Hello, my name is Reginald and I am a Socialist - <AUTHOR> http://raganwald.posterous.com/hello-my-name-is-reginald-and-i-am-a-socialis <comment><USER2> Good post, except one point - you're not a socialist. You're someone who believes in people acting individualistically and through voluntary cooperation. Hell, you sound like you've got similar politics as me. I think people should empower themselves and I'm for voluntary worker's collectives, absolutely. I think being salaried when you could go off and do a project with a team you pick is a bad choice. I'm all for people controlling their own destiny.

But that's not socialism. Socialism has a definition - it was coined and defined by Marx as an intermediate stage on the way to Communism after the proles have seized the means of production by violence. Marx postulated that after heavy social control and violence against the exploiters, all class and social barriers would melt away into paradise.

Turns out, he's wrong. People are different.

You're not a socialist as Marx defined it. If you want to redefine socialism and say you're this redefined thing, okay, sure. But it sounds to me like you're more into free action than socialism. That's a healthy place to be. Marxist-brand socialism is not a healthy place to be, or at least, everything that's remotely tried to be it has gone very wrong.

<comment><USER3> > You're not a socialist as Marx defined it.

Exactly. There's a big difference between 'Socialism', 'socialism', and 'libertarian socialism.' He's a libertarian socialist. Marx advocated Socialism.

<comment><USER2> > Exactly. There's a big difference between 'Socialism', 'socialism', and > 'libertarian socialism.' He's a libertarian socialist. Marx advocated > Socialism.

Most people - like 90% of people - don't know the difference. Reginald wrote, "I don't like the idea of anyone forcing me to accept socialism" - that's good and healthy. Socialism, unfortunately, now has strong connotations of control involved. If he's for people being able to choose their own life and destiny, I think he'd be best off picking a word or phrase that says that. "Free action" is the closest I know.

Why lock 90%+ of people out of the discussion because they don't know the terminology?

<comment><AUTHOR>
        Most people - like 90% of people - don't know the difference.

Upmodded. Wouldn't it be nice if a by-product of our discussion was for one or more people to say to themselves, "Hey, Socialism isn't a single monolithic thing, there are shades of grey involved. The next time someone says that re- organizing health care is Socialist, I will ask them _what kind of socialism is involved_?"

<comment><USER4> It's a media thing:

socialism -> bad

capitalism -> good

So any kind of social behaviour is labeled socialism, whether it is a health care plan (how could universal health care ever be construed as a bad thing?) or pensions are leftwing and socialist, therefore bad.

You are asking people to pause and think, good luck with that, even here on HN where the level is way above the rest of the net as soon as politics are mentioned the various polarizing arguments get polished up and recycled as though they were somehow new.

I think it is as much a remnant of the cold war as it is a lack of information and education.

<comment><USER5> _It's a media thing_

I beg to differ. I'm not going to make claims of a vast media conspiracy, but it is most certainly _not_ the case that the media casts socialism as bad and capitalism as good.

For example, I submit that one of the most hackneyed themes of movies is the greedy capitalist exploiting others or preventing needed initiatives.

As far as I can see, the media consistently mis-frames the economic issues such that today's _corporatism_ (corporate welfare, rent seeking, regulatory capture, etc.) are cast as problems of _capitalism_ , when in fact they are antithetical to that system.

And on the other hand, major facets of our society (e.g., public education, labor unions) that clearly are socialist, are never referenced as such.

In short, I think that the media is just messed up, and anybody on either side of the philosophical divide that accepts media input unfiltered, is going to be horribly confused.

EDIT: I reversed the sense of good/bad in 1st paragraph. It doesn't really matter, since my thesis is that they're completely confused.

<comment><USER6> _And on the other hand, major facets of our society (e.g., public education, labor unions) that clearly are socialist, are never referenced as such._

Don't forget the military. Universal health care, pensions, subsidized housing, job security, etc are all socialist; except somehow when applied to the military.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's actually a significant reason I am a capitalist. A capitalist, free- market system is one in which you are free to set up whatever little organizations you want, and they live and die on their own merits. There is no contradiction in running a highly socialist or even actively communist co-op in a capitalistic society, because it is not part of the capitalism idea that you must run that way from top to bottom.

