolivars, which is about 15-20 cents at the black market exchange rate.

We had a driver for one day and he had to fill up the car. I bought him a can of Coke which cost twice as much as the tank of gas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This tower was on the news two days ago. The police were chasing a commando group that tried to rob some jewelry stores in Caracas. The chase ended near this tower and the people that live there started throwing rocks and garbage at the cops, injuring some of them.

Also this place is used by kidnappers to keep their victims. It's pretty lawless. There's another tower like this one that was a invaded too. It used to belong to an insurance company I think. My mother worked right next to it and said sometimes you could hear gunshots inside.

There's mire than one building like this one in Caracas, but this is the tallest one.

</comment><comment><USER8> One of JG Ballards best novels is High-Rise, a sort of Lord of the Flies in an apartment tower. It's a lovely skewering of the social mores of proper English people, as well as a musing on the thin veneer of polite society. Only tangentially related, but it's a good read. [http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/70256.High_Rise](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/70256.High_Rise)

<comment><USER9> I read super-cannes from him. It was quirky and definitely interesting.

<comment><USER10> Ballard is awesome, though most of his real gold is in his short stories (a rare writer who really got into the format rather than treated it as a side line). A lot of interesting "ideas" related to science and society get explored, such as overpopulation, the psychology of insomnia, medical experiments, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This place is a disaster waiting to happen.

On reddit someone from Caracas posted pictures of a different skyscraper on fire for days because the fire department didn't have the equipment to fight it. It was a business building but I can only imagine what would happen to a building full of families and no water for fire system sprinklers.

</comment><comment><USER12> This tower draws interest because of its unusual case of being a skyscraper exclusively inhabited by squatters, but in the end it is really nothing more than a vertical shantytown, much like the millions that are sprawled out over the rest of Caracas and in other major South American cities like Rio. I assume daily life for the unfortunate people living in the tower isn't much different than the rest of the population living on or below the poverty line.

<comment><USER13> Well for one they've got a million dollar view.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The video is definitely worth watching. However, it feels like its only an introduction. For a building housing 2500 people, it seemed surprisingly empty. I can only assume that most of the adults were elsewhere trying to earn a living. I'd love to see more footage or read more interviews.

</comment><comment><USER15> This feels like a very surface-area preview. They didn't have too much footage of the interior, and didn't really have a chance to dive deep on any of the interior mechanisms of the tower.

For instance, they mention an economy and internal policing - but don't elaborate on either. Who are authority figures inside the tower? What kind of ad-hoc governance do the residents have? As another comment mentioned - <USER2> are the basic utilities actually handled?

All of these are unanswered questions, and I would really want to learn more before I take at face value the 3 interviewed residents statements that everything is sunshine and roses inside the tower. There's no way they were going to give _negative_ testimony, after all.

</comment><comment><USER16> Another interesting slum-settlement was the now-demolished Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City)

<comment><USER17> You don't find too many details about Kowloon floating around, which is a shame since it was quite a unique settlement.

The best source of information about it is probably a photo essay called "City of Darkness" ([http://www.amazon.com/City-Darkness-Life-Kowloon- Walled/dp/1...](http://www.amazon.com/City-Darkness-Life-Kowloon- Walled/dp/1873200137)) which is frequently out of print, but which I _highly_ recommend if you can snag a copy. It's a fascinating historical document in its own right, and one of the few reliable sources of information about the walled city, which is why it's referenced so heavily in the Wikipedia article.

<comment><USER18> This is the best footage I've seen. It has interviews, commentary, and english subtitles.

[http://technoccult.net/archives/2010/12/20/video-kowloon- wal...](http://technoccult.net/archives/2010/12/20/video-kowloon-walled-city- documentary/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Vice has really been killing it lately with their reporting. This story though was covered by mainstream press 3-4 years ago.

<comment><USER20> The linked movie was released 1st of August 2013, so if nothing else it's a recent view into what's going on.

<comment><USER19> Here is the NYTimes coverage from 2011: [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/world/americas/01venezuela...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/world/americas/01venezuela.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I thought this was going to be about the Parque Central East Tower that burned in 2004 ([http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/741](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/741)). As far as I know that one still hasn't been fully repaired, but I guess no one lives in it (yet).

</comment><comment><USER22> Reminds me of Judge Dredd.

<comment><AUTHOR> Or Raid: Redemption.

<comment><USER23> This is what I thought of. Incredible stunts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The people they interviewed didn't look like they were terribly down on their luck. One couple just looked like young couple who might have moved in there because it's trendy, and the older guy looked like he lived there just because it was cheap. Remodeling the place, watching football on TV...

They really don't seem like the poorer people you could see from the shots outside the building.

I'd like to see them talking to people who gave the place the reputation it has. Is there some 'rule' there, like _don 't go above the 20th floor_ to stay in the 'good' part of the building?

<comment><USER25> Television sets and clothing is 'empty gifts of capitalism', not necessarily expensive. Take a look at benefit claimants in the UK - typically they have a bigger TV than you do and clothes with 'better' branding than you do.

Once you take market rate prices for housing out of the work-bills equation you find 'empty gifts of capitalism' can be afforded.

I would say that as well as 'cheap' being a reason to live there, there is also the matter of community. You are probably better able to borrow a cup of sugar from your neighbours there than if you lived in a gated community. People are much more likely to know each other's business so there is security that guns/police/CCTV can't buy.

So long as you don't mind the stairs and fire hazards (which can't be that much worse than the Twin Towers), all is good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is also interesting building, which is (currently?) occupied by slum people. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_City](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_City)

</comment><comment><USER27> Youtube direct link: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1p9jlQUW0k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1p9jlQUW0k)

So the Broad Group continues to claim [1] they are going to build their 225 story building in 3 months. (well erect it would be more accurate). One wonders if this sort of construction would be a better solution than occupying partially constructed buildings.

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

<comment><USER28> It took me a moment to figure out why your comment didn't read right, then it clicked.

You are wondering if building more towers would be a solution for people, due to high housing costs, occupying a tower that never finished construction.

<comment><USER27> Sorry yes, there are two economic outcomes, one being an unproductive asset (the abandoned building, and although one of the tenants mentioned paying 'rent' it was entirely unclear who was collecting the rent and by what right other than perhaps force majeur) and the other being housing built which is economically viable to rent 'legally' and thus providing some GDP in the city.

Creating affordable housing allows the capture of that economic activity which can be used to enhance and support public services supporting people using it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Well I hope the community pulls it off and makes it the most awesome place to live in Caracas, then go on to become a model solution and case study for future housing, I hope.

<comment><USER30> Not likely. Most probably, it will end up being something like the White Elephant, a squattered building at the edge of Buenos Aires [1][2]. It was going to be the largest hospital in Latin America, but then after the 1955 coup, the construction stopped, the building was abandoned and it was squattered. It has become a very dangerous place, and even the police and gendarmery (an intermediate between police and military) are afraid to enter there. I have worked for a security company that had to place security cameras there, and the workers had to be protected by gendarmery officials. While they were installing the cameras, some bullets where shot from windows. Luckily, nobody was injured.

[1] [http://www.oddee.com/contrib_17194.aspx](http://www.oddee.com/contrib_17194.aspx)

[2] [http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/urbanlife/r...](http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/urbanlife/reviving- a-white-elephant/)

PS: Relevant to the second link, the project "Sueños Compartidos" or "shared dreams" was closed soon after the article was written, because of a high profile corruption scandal involving the project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> not as bad as it seems. Gathering of people from different slums to a place with a roof sums it up.

</comment><comment><USER32> Incarcerated in monolithic interstitial dreck, that forlorn inquisitive youngster in a long empty corridor may grow into a seasoned coder to escape Caracas' concrete war-zone of dread, and this is why here in the states, the preterites get free roam bugged `Obama Phones', with 250 minutes/month, as one of Kieth Alexander's many new worries is that lone savvy `Tuttle' in Brazil, that drones can't even target, and who later retired as 'Jack Burns', ex- florist, in a pleasant home and family circle of trust, recently augmented by a suspicious new pothead son in law, who, unbeknownst to Kieth, Tuttle/Burns has a back story as a NSA-hated CIA field agent to foment global terror to justify US surveillance agencies ever escalating budgets and security cleared retirees' revolving-door golden-parachutes. So the NSA, CIA, and FBI uber- state independent silos all become a patch-quilt of allied targets.

<comment><USER33> lmaowtf

<comment><USER32> Expensive `joke`, I was billed about 8k _.

_ k: karma</comment></comment></comment>


A New History of the First Peoples in the Americas - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/a-brief-history-of-everyone-who-ever-lived/537942/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> If you ever get to Taos and ask the people of the pueblo how long their ancestors have been there, you may well get a reply akin to, 'We have always been the people of the pueblo.'

I'm not sure if the majority eschew scientists researching their history. We welcome it with my people. Much of our history was lost and there are continued efforts to recover that history.

I'm not sure of any DNA projects underway, though I recall someone mentioning a group that had gone through asking for samples. I have had my DNA analyzed and can prove my heritage through the records. This helped enable me to have dual citizenship.

Anyhow, I guess the gist of what I'm trying to say is that we aren't all sticklers for believing origin myth is our identity and we aren't all against discovery of our lineage and migrations. I am Micmac (Mi'kmaq, among other spellings) regardless of our origin myths. The two are able to be held as distinct values with neither being any more meaningful on your ordinary average day.</comment>


Ask HN: Raising a smarter electorate – How? - <AUTHOR>

Kids are taught many things in schools, but not how to think.
Arguably the topics most critical to success (self-discipline, character, decision making, ethics, personal finance, curiosity, thinking long-term) are not taught sufficiently.  Even worse, much of the US population believes that religion is the basis of our morals and ethics.
How would you approach this?  What might this curriculum look like?  What topics would you teach in which grades?  What would the assigned readings be? <comment><USER2> Let me address each of these areas separately. I am no expert here, but I thought I would give it a try. First, however it should be noted that a great part of any approach to teaching ought to be in setting an unambiguous example. That is, the teachers and staff must themselves act with all the mentioned qualities. Hypocrisy is a great way to confuse youth.

 _Self-discipline_ requires introspection. Psychology is an excellent field for teaching introspection.

 _Character_ is comprised both of demeanor and of ethics. Since, at least in my belief, demeanor is not one to be taught, the focus ought to be more on ethics. History is a good field for teaching ethics. However, personally I am strongly against the twisting of history by the teacher (or textbook) to fit a particular agenda, whether religious, political, or otherwise. History is already taught in most (if not all) general schools. Character, to an extent, also can be taught by example. And this example can come from the history lessons and from the teacher.

 _Decision-making_ probably ought not to be lumped together as one area. For example, is deciding on what to say in a verbal conflict on the street the same as deciding which formula to use to figure the area of a triangle? Sure, many diverse things can be abstractly lumped together as being similar, but can they equally effectively be taught all by one academic discipline? For technical decision making, perhaps philosophy is an appropriate field. Each grade level would need a different level of philosophy since this discipline obviously comes in different doses. One problem, of course, is that philosophy touches on religion, and I am not going there in this comment.

 _Ethics_... see _Character_ (above).

 _Personal-finance_ is a curious one. Surely _economics_ would provide insight into many particulars of personal finance. Since it is generally thought best to learn something near when that information will be put to real use (and consolidated mentally), it would make more sense to teach personal finance issues during a time when the students are beginning to deal with such issues. Higher education is probably an appropriate time. This issue of course varies by socioeconomic status since more affluent children are more likely to have money at a younger age. Sadly, those with less money are the ones who need this knowledge the most, but learning without proximal practice is just wasting time.

 _Curiosity_ seems to be of focus already in many early-years classes (grades kindergarten through 6). I remember things like Bill Nye being curious when I was younger, as were many other scientific videos. In a more abstract sense, however, curiosity is probably in general shunned by most current schooling systems. Thinking outside of the box is often thought of as unproductive or risky. I know there are some books available to aid in thinking laterally. I feel it would be nice if these were explored more at later ages to offset the "seriousness" of higher grades.

Thinking _long-term_ surely could be taught to an extent through history lessons. A more personally-focused history curriculum would probably help students to connect with the consequences of various paths. For the topic here, current history lessons focus too much on the greater society and not enough on the individuals. Proper anecdotes from _normal_ people throughout various times in history might be useful. Perhaps history needs more of this and less of the "big picture" stuff. After all, normal individuals are a big part of what makes the world turn -- not just military and political leaders, as many history books would have one believe.

As for the specific, year-by-year curricula, that could take a lot of research, including trial-and-error, to sort out. Also, it would probably be different for each region and even for different socioeconomic statuses. For good or bad, persons of different backgrounds have different academic needs. Please do not take that last sentence out of context, as I am referring merely to what curricula would be most helpful to a particular individual.</comment>


The power of admitting ignorance - <AUTHOR> https://bastian.rieck.me/blog/posts/2020/power_of_admitting_ignorance/ <comment><USER2> I worked at a Japanese corporation for most of my career.

They are _not_ a "warm and fuzzy" bunch.

But they respect apologies. If I screwed up, I quickly learned to cop to it. The absolute worst thing I could do was cover it up.

Their attitude was not a punishing one, but we were expected to fix our mistakes, and ensure they did not happen again.

If we said we did not know something, it was assumed we would learn, or find someone who did.

Lot of "personal responsibility" stuff.

Americans, on the other hand, tend to pounce on admissions of failure or ignorance, and engage in shaming and humiliation of the person that admits an issue.

I am constantly encountering people that Absolutely. Will. Not. Admit. Ignorance. Or. Fault. Even when it's quite clear.

It's crazy.

<comment><USER3> My biggest win, mentoring: a new guy put in charge of 'Engineering data' e.g. putting ad-hoc document solutions under one umbrella. He was worried, not an Engineer, thought he'd make a fool of himself. I said "Here's the trick. If you don't know something, say out loud "I don't know what that means. Can you explain it to me?" And because Engineers _usually_ are happy to explain their shit, they'll not think badly of you but instead become helpful. Never bluff or fake it.

Fast forward 2 years. Everybody now respects him. He's the most generally knowledgeable guy in the company, the CEO consults him. Moved to manage the new products. He's on the road to Director now. Still the same helpful guy with the reassuring voice and the insistence everybody in the room understand before moving on.

<comment><USER4> In my first job, I discovered my boss had an encyclopedic knowledge of chip pinouts. So when I needed to know a pinout, I asked him.

One day he blew up at me and said I had a TTL data book on the shelf and to quit wasting his time because I was lazy.

He was absolutely right! It's good to ask questions, but not before RTFM.

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't describe that as being "absolutely" right. A team is more productive when its individuals' strengths are pooled together, and there's no sense in refusing to make use of a specialist's skills (within reason).

Yes, you want people to learn and become more self-sufficient over time, but not at the cost of finishing projects in double the time.

<comment><USER4> Constantly interrupting a specialist when you could instead pick up the data book is abusing him.

<comment><USER2> Depends. It was "the boss." If they are a critical-path engineer (which, in my experience, is a _very_ bad idea for managers), then they shouldn't be used as a StackOverflow board.

However, if they are a true manager, then they work on "interrupt," anyway, and their quick answers may improve the performance of the team, which is really Job One for any manager.

I say this, having been a manager for many years.

It sucked. I hated it, which is why I am pivoting back into engineering.

I was a damn good manager, though. If you go to my LinkedIn profile, you'll see lots of testimonials from former employees.

One reason I was good, was because I kept myself out of the critical path.

<comment><USER6> I generally agree with you here, but there is still a limit to what extent and over what it is reasonable to interrupt a manager - given enough interruptions, they won't have any capacity left over at all!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't know about any research supporting this (see what I did there) but in my experience the best performing teams provide a _safe space_ \- where you are not immediately judged or criticised for mistakes, uncertainty or asking questions - but this necessary to bleed upwards to not holding teams to unrealistic deadlines, to careful assessment of quality of definition of work set, even towards what Incall "outcome driven development" where we set metrics to be changed and then assert commits will change said metrics

Conversely my worst work has been done when i have bullshitted and now need to keep up the lie. Pro-tip - don't do this

Pro-tip-2 - confidence that you can do something you have not done before, _when having a history of success in the field_ is not the same as bullshitting

Anyway it's hard to measure objectively- but you tend to reward the right people when you do.

And no, markets don't do that nearly as well as you might think

<comment><USER8> > And no, markets don't do that nearly as well as you might think

Markets depend on Good information To function well. Market participants can distort the information in the market for profit. In so far as this profiteering can be maintained, markets won't function so well.

Some conjecture that might not be too far off the mark.

<comment><USER7> My gut feel (yeah I know) is modern day free markets are at best 80% free and usually around 50. From structural inefficiencies to unintended regulation effects, things rarely work the way the Topsy and Tim description says.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Excellent blog post. One of the big issues, unfortunately, is that there are too many of THEM. I just sat through a job interview where they bombarded me with topics and asked me to rate myself on a scale from 1-know nothing, 2-familiar and 3-expert.

I immediately understood that this was a pointless exercise for me. I knew That I don't consider myself an expert. I haven't studied any topic long enough to call myself an expert. On the other hand, I like to believe that I don't fall in the "clueless" part either. I have worked in the computer industry form many years now and have overall pretty good problem-solving skills and am able to produce work that generates value for my employers.

Still, I learn every day and improve on my skill, but it will require a lot before I dare to call myself an expert. Others call me an expert, a wizard, and other nice things, but this is never anything I would use to describe myself.

I never got the job offer. Good riddance! I doubt I would have accepted the job anyway.

<comment><USER10> This type of rating system is always disappointing. Candidates and interviewers each have different ideas of what expertise means -- I guess because there is no real context around the question. Maybe it's a trope to say, but it seems like competence and likelihood to rate oneself an expert are inversely correlated (barring hubris or real expertise!).

I used to ask candidates to rate themselves from 1-10, e.g., in database performance analysis, and often would get people rating themselves a 9 or a 10 without being able to articulate anything about the topic. It just seems very meaningless, since we were going to have a discussion anyway -- and the conversational part of the interview is more revealing, in any case.

<comment><USER11> I usually find that (within a broad range of capability) someone's actual knowledge on a given topic is inversely correlated with their self-rating on a 1-10 scale.