This is not a conventional definition of socialism or capitalism. I don't have a problem with that per se, since the terms have long since become so fuzzy as to be useless without definition within an essay, but it is a little odd to see you proudly labeling what would more conventionally be called libertarianism or capitalism as "socialism". _In this context_ , I'm not sure this makes any sense.

<comment><USER8> "it is not part of the capitalism idea that you must run that way from top to bottom"

Well then it wouldn't be capitalism all the way down? It would only be capitalism on the outside, socialism on the inside.

Capitalism is a system in which individuals are rewarded according to what the market will give them. If you don't do that you simply don't have capitalism.

<comment><USER9> I don't think there really is a popular definition for capitalism. People who use the word always use it to mean what they want it to mean, usually in the context of praising or criticizing capitalist society.

The best definition (in my ever humble opinion) is that capitalism is a society where the means of production live in a free market, which is completely consistent with what the GP said.

<comment><USER5> I believe that the common definition in most folks' minds is that capitalism refers to the system we have today in the USA, where the government rewards business interests with handouts, protective regulations, and the like.

This is not capitalism, though. What people are experiencing and objecting to is _corporatism_ [1].

I believe that if people would give _real_ capitalism a chance, the result would be positive. But as it stands now, the economics are too intertwined with the politics. In order to successfully implement real capitalism, the power that the state wields to erect regulations that can be subverted would have to be stripped: we'd have to neuter the government. Clearly the government would never allow that to happen.

[1] <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Corporatism>

<comment><USER10> It can be argued that as soon as capital begins to concentrate, the benefactors begin to affect policy making to their advantage. Thus you end up with the current system.

Just as attempts at establishing communism end up with coercion and purges of dissent, theoretical capitalism ends up with powerful interest groups in practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society"

How do you measure merit and the amount of labour one contributes to society? The only fair way I know of is capitalism where people get to vote with their money on whether or not you are providing value or not.

I would posit that merit is the amount of value you give to another. Minus marketing and any government interference, capitalism rewards individuals for the value they contribute to society.

It is also necessary to separate capitalism from corporatism. The latter is what most people are against when they say that capitalism is evil. There is no such thing as a corporation in terms of capitalism.

There is one flaw in capitalism that I am aware of but I still think it is the best system. That flaw is that it tends to reward those with capital. To have capital is to have an advantage over someone of equal ability. Over time power tends to consolidate into a few select organizations / individuals.

<comment><USER11> > Minus marketing and any government interference, capitalism rewards > individuals for the value they contribute to society.

I suppose I don't buy this as an _a priori_ equality. One problem is that when there are very large flows of capital, one can often make more money by skimming _very_ small amounts off the top, than by creating new things. That's one reason finance is a better route to wealth than tech startups, even though tech startups create a lot more value for society: because when hundreds of billions of dollars are moving around, you only need to find a way to pocket a very small amount of it to get fabulously wealthy. More generally, rent- seeking, i.e. maneuvering yourself into a position where you can be sort of a private-sector version of the taxman, is a viable way to make money.

Plus, "minus marketing" is a pretty big caveat. It's quite possible to be successful in a "black-hat capitalist" sort of way, by not creating products that contribute to society, but instead by swindling society out of its money by getting people to buy your crap (even in tech, there's a whole affiliate- marketing underworld of tricking people into buying shitty ebooks). And, to pick a third problem, the economy is a rather complex dynamical system, and like many dynamical systems, is not driven purely by fundamentals (real supply/demand), but also by feedback loops and attractors within the system. So sometimes you get some really weird ways of making money that have nothing to do with anyone providing value to anyone else, but have more to do with asset bubbles and debt spirals and other such market patterns.

Not that markets don't _often_ work, and might work even better without the government propping up the corporate form. But I certainly don't think we can _a priori_ say that money transfers are a direct measure of value. I mean, we'd live in a pretty coincidentally amazing universe if it just happened that the economy, this very complex dynamical system that does not care about human concerns like "value" or "society" or "ethics", happened to end up 100% aligning with them. I think instead it's an open question when they align and when they don't, and if there's anything we can do to make markets align with value-to-society better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> When you work out the consequences, "Libertarian socialism" is a terrible name for the concept described by Reginald. It feels more like a Capitalist hypothesis:

        Hypothesis:
        A group of workers jointly shouldering the risk and rewards of a venture
        is more efficient than a "traditional" company.