<comment><USER12> Perhaps especially in the pressure of an interview

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > The person who asks a question is a fool for a minute, the person who does > not ask is a fool for life.

\-- Confucius

<comment><USER2> _"The only stupid question is the one you don't ask."_

-On the wall of a classroom in my past -can't remember where.

<comment><USER14> I swear to god, there were stupid questions during lectures. And "senpai notice me, praise me for asking this question despite the answer being obvious/irrelevant" questions. And the "I was not listening can you repeat it" questions.

<comment><USER15> 1\. You don't actually know that the answer was obvious to the asker. They may have missed a critical piece of info. Or, you may have missed a critical piece of nuance in their question.

2\. Also, when someone asks if anyone has questions, and nobody has _any_ questions, it can feel demoralizing and like nobody cared or understood what you were saying. Filling that space with an obvious question can be a small kindness. If you had a better question, maybe you should have asked it.

Disclaimer: I felt the exact same way as you when I attended university and have gained some perspective since.

<comment><USER2> > can be a small kindness.

"Kindness" seems to be in short supply, these days.

It really is depressing to see how many people take kindness for weakness. I'm seeing that demonstrated in this very article's comments.

One thing that I did learn in that corporation, was how to be an effective member of an effective team.

There is no culture on earth that comes close to the Japanese for effective teams. There's a _ton_ of downsides to their culture (but I won't get into that); but their teams are incredibly tight and effective.

Being an effective member of a team requires far more than "hard" skills. It requires a lot of "soft" skills, and, in my experience, those lessons seem harder to learn.

One of the lessons that I learned, very early on, is that the person I denigrate now, may the one that I depend on to pull my ass from a fire, down the road.

At that time, they will remember whether I helped them, or tripped them up. To their credit, most of the Japanese that I know won't actually take that into account. If helping you helps the team, they will do it; regardless of how they feel about you.

That's actually kind of amazing, and rather humbling.

<comment><USER14> > One of the lessons that I learned, very early on, is that the person I > denigrate now, may the one that I depend on to pull my ass from a fire, down > the road.

Why would you denigrate someone in the first place? Imo, the kind thing is not to denigrate anyone, including people that can not possibly be useful.

<comment><USER2> > Imo, the kind thing is not to denigrate anyone, including people that can > not possibly be useful.

Exactly.

In fact, I have always found it advantageous to treat people "far down the ladder" with respect and kindness.

This has always worked out well for me. These people know _everything._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> One of the things I've read from folks who know a lot about startups used to amaze me. Intelligence is not necessarily a critical factor in whether founders will be successful or not. In fact, it can be counter-indicative! The more intelligent you are, you more likely you're one of the people like the author mentions. I've also read that it's not the geniuses, necessarily, that make it. Most times it's just the slow plodders. A genius may become overly- attracted to one of their own ideas. They may stick with it too long, or they may be overly-defensive when they receive honest feedback. A plodder just keeps trudging along, happy to take whatever feedback comes their way, happy to change if needed, happy to learn from others.

I captured this concept in my first book with a phrase I call "profound ignorance". It's not just admitting you're ignorant, it's admitting you're probably ignorant about everything. And that's fine. Ignorant people don't know yet, and if they're curious, they go try to find out. Even when they do find out, they're still quite open to being wrong. They are, in fact, ignorant.

I found this had a profound impact in my programming and consulting career. Frankly, it's bad for your career and good for your life. People want to hire people that know a bunch of stuff, and to be open, honest, and curious about being profoundly ignorant is not reassuring. Other programmers many times want to play posturing games. It is, after all, part of our social programming. Ignorant people usually don't do so well in these games. But on a personal level? It was liberating. I could find whatever I wanted to and deep dive in it. Since I didn't know much of anything, I was able to talk about topics I have a ton of experience in without feeling like I had to attack or defend any pre-held opinions. It was, in fact, what I consider "growing up", both as a human and as a professional.

When we think of how much programming is skewed towards youth, we should keep in mind that most really young people have not had this growing up experience. We should wish them well and cut them a bit of slack if they're acting like we did when we were their age. After all, it's human.

<comment><USER17> That's why when stuff is being advertised as "everyone can do it", everyone gets excited but I run away. I don't want to be overcome by hard workers, so I am looking for stuff for which you truly have to be a genius to do it and hard work is not a shortcut.

<comment><USER18> What are these areas where "you truly have to be a genius to do it"? (Asking for a friend, I assure you.)

<comment><USER17> I was half-joking, more like fed up with this overused "everyone can do it" mantra (e.g. I saw it several times in Andrew Ng's machine learning course, which turned me off the subject (not that I had been turned on too much in the first place, but I was curious what he was going to say about the subject that could enthrall me (not much, probably just dimensionality reduction))).

Anyway, if you want to work in a genius-level field, you have to be motivated enough to find it on your own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This only demonstrates that people with high status in academia can admit ignorance and get a good result. I can speculate that the author would get very different results if he professed ignorance at his first job--I think coworkers who followed "fake it til you make it" would get promoted faster.

<comment><USER20> In the light of amelius's comment: Is the first promotion that relevant? If you learn faster by asking questions, you are a more skilled programmer much sooner. If your first employer doesn't honour that, you then have the skills to switch and earn according to your much higher skills at another company.

<comment><USER19> Companies cannot perfectly measure your programming skill and most software companies don't conduct in depth algorithm interviews. Most of the hiring decision is based on your likability, social skills, previous job history (including job title and skills listed from that first promotion), and how you handle interview questions. You can bullshit your way very far in most of the software development world even if you're only 80% as good as your peers. If you have "junior developer" or "senior developer" on your resume but aren't as good as a "entry level developer", it's a moot point if you get called for an interview but the other guy doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I am surprised nobody is talking about the math part of the story.

For me - I had the exact same experience with topology as the author. I was taking a normal math class and in the middle of the normal class the professor started talking about topology. He got the whole class excited about topology to the point that we all enrolled in topology the next quarter.

Imagine our disappointment when we discovered our new topology professor did not love topology. He taught the class by rote. Topology is not a subject I could learn on my own. I dropped the class and sadly still wonder what I missed.

The lesson for me is that it is not enough to admit ignorance. You also need an enlightened guide and mentor.

</comment><comment><USER22> There also seems to be this misconception that being intelligent gives you a license and even a propensity to be a jerk. I just don't buy it. Sometimes smart people are jerks. But if you're a jerk the onus is on you in my mind to prove you are smart. I won't make that assumption.

</comment><comment><USER23> When I was younger I loved ideas for their own sake and was constantly disappointed when I went to have fun with some idea and found that everyone gathered around it viewed it as an opportunity to assert dominance. I fled so many fields because I believed ultimately I would find some place where people were there for the ideas themselves, not for the zero-sum battle for status. Ultimately I left academia and became a programmer because it seemed the ego battle was less a part of the process. I hate the competition-based culture of early academia -- olympiads and whatnot -- for the same reason. The reward isn't in the ideas themselves or the work but in the ranking.

</comment><comment><USER24> Two telltale signs of a mature mind: if someone readily admits he does not know something, or if someone readily admits he was wrong. Call it metacognitive skills if you want.

</comment><comment><USER25> Similarly, the instructors I really hate are the ones who don't know the answers to questions but they'll try to come up with answer on the spot because they think you (or the eavesdropping student) doesn't know better. Just say you don't know!

<comment><AUTHOR> My least favourite instructor, upon being asked whether a certain convergence criterion was just necessary or also sufficient, assumed a very ponderous face and replied sagely---or so he thought---with a simple 'it depends'. The rest of the course went downhill pretty fast from there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've always readily admitted when I don't know something. Might be that I was raised in Arkansas, where ignorance is a little more acceptable.

It's usually a great benefit for me, for the same reasons the article describes. However the problem I've found is that--as an engineer--if you don't profess complete knowledge, there's a limit to how effective you can be in leadership. Engineers don't take you seriously, if you act as though you have any doubt in yourself. It's a wall I keep hitting and I've about decided I need to start feigning full-bore 10x brogrammer ego just to herd some cats.

<comment><USER27> > Engineers don't take you seriously, if you act as though you have any doubt > in yourself

As an engineer, me and my firsthand experience do not agree with this.

On the other hand, where I worked the entire team is involved and onboard with setting goals and prioritizing things that need to be done. We absolutely don't expect our manager to understand more than we do on our service.

<comment><USER26> I'm not talking about management, I'm talking about leadership. Do you have a tech lead on your team? If not how do technical decisions get made? Is it democratic (everyone votes) or more meritocratic (everyone argues their opinion and the strongest one wins). In my experience it's typically the later, and it's in that case that demonstrating a lack of confidence is likely to defeat your chances of leading the team in the direction you think it should go.

<comment><USER27> It is meritocratic, we don't technically have tech lead, but we do have seniority. However, the most senior engineer doesn't pretend/try to give the impression that he knows everything. Usually each person will have a portion of the project that he knows best and his opinions are the primary driver in that portion. Others give recommendations based on those opinion and not overriding them (normally).

There are larger issues in direction but for those I think all of our opinions are fairly similar - being engineers, we dislike complexity and like things maintainable and extendable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Developing a sense of what you know or do not know is a big part of learning. In ML, this is called confidence estimation and is harder than actually learning the task. Most ML models just learn to solve the task and have shit confidence estimations. I presume with humans it takes many years of learning a subject to really know how much you do not know. It's a process of calibration of confidence based on lots of background knowledge on the topic (going from unknown unknowns to known unknowns).

</comment><comment><USER29> "I do not have enough knowledge of this subject to hold an informed opinion" is a statement that should be respected, not ridiculed.

We have a tendency to view people who change their views as "wishy-washy" and "flip-floppers", instead of respecting them for informing themselves and reevaluating their positions.

<comment><USER30> The truth is that egomaniacs tend to be the ones who get all the fame and glory. Just look at Musk, Trump, and anyone else who's managed to acquire a massive cult following.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The link to Mathematical Apocrypha does something very strange. I think it's meant to be this: [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1262199](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1262199)

Edit: now the link works.

</comment><comment><USER32> "The power of admitting ignorance", or, the folly of refusing to learn something you don't know. I dunno. It seems self-evident. The issue here is ego. Self-awareness. Humility.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, it is now to me---but I started university when I had turned 18, and I like to believe that I learned a little bit of wisdom since then :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I put this on the back of my phone after completing my PhD.

"in the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few" \- Shunryu Suzuki

</comment><comment><USER34> I have to note this: a typical classroom may have up to a couple hundred students and some kind of schedule to uphold. If everyone asks questions all the time, there would be no progress done, and "fast learners" would be bored out of their minds, while the "slower" ones would still have a hard time. Also, schedule would just be trashed by such approach

</comment><comment><USER35> Thanks for sharing this — I needed it. I think this explains why I often say "I get it" when I really don't: I don't want to look stupid. But being able to admit ignorance means that I can test my mental models and make them even better. I need to be able to admit my ignorance to myself to be able to ask myself the questions that strengthen my understanding of new or unfamiliar concepts.

<comment><USER36> In my experience it's often quite obvious when someone doesn't understand something and they say they do. Someone who properly understands will typically offer some tidbit of feedback from their understanding as an acknowledgement. And if not forthcoming I will extend the conversation to try and tease out that bit of feedback. I think this works because the people who genuinely understand something are usually keen to demonstrate that understanding in some small way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I wish any company that outsourced their product support would force their contractors to read this.

It is so hard for these people to just admit they don't know and have to ask someone or escalate the case.

</comment><comment> mark-r I'm never afraid to make an ignorant statement, especially on a forum like HN. Best case is that someone more knowledgeable will come along and teach me something.

<comment><USER38> Cunningham's is one of the more underrated internet laws.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> now imagine such an attitude in a non-academic setting where instead of a professor replying to a student it's the division head or president or chief executive replying to a junior staffer: "I don't really know what is going on, maybe you can help figure it out?"

</comment><comment><USER40> To be clear, simply asking an earnest follow up question is simple and efficient way to do this.

</comment><comment><USER41> I spend all day in teams where no one will admit to knowing anything...

</comment><comment><USER42> Wonderful read and very thought provoking :)</comment>


New Faster Undersea Pipe for Google Cloud Platform - <AUTHOR> https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/06/Google-Cloud-customers-run-at-the-speed-of-light-with-new-FASTER-undersea-pipe.html <comment><USER2> How much overhead is there that we can shave off to reduce latency until we really hit the limitations of speed of light? I mean, how much of the cross- continent latency is due to network gear or media changes (optical <-> electric) or even inefficient routing? Germany to linux.org.au is 310ms, so how much can we shrink that before the laws of physics get in our way?

<comment><USER3> >> round(c*0.31/1000)

ans = 92936 (kilometers)

Earth is about 40,000 km in circumference, so there's about a factor of four left to win on that particular hop.

<comment><USER4> Speed of light within a fiber optic cable is about c/1.5, so closer to a factor of 3. Throw in various continents that need to avoided, I'd guess it would be closer to factor of 2 in practice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The earth is 134ms 'round' at the speed of light. There's quite a bit of room for improvement.

<comment><USER6> More like 192ms at the speed of light in optical fiber, before you start talking about regeneration, etc. but yes, plenty of room to innovate.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How Do Hackers Sleep? - <AUTHOR> I guess it's probably an art form of its own <comment><USER2> I use audiobooks, a fan, and a bed.

</comment><comment><USER3> What does this question even mean?

</comment><comment><USER4> By not being a computer science student.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very carefully, OP.</comment>


Texas sets single-day wind power record - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/texas-sets-new-all-time-wind-energy-record/ <comment><USER2> For those who do not know:

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

Texas is the only state that has it's own power grid, owned by the state. The stuff they are working on right now, including massive distributed battery systems, solar, more wind, etc. will be the one of the most advanced renewable systems in the world given the amount of power and consumption.

It's awesome to see how as 'relatively' small grid, operating on their own, can make progress without all the bullshit. (See Nevada...that solar situation is so fucked up.).

<comment><USER3> I'm actually both shocked and surprised how quickly Texas is transitioning to renewables with their, ahem, political climate, but happy nonetheless!

Warren Buffet should be ashamed of Berkshire Hathaway's role in strongarming the PUC in Nevada in NV Energy's favor.

<comment><USER4> Texas is a great example of what happens in an almost uncontrolled free market. With renewables becoming far cheaper, it makes sense that markets that work off basic free market economics will adopt them. Texas is pragmatic that way and often provides a very simple model for what it takes to get things adopted without strong regulations forcing the matter.

It's a weird state only insomuch that it isn't like everywhere else and is still fairly successful as a territory.

<comment><USER5> Before we get too voluntary here, let's remember that wind power was developed through heavy subsidies from many governments over the years.

<comment><USER4> That's kind of the point. The heavy subsidies brought renewables into competition with traditional energy markets in Texas, and voila, Texans (a state not normally associated with renewables) started buying them up.

One thing that's not discussed too frequently about renewables is that the operating costs are less variable than fossil fuel based systems. You have a pretty good idea what the costs are going to be over the lifetime of an installation and this helps with planning and deployment. Fossil fuel prices are variable enough over 20 years that you can't plan more than a few months out, or you need to have enough cash reserves in place to weather out price spikes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not strictly related to wind power in Texas, but reminded me how at the same time in Finland a few authorities recommended consumers to actually limit their use of eletricity "for the common good".

The main cause was increase in wind power capacity in the last few years (as there was practically no wind that day), coupled with very low temperatures and problems with buying electricity from Russia.

It's kinda scary how a developed, modern country is suddenly close to rationing the use of electricity.

<comment><USER7> It amazes me how well the stuff works most of the time, considering that it's a ridiculously just-in-time system where production must match consumption on a second-by-second basis. No other industry is like this. I think we badly need good storage solutions to decouple the two sides.

<comment><USER8> The lack of storage isn't a problem when you are using reliable sources of generation such as nukes, coal, nat gas, and hydro. He problem is integrating wind and solar into a system that is designed for reliable generation.

<comment><USER7> It's still a problem, because it means you need to size generating capacity to match peak demand, not average demand. It's a problem that can be (and is) solved, but the solution is expensive, and when you misjudge the peak you get brownouts or blackouts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I drove from Austin to Denver once. From Abilene to Texline it's pretty much nothing but wind turbines...and that is a very long drive. It's pretty cool that such an oil-driven state has a large amount of renewable energy.

<comment><USER10> I used to drive from my hometown around Austin to Lubbock for school. The wide open country pocked with turbines was my favorite part of the six hour drive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> You can actually see it. Driving country (state) highways, from ,say, just west of Ft Worth, up to the border, hundreds of turbines. There's also a factory in between Ft Worth and Denton where, I believe, some pieces of the turbines are built and (I know) the larger section of the turbines are assembled. It makes sense as well, especially to the west, where wind is a near constant and there is _nothing_. Scrub from the central hill country to the border with New Mexico.

<comment><USER12> That is one of the reasons why Facebook Data Center is in Ft.Worth, easier access to Wind power.

<comment><USER13> Wind power.. and tens of millions in tax credits.. It's crazy how much money localities are dishing out to get a few dozen jobs. I get the competitive aspect (if we don't, someone else will) but forum shopping is gross in just about every manifestation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The charts further down the page give one a more realistic sense of how much wind contributes as a whole. Natural gas dominates with 48% of power generated while wind is around 12%. It's tough to beat heat sources driving turbines.

</comment><comment><USER15> I wonder if a growing industry will ever again set a single day power generation record. Seems rather likely.

It might be more interesting to report when a new record is not set on the expected schedule.

</comment><comment><USER16> Its good to hear this from TX. I want to see wind installations grown, given how affordable land is.

</comment><comment><USER17> In Denmark, it was 42% for all of 2015; [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark)

<comment> david-given That's 42% of electricity only, though.

In 2013 (the last year for which the table in Wikipedia has data) they consumed ~30 TWh of electricity --- but 200 TWh of fossil fuels. This'll be heating and transport.

Heating and transport _always_ dominates energy consumption. Yes, generating that much electricity via renewables is a very good thing. But electricity is just a small slice of a much larger pie.