This is true at small-scale: startups seem to be structured like collectives, and they regularly outperform large companies within a niche. However, large companies never take this structure. That suggests either there's a point where this becomes impractical, or nobody's been crazy enough to try before.

<comment><USER3> Are you aware of the history of the term 'libertarian?' It was originally used to describe anarchism, which is socialist. Statist and stateless socialism are very different beasts, and the term 'libertarian socialism' has a pretty long history of use: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism>

<comment><USER12> But despite some of his terms, he's not advocating his views on the level of an entire society. Just at the scale of a single collective or company. He seems fine with the idea of this collective competing and winning within a Capitalist framework, which seems antithetical to much of the article you linked.

<comment><USER3> It's true. I don't claim to speak for raganwald. And I myself am much closer to he than to the article. Not everyone's beliefs are black and white... there are plenty of people that support, for example, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act yet still call themselves 'capitalists.'

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't buy the analogy. Even if you work for a company that fosters what he refers to as a socialist work ethic that company is still operating in a capitalist system, subject to the usual market forces. What he is describing sounds more like a collegiate environment. The nature of software development, and other similar knowledge economy industries, naturally demand a more collaborative & collegiate approach to getting things done, but they are all fundamentally driven by market forces & constraints such as funding & sales.

<comment><USER6> > The nature of software development, and other similar knowledge economy > industries, naturally demand a more collaborative & collegiate approach to > getting things done, but they are all fundamentally driven by market forces > & constraints such as funding & sales.

You have heard of this open source thing, right? I don't think that you can argue that the open source ethos has anything to do with capitalism. In fact, I would say that Stallman's views on software are pretty overtly communist, as they contest the very concept of private ownership of a piece of software.

<comment><USER14> And yet, without the freedom to won the software you create, you cannot give it away. Open source s capitalst because it is based on the presumption that the creator owns the sotftware and can determine the license to it.

If stall man really believes nobody can own software, then stallman believes that all programmers should be slaves, unable to profit from their own labor.

<comment><USER6> Copyleft was conceived as a hack of the copyright system, a necessary evil because placing a work in the public domain allows other people to profit from the work. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft>:

 _As Stallman deemed it impractical in the short term to eliminate current copyright law and the wrongs he perceived it perpetuated, he decided to work within the framework of existing law; he created his own copyright license, the Emacs General Public License,[8] the first copyleft license._

There is nothing that keeps an open source developer from profiting from their labor. Some are employed by a company explicitly to work on OSS, or contract with a company to implement a desired feature. In fact, an open source developer can _only_ profit from their labor, and not at all from their "capital".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "self-organized collectives" are abundant in western capitalism, we usually refer to them as corporations. The terms and agreements between parties in these organizations vary but many fit your ideal.

The philosophical difference between socialism and capitalism, is the willingness to accept violence and coercion as a means to mold society to a specific vision.

<comment><USER16> "The philosophical difference between socialism and capitalism, is the willingness to accept violence and coercion as a means to mold society to a specific vision."

I am fairly certain violence and coercion is orthogonal to socialism v capitalism.

<comment><USER15> It is very simple. A purely capitalistic society can contain, tolerate, and even encourage totally egalitarian organizations in any form the participants deem prudent. A purely socialist society on the other hand cannot tolerate capitalistic organizations in its midst.

Violence is embedded in the assumption that society can be organized in a socialist manner.

<comment><AUTHOR> The trouble with arguing about "Purely X" for any value of X is that there are no practical examples of X for us to examine. I don't have an option of living in a purely capitalistic society. Canada is somewhat democratically socialist, but not purely socialist. There are small scale startups, bu t I am not aware of any gazillion person corporations where everyone is paid for what they really contribute. Even when bonus is a major component of someone's monetary compensation, the highest rewards go to those who game the system.

In the end, arguing Capitalism vs. Socialism tends to devolve into the No True Scotsman fallacy: "Socialism sucks because you die of old age before getting an MRI." "Oh, I got one for my knee." "Well, Ontario isn't a TRUE Socialist society."

And: "Capitalism sucks because if a corporation succeeds in exploiting people, it makes money. But if it fails, they go to congress and rob the people through taxes of their money, e.g. the Wall Street bail-out." "That was not TRUE capitalism at work, that doesn't count!"

<comment><USER15> Agreed, which is why I tried to couch it in 'philosophical' argument. Discussing the various factions of socialism, anarchism, libertarianism, etc is always fun, but rarely leads to anything productive.

I am just glad that we currently can organize rather freely (even if we are forced to give over nearly half of our labor to war, health and retirement ponzi schemes, subsidizing heterosexual marriage, or whatever it is that you disagree with personally), and think that everyone should spend energy on making that more possible, and more neutral within our current framework(s) rather than trying to decide how people should organize themselves in the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Capitalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, Conservatism, etc... these labels are now so confused and bereft of concrete meaning that their use is largely counterproductive.

If you want to say something political, say it, don't stick a label on your forehead.

<comment><USER14> These labels are one bereft of meaning because socialists arevcosntantly attempting to coopt them. They havev even cooped the republican party.

Libertarian means you do not believe in the initiation of force. This is incompatible with socialism which, it's core, requires the use of force to make people live a certain way.

The term libertarian has clear meaning, and all of the others will, so long as we do not tolerate their misuse and call it out when they are misused.

<comment><AUTHOR> _This is incompatible with socialism which, it's core, requires the use of force to make people live a certain way._

You can't really slip that in like everyone agrees it's a fact. Where does it say that Socialism requires force? The last few anarchists I spoke to describe capitalism as requiring force, because you need to enforce the notion of the ownership of things.

For example, what force is required to copy a movie? The force is all on the side of lawyers and policemen arresting people to compel them to treat a very, very long number as property.

<comment><USER14> Capitalism is a system whereby people are allowed to accumulate capital, and then with the voluntary consent of other people, form collectives, called corporations, where that capital and the labor of all the people is deployed to produce products and services with the hopes of generating profits to be distributed to the members of the collective based on the prior agreement for distribution.

Socialists generally seem to feel that this is unfair because the people who put up capital are rewarded. But at any rate, if you do Not have an external force dictating, at the point of gun, how people are to be organized, they can organize as I described above, and historically have.

Since this organization is a capitalist one, socialists must use violence to stop it.

There are two ways violence can be imposed. In one, you are denuding yourself or your partner or property. In the other you are attempting to steal the life or property of another.

I draw a moral distinction between shooting the guy who is raping my wife, and you coming along and redistributing the profits of my company, which you didn't help create, along the lines of your ideals.

You want to form a company that under different ideals, then that's fine by me... So long as everyone involved consents.

There is nothing in a capitalist society to stop you from having such a collective.

However, socialism is based on the idea that capital has no value and only labor does, and thus you must use guns to prevent anyone from accumulating too much.

<comment><AUTHOR> _socialism is based on the idea that capital has no value and only labor does, and thus you must use guns to prevent anyone from accumulating too much._

Nowhere in my essay did I say anything about the use of guns. I am not an expert on socialism, but I don't recall anyone I have met who identifies as a socialist telling me to grab a gun and use violence.

Therefore, I am going to leave you to argue with yourself since you are spending all of your words telling ME what socialism means and then explaining why YOUR definition of socialism is bad.

Have fun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Since people like to argue definitions, here's something to chalk on the board at the coffee house:

GIVEN: _Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism) is a group of political philosophies which promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production._

RESOLVED: _Belief in the abolition of software patents and the use of FOSS software to create start-ups is a Libertarian Socialist view._

<comment><USER14> How can you have a society without private property if you don't have a state to take the property away from people and to enslave them?

Your system would end the Knute two people decided to organize a venture for profit, or to keep a stick they found on the beach.

You need an all seeing state to take that stick from them and keep them destitute.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are talking about atoms. But software is made of bits. Could it be that the ideas that work well for atoms fall down in a Universe of bits?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I was considering writing a similar post after that thread the other day. I fear for this thread, though. This becomes a touchy subject quickly.

I personally identify with something very close to libertarian socialism myself, so you're not the only one.

<comment><USER18> I think you'd find quite a bit of support from us Europeans, actually – even the ones, like me, who are probably a bit to the right of you politically. I'm not a card-carrying member of any political party, but the American rhetoric on socialism is just absurd.

(Full disclosure: my sympathies are on the market wing of mainstream European liberalism.)