<comment><USER18> How much of a dent it will make remains to be seen, but Denmark does have an active plan to shift away from fossil fuels for heating. Installation of new oil and natural-gas furnaces was recently banned, partly as part of the push away from fossil fuels, and partly because of fears of Russian dominance over gas supplies. In urban areas the goal is to get everyone on the district- heating grid, which is fueled mostly by a mix of trash incinerators and cogeneration with electric power plants. There's a medium-term plan to opportunistically produce more of the heat from excess wind power, with hopes that doing so will produce a "win-win" for electric-grid management by giving grid managers an easy place to dump energy to smooth out short-term variations in electric production.

Transport is another story. Lots of fossil fuels there, and probably not going away soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Wind gets even better going northward from the Texas panhandle up to Canada. But there's no big load anywhere near there.

</comment><comment><USER20> What, ahem, political climate would _that_ be?

Y'all think this state is full of idiots. Y'all are only half-wrong, and it's still probably better than your state.

<comment><USER21> I live in Texas and I'm as surprised as the parent. It's not that I think the state is "full of idiots" as you say, but because the oil and gas industry has the state by the balls.

edit: judging by the downvotes, apparently this is a controversial statement. weird.

<comment><USER22> I don't think you deserve downvotes for this comment.

But surly you'd be aware this is what the rest of the world thinks?

The first thing the world thinks of when they think of Texas is racist, backwards, ultra religious people.

I'm surprised you'd be surprised of this?

<comment><USER23> People tend to be surprised when confronted with stereotypes about themselves, especially when those stereotypes are untrue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's all those refried beans and smoked meats...</comment>


Business requirements are bullshit - <AUTHOR> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/08/business-requirements-are-bullshit.html <comment><USER2> Made some good points.</comment>


Not My Gorilla - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/12/07/not-my-gorilla

<comment><USER2> If Microsoft had anything worth pirating, I'd pirate it, just to get even close to paying myself a reasonable hourly rate for the time I've had to spend debugging css for IE6.

<comment><USER3> Flight Simulator is pretty nice, and has been for decades.

For a long time it was probably the only profitable Microsoft product that wasn't Basic, Office, or Operating Systems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So he's saying that if your core audience is in Windows, and your product works best in Windows, you should ignore the Linux people clamouring for a port?

It goes both ways - you ignore them today, they'll ignore you tomorrow.

<comment><USER5> The only difference is, you can get Linux for free (in money) and lately, for only a _slightly_ higher investment of time.

<comment><USER6> That's only if you want an OS that's not windows but acts like windows in most manners of using. If you want something _different_ , it still takes more then an hour or two to set up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "It's easier for me to ignore IE because the DF audience predominantly uses Safari, Firefox, and MobileSafari (roughly 53, 25, and 8 percent, respectively, with IE coming in around 4 percent). I have no idea whether the DF Paraphernalia store is even legible under IE, because I didn't even bother to check."

Perhaps if the site weren't broken in IE, half of his visitors would be from that browser.

<comment><USER7> To the people who downmodded this, is it just that you hate IE a lot, or do you have an actual reason why I'm wrong?

I wasn't being sarcastic -- don't you think he's turning away his IE visitors by presenting a site that doesn't look right, and then turning around and claiming that IE is 4%?

Even for sites with a highly technical audience, that number is hard to believe.

<comment><USER8> Really?

more than 1 in 25 people on a site like HN using IE6 would seem odd to me.. I'm not sure of anyone that would like this site and is still running ie6.

(on an assumption here that we're talking organic traffic - not SE results)

PG - want to give us the browser stats?

<comment><USER9> I'm on IE6 right now because I'm at work, but I use Safari and Firefox at home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> ryan-allen 4% of his users are IE, let's say, he's running a multi million dollar business. It'll cost him 5 million a year to keep IE working, and the business from the 4% equates to 15 million. What would you do? Beat your chest and scream "look at my website I'm awesome!".

Jamis had a legitimate point. DaringFireball is hijacking this to pound his chest. Who _cares_. For some people and companies, supporting IE in some incarnation is legitimate. For others, it's not. That's all very reasonable.

I for one am sick of these fallacious arguments masquerading as rational and revolutionary thought. Peh. Who cares.

</comment><comment><USER10> jamis has the right to support whatever he wants, it's his project that he designed for his purposes. if windows developers need to tweak for windows, they should fork capistrano. i guess jamis is saying, fork you! (ha)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It would be really nice to get rid of the 800lb gorillas in my projects, but that's not always my choice....

</comment><comment><USER11> Microsoft is an 800 lb gorilla, but one located in another part of town, or even another country. If you do web development, and you're not using .net/CLR/C#, then you're probably not developing or deploying on Windows.

What proportion of startups run Windows? It's a good deal lower than those running Linux or OS X -- so much so that Microsoft have launched a "BizSpark" service where startups can use their software without charge (see [http://www.includipedia.com/blog/2008/11/05/microsoft- bizspa...](http://www.includipedia.com/blog/2008/11/05/microsoft-bizspark-for- startups.html) )

So if you want to develop with PHP, MySQL, Ruby, Rails, Django, etc, then you should bear in mind that Windows support is probably not going to be as good as Linux or OS X support.

</comment><comment> Frabjous-Dey This isn't some badass act of defiance against The Establishment like Gruber seems to want you to think, given his last paragraph: 4% of his viewers use IE.

If that went up overnight to 40%, you know whose gorilla it would become.

<comment><USER12> the point is, the likelihood of that happening is pretty close to zero. gruber has aligned himself with the tech elite, and the early adopters.

suppose some new version of firefox was released that sucked, and broke everybody's css layouts. gruber's crowd would almost certainly not adopt that particular version. they value technical superiority above almost everything else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So much for cross browser accessibility. At the end of the day its his site and he can choose which browsers he wants to ignore, but I think even ignoring that 4% who use IE is a big mistake.

And its not like 'daring fireball' would be all that difficult to make IE render correctly anyways.

<comment><USER14> Daring Fireball does render almost correctly. And why should Gruber care? He makes a living off of his web site alone as it is. Worrying about 4 percent when you're writing for your own site and it's self-sufficient, when worrying about that slim percentage means a lot of pain, isn't exactly a waste of time, but: why bother?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> 4% of 6 billions is 240 millions.

</comment><comment><USER16> "There are a lot of people who'd be a lot happier if they stopped worrying about other people's 800 pound gorillas."

I wonder how this sentiment would apply to linux DEs. Consider the design decisions which would be made if the designers of gnome and kde thought about what would make them most productive instead of thinking about what will get people to switch from windows to linux. Perhaps, we will get a lot less dumbing-down of interfaces and an end to blind adherence to the standard windows UI and finally see some genuine innovation in this field again.

This is not to say that all DEs are stuck in a cycle of continuously copying windows. FVWM (my wm of choice) splits completely. Similarly, from an eye- candy perspective, beryl and compiz bring new things to the table. Still, beryl and compiz are relatively small projects and the vast majority of coding effort goes into make nice GUIs for systems configuration and things like emulating MS Office with OOo.

<comment><USER17> Can't speak for KDE, but your statement regarding GNOME is totally incorrect. We follow our own UI guidelines, we do NOT blindly follow the Windows guidelines. The focus is on our thoughts on usability, not on being different. Further, people work on whatever they want.

<comment><USER14> However, Gnome takes a large part of its interface layout directly from Windows. The taskbar and the window layout always seemed to be direct copies of that system. Instead of crating something new and more functional, Gnome and KDE (though I haven't tried 4) seem to just lift Windows' ideas wholesale at times, and merge them with the Linux ideas of app and system management.

<comment><USER17> For one, GNOME is usually compared with Mac OS X. I find your comparison with Windows pretty funny. Secondly, look at the gnome-shell discussion on planet.gnome.org. Further, just because Windows has things looking like GNOME doesn't mean one copied from the other. Especially not that GNOME copied from Windows. Click e.g. on the clock in GNOME. IIRC that is now in Vista.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How should I get started with Ruby & Rails? - <AUTHOR>

I've decided to finally learn Ruby.  As the majority of my coding is for the web, I'm also looking to start working with Rails; however, I'm getting more and more flustered.
I have a basic Dreamhost account as well as an iMac running Apache/Rails/SVN/et al.  On both servers I've put a CHMOD 755 Hello World test.rb file that will only run properly in my iMac's cgi-bin.  My Dreamhost account doesn't have a cgi-bin that I'm aware off, and attempts to use .htaccess 'AddHandler cgi-script .rb' have failed.
What's more, I'm just not sure how to get started with Rails once I have everything running smoothly.  Should I be bothering with Rails 2.3 or should I be "looking to the future" by learning Rails 3?  There are an overwhelming number of tutorials--are there any that you would recommend above others?
I've been banging my head on my keyboard trying every idea and googling every question, but I'm at the point where my morale is dipping.  Can anyone help? <comment><USER2> You're starting at a tricky time. Rails 2.3 is still a great, stable platform and should be sticking around for quite some time.

Rails 3 does have many improvements, but it's still a "beta" in every sense of the word as many of the plugins don't work yet, or require many modifications to work.