Socialism as used in Europe means social democracy, means free enterprise with regulation and a robust welfare system, and includes the cooperative movement – and you'd be hard pressed to call the third largest private company in the UK (the John Lewis Partnership: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership>) some kind of entryist plot.

Obama a socialist? Don't make us laugh: he's barely a liberal. In Britain he'd be a Tory...

<comment><USER19> Broadly speaking, in American politics today the term is used to imply the increased scope, reach, and size of government, inevitably followed by an increase in taxes, It's not a textbook definition of socialism, but it boils down an aversion to the state controlling an increasing percentage of our personal wealth.

<comment><USER20> Whereas the alternative, conservatism promulgated by Republicans, implies the increased scope, reach and size of government (armies + war), inevitably followed by an increase in deficits (which "don't matter", but the redirected resources, even if only measured in terms of people employed, do make a difference in productive, rather than destructive, output).

<comment><USER14> The republicans are socialists as well.

This is a truth that, unfortunately, seems to elude people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> My own 2p worth is that these notions of socialism or capitalism or liberalism are 19th/20th century inventions, and that the sorts of issues which are going to be arising in future are not going to fit well into any of these existing boxes. Probably it's not a good idea to become too fixated upon these ideologies from the past. As evidence I'd cite the declining public interest in party politics and the rise of single issue pressure groups.

Also, Americans often confuse socialism for communism, and don't realize that more moderate non-tyrannical centre left forms of socialism are possible, with plenty of examples existing in Europe.

<comment><USER14> It is easy to assume that your opponents are ignorant, but i can speak pretty clearly to this point-- even the least aware and educated Americans recognize that european socialism, while it didn't become as tyrannical as communist states, still results in more government control, and lower economic growth, than the comparatively less socialist USA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> "That isn't socialism, but boy does it feel like workers being more efficient when they seize the means of production—the compiler—rather than being coerced or exploited."

If you're interested in the notion of putting the means of production in the hands of the workers, you might be interested in some of the works of G. K. Chesterton and Hilair Belloc when they discuss what they called 'Distributism.' They're not full of much practical advice but they do provide an ideological alternative to the all or nothing ideologies of Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism.

</comment><comment><USER23> "That isn't socialism, but boy does it feel like workers being more efficient when they seize the means of production—the compiler—rather than being coerced or exploited."

How are workers being "exploited" just based on the fact that they working for someone else? We all have choices in this world. If you feel you aren't getting paid enough, leave.

"They argue that this creates an unequal society that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential."

If I have more money than you, it instantly makes our opportunities "unequal". This is the problem with socialism. It creates "equality" by limiting everyone's success. This works well for people that aren't interested in succeeding. I think of it like those group projects in school where 2 people of 5 would get stuck doing all the work, while the rest took the same amount of credit.

"I have no idea if the folks laid off from auto-makers want to do that, but I do know that I and many of the programmers I know seem happy with the idea of working in small teams in a collaborative and egalitarian manner"

I see people talking about this every couple of years. If you really want to start something like this, don't talk about it, do it. Many people in history have tried exactly what you are proposing and this crazy thing called human nature gets in the way every time.

The idea of a group owned collaborative sounds great on paper, until you actually attempt to do it. Who decides how much each person gets paid? If it's based on performance, what kind of performance? How many widgets or made?

You mentioned a "co-operative workers' councils". How is this any different than a president/ceo of the company? These "councils" will have more power over the regular workers, so it doesn't really make everyone "equal".

I've worked at a few companies that were run by committee. Even small decisions were very painful to make.

<comment><AUTHOR> Are you presenting this as an argument with my article? I am confused, as you seem to be arguing most of the time with other people's words and not my own.

I will respond to one thing you wrote, That does not mean I agree with or even understand anything else in your comment.

 _How are workers being "exploited" just based on the fact that they working for someone else? We all have choices in this world. If you feel you aren't getting paid enough, leave._

Is exploitation incompatible with freedom? You seem to be saying that exploitation does not exist since people appear to have choices.

That isn't my understanding of what the word "exploitation" means. If I'm wrong, please suggest the word that describes what I am thinking, and I'll update the essay.

<comment><USER23> "Are you presenting this as an argument with my article? I am confused, as you seem to be arguing most of the time with other people's words and not my own."