I still think just about the best book/introduction to Rails is the Pragmatic Programmer book: [http://pragprog.com/titles/rails3/agile-web-development- with...](http://pragprog.com/titles/rails3/agile-web-development-with-rails- third-edition) \- They don't yet cover Rails 3 yet, but in the meantime you could fill in the gaps with weblog posts and the like. If you get a solid grip on 2.3, you should have no problem adjusting to 3.0 once it becomes final.

</comment><comment><USER3> Enable Passenger (mod_rails) on your Dreamhost account, then you can just upload Rails applications (or other Rack apps like Sinatra) to a directory and they will run:

<http://wiki.dreamhost.com/Passenger>

I would skip CGI if your goal is to learn a framework like Rails. If you want to write a simple one-file web app in Ruby, check out Sinatra. But if you have some existing CGI scripts that you want to run, you can add the +ExecCGI option as described in <http://wiki.dreamhost.com/CGI>

</comment><comment><USER4> I followed <http://guides.rubyonrails.org/getting_started.html> with moderate success. I'm a PHP programmer by trade, and that guide was easy enough for me to understand. As far as 2.3 vs 3.0, I don't know enough about RoR to weigh in.</comment>


Why React Native Is Different - <AUTHOR> http://jlongster.com/Why-React-Native-is-Different <comment><USER2> After getting tired of scrolling (which reminded me of this [http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.h...](http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html) where you scroll through vast distances to appreciate how far apart things in our solar system are) and noticing the huge headings separated by large vertical whitespace, I had an idea: since the headings are so huge, I could just zoom way out and see and read all the headings!

Unfortunately, the page outsmarted me and as I zoomed out, it somehow figured out I was doing this and increased the font size so it's the same size it was at 72 points when I was at 100% zoom.

Well, all right web designer. You "win". The amount of effort you put into defeating my efforts to read your content is astounding.

<comment><AUTHOR> The amount of work is simple:

h1 { font-size: 5vw; }

The `vw` units are relative to the page width.

You would rather have to press the right arrow key 50 times? I find it to be a whole lot faster to scroll quickly through content rather than forcing me to click through every single damn slide.

EDIT: It is interesting that the vw/vh units don't take zoom into effect, I hadn't thought of that. Interesting.

<comment><USER3> actually, yes. Compared to scrolling football fields to get to the next item, a one-push interaction would be better.

<comment><AUTHOR> Scanning through the content (going from slide 5 to slide 20) is far faster with scrolling, at least with Apple's trackpad and OS X's scrolling inertia. Maybe it doesn't work as well on other devices.

But it is useful to walk through each slide with a keypress, so I'll probably add that feature as well. I want both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Alright so looking at the comments we've got one person complaining about the naming of the framework, one person complaining about the argument of sexism surrounding the use of the word "guys" in a gender-neutral context, one person complaining about the UI of the blog itself, and one meetup recommendation. (And now we have one comment complaining about the other comments, BINGO!) Nice work HN!

James, thanks for the informative talks - I hope we can continue to push the bounds of React Native and succeed in making it an obvious choice for developers in the future. For anyone who hasn't tried it, I highly recommend giving it a shot for any new app you work on. There's a lack of Android support at the moment (it is about 5 months from release I believe), but at the very least you'll speed up your iOS development significantly. It's hard to justify native development now (for me, as a non-iOS dev) when you can, for example, create a camera view in React Native with a single line of code.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! I don't really care about poor comments (I've come to expect them), but the only thing that makes me sad is that it triggered HN's "controversy" mechanism and dropped the article about 20 places in a few minutes. When an article gets more comments than votes, this kicks in.

Ah well, such is social media :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> For people in SF, running similar meetup in the city as well

[https://www.meetup.com/SF-React-Native-Meetup/](https://www.meetup.com/SF- React-Native-Meetup/)

</comment><comment><USER6> I just wish people and companies would get over this "react(ive)" naming fetish. It reminds me of back in the late 90's when everything was Web-this and Web-that. It makes the distinctions really hard to google for. React, reactive, functional-reactive, etc. Overloading gets in the way of learning and progress.

<comment><USER7> To be fair, the term "functional reactive" was invented by Conal Elliott and Paul Hudak back in '97 [0] and has merely been co-opted recently by the "reactive" buzz. Which is a shame since genuine FRP is quite a bit nicer than most modern bits and pieces still.

[0] [http://conal.net/papers/icfp97/](http://conal.net/papers/icfp97/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yesterday I read about NativeScript, which also seems to be a nice way to do this kind of stuff.

They also seem to support native libs.

[https://www.nativescript.org/](https://www.nativescript.org/)

</comment><comment><USER9> > "To the women readers/watchers: I apologize for saying "guys" in a few > places referring to groups of people"

As a non-native speaker, isn't "guys" a correct term regardless of the gender?

<comment><USER10> No.

If I address a mixed gender group, and I ask that "all the guys" raise their hand, everybody will know that I mean men only.

<comment><USER11> And if you asked them, "Hey guys, raise your hand if you use the web" you'd get men and women raising their hands. "the guys" != "guys" in this case. The word is very - or awfully, depending on your point of view - ambiguous, and can be used in a gender neutral/ambiguous way, like third-person plural pronouns in other languages.</comment></comment></comment>


Hacker News Karma Tracking with MondayMetrics - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/mondaymetrics/hacker-news-karma-tracking-with-mondaymetrics-177535e31cbf <comment><USER2> Could this be used to track the metrics of other users ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it just needs userid. Karma of users is publically available so it can track it.</comment></comment>


Borneo Is Burning - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/11/asia/borneo-climate-bomb-intl-hnk/ <comment><USER2> The palm oil shouldn't be cheap. It should be very expensive, because there should be regulation limiting its production to sustainable methods.

<comment><USER3> I agree wholeheartedly. The big question is: how to make such regulations actually work?

<comment><USER4> Create an international cap-and-trade network where American companies can purchase "pollution credits" from Indonesian farmers. The credits would be used to clear land sustainably. The scheme would be designed in such a way that the mitigated Indonesian pollution far outweighs the American pollution enabled through such a scheme. Naturally, it would be cheaper for Indonesian farmers to clear land sustainably than for American companies to pollute less (some are hitting a wall with current anti-pollution technology).

After Indonesia reaches a certain GDP-per-capita, its own companies would be subjected to progressively higher restrictions on pollution. At that point, Indonesian companies themselves would be paying companies in less developed nations (Laos, Rwanda) for the right to pollute.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > People are choking. Animals are dying.

> This is no ordinary fire. It was lit for you.

> Farmers are clearing land the fastest way they know how to cash in on > growing demand for palm oil, which is used in half of all supermarket > products, from chocolate to shampoo.

</comment><comment><USER6> So do I now have to boycott palm oil? Why can't people just produce things sustainably?

<comment><USER3> It always gets down to money. We need to find financial carrots and sticks to affect change whilst keeping in mind that carrots are always better than sticks.</comment></comment>


A French Tunnel Sculpture That Took 30 Years to Complete - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/french-tunnel-sculpture <comment><USER2> Incidentally, if you are in this area, I recommend seeing the nearby prehistoric cave paintings of La Grotte du Pech Merle (the cave itself is also interesting). Unlike some of the other caves, what you see is original (not a reproduction), multi-colored, and tickets can be purchased well in advance. For me, it was an experience that could not be compared to anything else -- being there provided a new view of humanity.

</comment><comment><USER3> Title is misleading, took more like 3-4 years of actual labor. Still a good story.

</comment><comment><USER4> In France, there are several unknown or hidden art sculptures in limestone cliffs. One of them is like a 4m high human face. Even though these are recent works, not like Greek sculptures, they are awesome. these things are beautiful to discover because usually they are in overgrown vegetation etc...

</comment><comment><USER5> 'There Is No Way to Happiness; Happiness Is the Way'

</comment><comment><USER6> I've become a believer in any kind of work that lasts a long time, especially art, structures, and ideas. It's these types of inheritance that improve the lives of future people.</comment>


There is no gender gap in tech salaries - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/182977/there-is-no-gender-gap-in-tech-salaries/ <comment><USER2> I'm a little surprised that there is a serious concern that this article doesn't address with gender-gapped salaries, though, and it's been touched upon several times on HN. Women tend to negotiate starting salaries and raises _much less_ than men do, to the point where it can skew wage statistics by a nontrivial amount.

There was someone on HN a while ago who hired several engineers, and said that his company pays women less than men because he makes the same starting offer to several people, and almost _all_ the men asked for more money, yet none of the women did. So the offers the company made were "fair", but the end results were very skewed wages.

There are entire books about this subject, such as "Women Don't Ask: The High Cost of Avoiding Negotiation"[1]

Companies could fix this overnight by disallowing negotiation (Didn't Fog Creek do this?), or making all employees salaries transparent (countries like Norway do this, and we do this for C-levels often in the US, just not plain old employees).

I suspect nothing institutional will change though because it would ultimately cost companies money. They benefit too much from workers who negotiate poorly.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/dp/0553383876](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0553383876)

<comment><USER3> When I started dating my (now) wife, she didn't negotiate her salary, and was at a company where other people did. I helped her figure out what to ask for, how to negotiate, and how to feel good about it. We built a spreadsheet to arm her with some data (e.g. salary compared to inflation). It worked.