You seem to like to add other people's words in your article as to convey a certain message. When I argue against that message, you tell me that you are confused.

If you don't want anything to do with the thoughts you quoted, why put them there at all? You should stand by your opinions.

"Is exploitation incompatible with freedom? You seem to be saying that exploitation does not exist since people appear to have choices."

No. Some people are truly exploited. You laid it out there as a blanked statement. As if everyone is exploited in the current system.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you have certain ideas. I'm fine with your opinions just as they are, I honour you for that. However, in an essay where I start by saying that I'm erroneous in describing myself as a Socialist and end by saying that I'm a socialist for sufficiently libertarian values of socialism, what are we to make of my quoting a generic definition of Big S Socialism in the middle? I stated what I believe quite clearly. What I suggest you do is carry on arguing against Big S Socialism. Nothing wrong with disputing it. And if you like, you can say things like "Reginald quotes Wikipedia as saying that Socialism is ____. This is clearly a bad idea because _____."

Now as to "standing by my opinions," ask your friends in the neighborhood about me. They will tell you I have no problem standing by my opinions, even when they are unpopular. But I should make something perfectly clear: This essay describes what I like. At no time do I claim that you or anybody else will be better off if things go this way or that way, just that I will like it.

So really, there is very little value to your trying to persuade me that the world will be worse off if Health Care is nationalized or what-not. I am not writing an essay about how to make the world a better place, just about how to make my world a better place.

I believe the best you can do to oppose my views is to convince me that I personally wouldn't like working on small, self-organizing software teams. Have at it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> He really should have made it about definitions since more than half of the commenters here seem to have no idea what communism is and, thereby, misunderstand socialism (as defined by Reginald) and Socialism (as defined by Marx).

Communism <> capitalism. Democracy <> oligarchy. Freedom <> oppression.

</comment><comment><USER25> You sound more like a traditional Anarchist. Industrial Worker of the World type than a Socialist.

</comment><comment><USER26> Can't believe no one else responded: "Hello, Reginald!!"

</comment><comment><USER27> Thanks for posting. Now I don't feel so lonely.

</comment><comment><USER28> Sounds a bit like this: <http://www.thetake.org/>

</comment><comment><USER29> Great to read this. I too am a socialist and frequent Hacker News and work in startups. I'm a member of the International Socialist Organization, <http://socialistworker.org/>, if you happen to be in the US and interested in a group and not yet part of one.

I see you ended up getting people to argue definitions when they don't understand them anyway :).

Like lionhearted, "means of production by violence". Violence is only necessary when those with the real rights to the means of production (the wealth they created) are attacked... So no, that is not part of Marx's theory.

Marxist brand socialism is the healthiest place to be if you are for freedom and the end of oppression!

It is sad how little people care to learn of Marxism, instead happily believe the lies they are told.

<comment><USER14> Me and my friends make a startup, we make lots of money. You want to tax it? Do you want to force us to hire employes on terms that you dictate?

These are sincere questions-- what effect would your socialist system have on our little voluntary startup? If the answer is none, how is it different from capitalism? What if we got big?

If you want to force us to hire certain people, pay them a certain amount, or prevent us from getting big-- all policies advocated by various socialist organizations-- how is this not an end of freedom and oppression?

Meanwhile I don't care if you form a collective, and you have whatever socialist policies in your collective, so long as all the participants are voluntary.

I've yet to meet a socialist or a socialist organization that would extend the same courtesy.

Because letting people be free from oppression means letting them pool capital, which is generally a problem for socialists, isn't it?

<comment><USER29> First let me argue not as a socialist but pretending I'm a liberal. Are you saying that when you make a startup and sell a product you gain nothing from public services during this time? There is no reason for you to be taxed to provide those services?

There will be no 'startups' in the sense you think of, meaning dealing with capital. Decisions of production will be done democratically in communities.

If you want to think of yourself as an artisan that could be argued that you could still have your "startup". But you will not be collecting capital from investors and enslaving workers to a wage.

It is a very different way of thinking and living and can be hard to grasp. But so was capitalism and capitalism was a very progressive movement in its beginning. But it runs its course as it destroys the planet and human interaction and continues to concentrate more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

<comment><USER14> I see, so you justify the use of violence, eg, taxation backed by laws and menvwith guns, based on the erroneous assumption that the victims of your violence want the so called services you claim to provide.