I hope by mentioning it that other people might do similarly.

<comment><USER4> sounds great. Any chance of a quick how-to? I'm a male and I've never negotiated a salary either.

<comment><USER5> As with anything it's about practice, negotiation is an art. For an unskilled negotiator the best thing to know is your BATNA.

A great rule of thumb is if people aren't saying no you didn't ask for enough.

The first time I negotiated I shot way over, apparently even the lawyer didn't make that much, my reply was that the lawyers work usually wasn't scalable across multiple clients and that any code I made was a capital good that could be resold again and again generating value in the company for years, then I pulled out a sales spreadsheet showing how the code I wrote for various product lines brought additional revenue to the company and then multiplied by the average length on the contract. (Make a really big number and ask for a small part of it).

Needless to say I was so successful in my negotiations that I was no longer allowed to have access to sales data.

The best part is once you negotiate a good salary you can use it in future negotiations as an indication of skill to get even better salaries. (eg. Does the competitor want to steal the $50K per year coder, or the $250K per year coder?)

<comment><USER6> For salary negotiation, I don't think knowing your BATNA is that helpful. Your BATNA is either accepting their initial offer or walking away.

I think your best course of action is to gather up salary data based on the job responsibilities of the job you're applying for. There are lots of online resources for researching salaries and you'll be able to grab data points like median, and quartiles. You can then massage that number up or down based on extra criteria like your unique skills, additional education, etc.

In any negotiation, finding objective criteria that you can show will always put you in a stronger position than creating semi-arbitrary bargaining positions.

The other best advice I could offer to would-be negotiators is to avoid setting any initial price until it's no longer reasonable to avoid it. If you have to name a price, name a price you're going to be very happy with.

<comment><USER5> My BATNA has rarely ever been accepting their offer, it's usually been already having an offer in hand, or having a bunch of interviews lined up in the coming days.

Objective criteria a horrible way to negotiate, look up the accounting term 'good will', you create 'good will' by not using objective criteria.

Name a price they will say no to, not one you're happy with, if they counter below your BATNA, tell them the mininum you'll accept is something above your BATNA, give them a timeframe to come correct, get up from the table and leave.

I could careless how badly the average, or 5th percentile employee is paid. If they want to retain me they'll a price better than my BATNA.

<comment><USER6> BATNA is best alternative to a negotiated agreement, meaning, it's what happens if you don't agree. So really, a BATNA in a salary negotiation for a new position is not taking the position. In an existing position where you're going for a raise, your BATNA is quitting.

BATNA isn't a bargaining position, it's your fallback option in case bargaining fails. I think you're talking more about your "bottom line", which is the lowest number you're willing to accept. A good negotiator goes in knowing his/her BATNA and bottom-line, but they're separate concepts.

I also completely disagree with you disregarding objective criteria. I used my recent purchase of a 2-year old vehicle as a way to gain some extra experience in negotiating and work on different approaches with two separate dealers. My initial approach with the dealer I ultimately bought from, was to derive my bottom-line number from objective criteria, but to show no strong evidence to how I got the numbers I was offering. I got nowhere with that approach. The sales manager didn't even come out to stop me from leaving when negotiations with the salesman got nowhere. We were only $1,000 from my bottom-line (which he didn't know) and about $1,800 away from our stated positions.

I came back a few days later with reasonable evidence based on market data of the particular model I was buying, as well as reasons why I'd go spend more money on another manufacturers' similar, but nicer model in the same class. They ended up coming down the full $1,800 after I was about to walk away again.

This works time and time again. Unless you're in a position where you completely don't care if you complete a purchase/sale/agreement, then holding onto unrealistic positions will never get you very far. My father-in-law likes to buy and sell stuff, but he pretty much only deals in unrealistic offers, and he rarely ends up buying or selling anything, even though he spends a decent amount of time looking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's nice to see woman writing on this subject. As a man, you'd be a fool to say such things in public. The social fallout from uttering these unpopular ideas will earn you only contempt, unless you want to be on the wrong end of a twitter witch hunt.

<comment><USER8> > The social fallout from uttering these unpopular ideas will earn you only > contempt, unless you want to be on the wrong end of a twitter witch hunt.

I agree. The fact I have a penis attached to me means that I don't get to participate equally with all conversation partners. So while I'm all for equality, I keep quiet about things I both disagree and agree with, because my opinion is branded patriarchal bullshit a priori.

<comment><USER9> I gotta say I don't buy this. I was the token conservative on a lot of issues in grad school and I never got flack for saying my opinion on gender or race or economic issues as an Asian male from a privileged background. Not being an asshole about it works wonders.

<comment><USER10> It also helps if you do not pre-emptively open a full frontal attack on others, like the previous two posters did with "twitter witch hunt" and "my opinion is branded patriarchal bullshit".

Such people aren't interested in having a constructive discussion in the first place, make that perfectly clear in the same sentence as in which they express their opinion, and then proceed to act indignant if the other side responds in kind...

<comment><USER8> My feelings are invalid and actually just an attack?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I agree with the decision to leave "makes the same career choices" out of the equation, but I think people have to admit a lot of those "choices" aren't free from gender based social pressure. My wife's attitude going into parenthood was that she was going to "parent like a father." This was a necessary consequence of us both maintaining busy careers, but I have to say that I make out a lot better in peoples' eyes for doing the same level of parenting. I take the night feedings? I'm some sort of wizard dad. She prepares the lunch for daycare? Why doesn't she make this or that toddler puree? When a stranger glares for our daughter not wearing socks in the cold (I swear she had them on when we left the house!), its never at me, always her. As a result, she's racking up a non-trivial amount of working mom guilt. She doesn't want to mommy track her career, but it irritates her that if she did people would support her decision in a way they wouldn't if I did the same.

<comment><USER11> As someone who will be in the same position as your wife not too far from now, this is both good to know and frustrating. Have you ever had people refer to your taking care of the kids as "baby sitting"? I've heard that one is common.

<comment><USER9> That sort of comment just sets the bar low for what's expected of me. Meanwhile, my wife wants to be perceived as a good parent too, but she can't get too invested in that because she can't reconcile her career with all the baby wearing/toddler puree/breastfeeding until two stuff that's the benchmark in her circle of mommy friends.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I posted this in another thread, but it's valid here as well: [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09279.pdf](http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09279.pdf)

Basically, in a study of federal workers, a 7% unexplained gap exists between male and female worker's wages when controlling for occupational, experiential and educational differences, among other things.

Especially relevant data is on pages 84-86.

(edited for clarity)

<comment><USER13> At least it's no longer an integer multiple difference between male and female wages.

But why would we ever expect them to be 0% different? Recall that natural unemployment is ~3%. The market and real world are not perfectly efficient and making them perfectly efficient would make them less efficient in the process.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, sorry I wasn't more clear; specifically the difference is one of wages, not overall employment level.

I wouldn't expect uncontrolled wages to be entirely equal. I would expect that eventually controlling for employment history, experience, education etc. would make the difference approach zero, though. I think that'd be good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very poor methodology. The study only looked at first year salaries and the author extrapolated from there. Totally invalid.

<comment><USER15> It's not a poor methodology if you are simply measuring starting salaries only, or if salaries never increase. But it is reckless to make a bold declaration that "there is no gender gap in tech salaries" based on this data.

I don't think it's hard for people to imagine that there is less variance in starting salaries. Reading into this data and thinking it applies to anything beyond that is a guess and should be treated as such with that guess being tested in future studies.

Even if you demonstrate there is no wage discrimination over the course of people's careers, it doesn't account for the huge gender gap in the industry.

<comment><USER14> Right, it was the blogger who made the error. Very poor reporting, I should say.

"7% gender gap in starting tech salaries" would have been a fairer headline.

<comment><USER16> Yes, exactly. I fully believe that there isn't much discrimination in tech at the entry-level. On the other hand, after 20 years in the industry, I have _never_ seen a woman promoted internally. I have seen women climb up the ladder by changing jobs, getting recruited into a higher position, but women never seem to get picked internally to go into senior engineer or team leader positions. That has got to have a major impact on salary by the end of a woman's career.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> One thing that is interesting is that "their sample was restricted to those under 35 years old receiving a first bachelor's degree".

I wonder how how it would look after that age range.

I am guessing from my anecdotal experience that most professional women usually wait until around that sort of age to have children, and how much having children is a factor in gaining higher salaries.

In addition to that, I am guessing that people early in their careers are less likely to negotiate salary. I certainly was. Now I have a fair bit of experience, I can see that I am more knowledgeable and valuable than some of my colleagues, and so I am in a position to negotiate, with good reasons to back it up. Graduating in the dot-com bust, I was happy just to get a job after nearly a year and a half of searching. I didn't feel I was in any position to negotiate then.

</comment><comment><USER18> > Regression analysis was used to estimate wage differences, after controlling > for the following choices and characteristics: graduates' occupation, > economic sector, hours worked, employment status (having multiple jobs as > opposed to one full-time job), months unemployed since graduation, grade > point average, undergraduate major, kind of institution attended, age, > geographical region, and marital status.

The problem with controlling for _all_ those things is that you leave out other factors; for example, if men were preferentially hired over women, that wouldn't show up in this data.

<comment><USER12> That's true, but we're talking about equal pay for equal work.

Such a case would definitely be discrimination, it just wouldn't be germane.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think it's wonderful that it's uncommon for there to be a gap in salaries based on gender. This is something I've paid close attention to over the past 8 years. My wife and I are both software developers with roughly the same level of experience and expertise. So far it seems like the person with the highest salary is usually the one that most recently changed jobs, since negotiating a new salary is much easier then negotiating a large raise.

</comment><comment><USER20> IMO, this is all about the tech market being more about skills than seniority.

My wife was out on unpaid leave for nearly two years when we had our first child. That meant that she missed two salary scale steps, which are earned based on satisfactory performance over a period of at least 1,500 paid hours/year. In her case, that means that a male who started the same day as her makes approximately $2,500 more than her, assuming the same career path. (She started at level-x and is at level-x+y.)

For a nurse, or techie, salary is driven by the market in most cases.

<comment><USER21> If you're doing such a comparison, then it points towards a salary system that's working as it should, but a disbalance in gender roles in childcare - which can be fixed not by changes to salaries, but by changes in childcare policies such as those successfully implemented by Sweden and others, where male nurses in similar situation as your wife would take time off comparable to female nurses. They'd still be behind childless workers, though.

That's how it works, if your family is more valuable to you than your career, then you'd be happy with getting more family at the tradeoff of less career - and that explains why the positions at the very top get a disproportionally large number of divorces/etc - if someone is consistently neglecting family because of their career, then they do get to the top easier than someone who'd sometimes actually prefer going home to their kids.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> My article in Quartz didn't address all of the reasons women earn less than men do because of space constraints. Also, the article was discussing new research on pay equality in STEM fields, with a summary on gender wage gap as background.

It is interesting to discuss whether there is more pay equality in STEM fields, specifically engineering, because females in these fields are also more comfortable with (and better at) negotiating higher salaries for themselves. At the moment there isn't research to suggest this but it could be a contributing factor.

\- @NinjaEconomics

</comment><comment><USER23> Looks like there's a 6.6% salary gap?

"When controlled for all factors other than gender, the earnings difference between men and women is about 6.6%, something most people don't know."

<comment><USER24> That's across all occupations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Mildly ridiculous to draw the line at35 though, which will be around the time a lot of high performing women will have kids.

<comment><USER26> If a person, male or female, takes some significant amount of time off work, for any reason, should that person continue to accrue seniority, be considered for raises and promotion, equally to colleagues who _didn 't_ take the time off, who were working and contributing?

Strip the gender politics out of it and the answer is very obviously no.

<comment><USER25> That's my point really; women are still expected to bear the brunt of child rearing, so pay the financial penalty. Cf Norwegian policies and smaller gender pay gap.

<comment><USER26> _Women_ aren't expected to do anything; the proof is that birth rates are falling all across the developed world.

Consider two women, A doesn't want children and B does. How do you think A will feel having worked hard for a year while B was on maternity leave, only to find that B's seniority etc has kept up with zero effort or contribution to the company on her part?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Here's an interesting analysis: [http://www.metafilter.com/126704/with- numbers-like-these-why...](http://www.metafilter.com/126704/with-numbers-like- these-why-would-women-want-to-work-in-games#4905768)

</comment><comment><USER28> But three is a gender distribution that is of the charts.

</comment><comment><USER29> I think there is, but I can't prove it. I have anecdotes about specific companies, and some companies are viciously sexist while others aren't. Most of the sexism comes from the mainstream business culture (what I sometimes call "MBA culture" but that's not entirely fair because some MBAs are fine) and not from tech itself. (Brogrammers are trying to be ballers, not hackers.) The more "corporate" a tech company is, the more it will be sexist. Often this isn't overt, so much as an artifact; women get the shaft not because of explicit sexism but because they don't negotiate for themselves or elbow their way on to the best projects.

 _Regression analysis was used to estimate wage differences, after controlling for the following choices and characteristics: graduates' occupation, economic sector, hours worked, employment status (having multiple jobs as opposed to one full-time job), months unemployed since graduation, grade point average, undergraduate major, kind of institution attended, age, geographical region, and marital status._

That's really misleading. Some of those variables at least _might_ have gender baked into them. For one example, let's say that women are more likely to have longer unemployment spells after college. (I don't know if this is true.) Then there could be zero gender correlation in the model not because there is none, but because that input factors it out.

With 11 variables, some of those being categories, you're going to almost certainly have "small data" issues on real world datasets, where the inputs (empirical "design matrix") are not even remotely orthogonal. So pardon me if I don't buy it.

The issue isn't that companies explicitly choose to pay women poorly. It's that many tech companies end up with shitty cultures that exclude women, which leaves them out of the loop and causes them to end up on shitty projects. It doesn't happen by intention. The leadership of most tech companies is criminally negligent on _a lot_ of cultural issues, but not explicitly sexist.

ETA: it's also worth pointing out the "women don't negotiate" argument. I think this is because they get worse results. My wife is a better negotiator than I am, in terms of skill level, but whenever we have to haggle on the price of something, I go out... and I often get more, not because I am better, but because a 6' male is more intimidating.

</comment><comment><USER30> Are we still discussing the whole women vs men in tech thingy? I miss when HN used to discuss real issues.

</comment><comment><USER31> Yes, just statistical gaps in who gets those salaries.

Wake me when there's justice.

</comment><comment><USER32> In the coder freelancing world, women easily command higher wages than men do (and with reason). Easy proof is that there seem to be a lot of female freelancer profiles on sites like odesk.com, but most of them hide a man behind them (just try to make them do a voice call). Because guys know women are better paid. I have never heard of reverse.</comment>


Tell HN: HBO appears to be blaming Amazon and Roku in battle over HBO Max - <AUTHOR> I've been a loyal, full-paying HBO customer for many years, via Amazon Prime Video channels because I like consolidating many streaming channels into the single Prime Video interface.
I also use Roku for all of my streaming at home - I have no other devices which can effectively stream to my television sets and am not interested in buying others.
Recently after launching HBO Max, there's been massive customer confusion about the difference between HBO Now, HBO Go and HBO Max, and finally it seems HBO Go is being fully retired (at least from Roku) on July 31 [0] and the fate of HBO Now (which covers the program for subscribing in Prime Video channels) is also very unclear and confusing.
The price of HBO Max ($15/mo) is the same as the Amazon Prime Video channel subscription, but the Prime Video option will not include expanded content items available in HBO Max.
While HBO feels it can charge the same price to two different customers yet deliver them different service, as a loyal HBO customer it is very upsetting to be treated this way.
I am suddenly relegated to being a second class customer undeserving of the expanded content despite paying the same price.
It's unacceptably poor treatment from HBO, not from Amazon or Roku. To pull the rug out from under loyal customers who have configured their device and app choices over years to best suit their needs is overtly antagonistic towards subscribers.
HBO has some of the best programming, but if I can't keep consuming it in the way that's been working for me for years, I'll have to cancel.
I submitted a help center complaint about this and if you are an HBO customer being negatively affected by HBO's choices around HBO Max, please consider doing the same:
- https://help.hbonow.com/ContactUs
- https://help.hbogo.com/hc/en-us
[0]: https://help.hbogo.com/hc/en-us/articles/360049485594#h_16a41e4f-aba8-406f-8ced-35c7df013a8b <comment><USER2> I'm in exactly the same boat. I finally switched from HBO on Amazon Prime on the day South Park left Hulu and HBO Max became a Hulu channel that you can't watch with the Hulu app. (If that isn't confusing enough by itself.)

The HBO Max app is terrible, clearly first generation. Many standard things we've come to rely on in the Amazon Prime (or even Netflix) apps don't work in HBO Max. Navigation is awful and the placement of buttons and tabs leads you to stupid pages like "About" when you are trying to navigate seasons or episdoes.

The worst thing is that HBO Max app can't stream in the background on mobile. If you do anything else on your phone, the entire app stops and reopening it returns to the home screen! Amazon Prime Video and Netflix can both stream in the background in a thumbnail window. Even Hulu knows that you were watching a show and returns to the same spot in that show.

After paying for HBO for more than 20 years, I also feel jilted by this "one price, two classes of service" model. Not cool, HBO.

</comment><comment><USER3> HBO does not have your best interests in mind.

They only have their own profit interests. They believe they can better profit this way than before.

The only signal you actually have to send to them is cancellation of your subscription (thereby reducing their profits).

If you are unhappy with their new arrangement, you should cancel your subscription. Because continuing to pay them signals that you are ok with this change.

<comment><USER4> Bingo. I went without TV/movies for years because I didn't want to consume them they way they were made available. Thankfully, streaming became a thing and I happily pay for various subscriptions. I have canceled my HBO subscription, though, a while back; I can't honestly remember what pushed me to do that, could be the Max thing. Ironically, I get Max "for free" via my ATT Fiber subscription, but I haven't bothered to look at it because I can't stream it via Roku.</comment></comment>


I am the fold (experiment) - <AUTHOR> http://www.iamthefold.com/

<comment><USER2> Excellent way of getting the point across.</comment>