Well at least your no longer pretending to advocate for freedom from oppression.

Fwiw, every capitalist would happily pay for the services they used, they do it all the time by going to other companiesvand hiring them or buying products.

The whole taxation racket is awoke, tax first then justify it because the services-- which would be provided cheaper and more efficiently by a free market, of course-- are used because were forced to use them.

Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc.

Reality is, this is all rationalizations. You wantbot use vioelence to comp ell others to live according to your dictates, and this is why all socialist system save turned into tyrannies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> removed :)

<comment><USER3> No worries, it's an easy distinction to forget, and rarely do people use 'the s word' in America without a ridiculous amount of rhetoric.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> _Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society_

The thing is, this makes no sense at all, especially not here on HN, where one of our core assumptions is that people should be compensated on how productive they are, not the hours they put in. Why should anyone care about the amount of labour, as opposed to the value of the end product?

<comment><USER32> "...here on HN, where one of _our_ core assumptions is..."

Who comprises this 'our' that you so easily reference, and what matter is their assumptions to the actual truth of the OP's thesis?

Cringe-inducing groupthink, _in excelsis_. Careful you don't lose yourself in pursuit of community.

<comment><USER33> Yes, personally while reading the comments, I sometimes just think "This person is using conventional pro-capitalist arguments" and move on. Similar thoughts might occur if I were reading technical communications as a mathematician in Soviet Russia, a developer of early computers for the US government, or engineer of weapons systems under feudalism.

That doesn't necessarily mean I reject those arguments; but it doesn't mean I accept them either. Given the state of the world, it makes sense that the ideology here reflects the capitalist, masculine perspectives in the Californian software industry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Sad to see Hacker News people are just as ignorant on socialism and capitalism as say... Diggers for example, or watchers of CNN/MSNBC/FOX.

</comment><comment><USER34> "I don't like the idea of anyone forcing me to accept socialism"

Haha, so you are not socialist at all!!

Socialist is forcing others to accept socialist, in fact is forcing (other)individuals to give money to their "social causes", that could be different from those individuals have.

Is not asking politely: would you mind giving part of your money to this poor people so they can study?

No, it is taking by force his money if he doesn't want to, and consider it "a right". As my grandpa who lived in soviet rusia said when I asked what is socialism, he said: It is being generous with other people's money.

If you accept individual freedoms to choose, you are not socialist, not more that anybody else here.

<comment><USER3> You're operating under a very narrow, incorrect definition of socialism.

<comment><USER34> Narrow? No, is broad. It applies to every socialism in existence, planning and managing others resources, not your own.

A private socialism is not a socialism at all, because you need a society to comply.

Maybe you could give me a better definition.

<comment><USER3> > Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common > ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and > allocation of resources.

Nowhere does this say "take my money and give it to other people." For example, anarchism is a socialist political philosophy, but abhors the state, and all forms of hierarchical control.

<comment><USER35> For anarchism to actually eliminate violence, it has to have some mechanism to protect society from Genghis Khan and Jack the Ripper.

Statistically, Genghis Khan will eventually be born somewhere outside your society and eventually show up at your doorstep with hordes of horseback archers, and you can either surrender, join his empire, and pay taxes (ending your experiment in anarchism) or have your entire society destroyed almost to the last man, leaving a few survivors to warn other societies of the tale (ending your experiment in anarchism).

If you had the only anarchist society in a world of states, you could probably freeload on those states to stop any full-scale Genghis Khan from getting too powerful. Let's hope your experiment in anarchism is landlocked between several states who will leave you alone. You _could_ allow for voluntary defense, and theoretically handwave away defensive violence against people outside your society as "doesn't count". But on some level you have to realize your society depends upon some violence to survive.

Jack the Ripper will show up inside your society and fuck up your voluntary social contract all on his own, when he goes around killing disreputable women (luckily, many forms of anarcho-socialism lack money and thus would have no prostitution per se). In that case you would need some sort of violence (possibly voluntary on the part of the violent people) to either kill Jack the Ripper, or lock him up in a cage, or kick him out of your society. If you do that, you have violence within your society--if you don't, you have violence within your society in the form of Jack the Ripper.

It turns out all of human history has been an extended experiment in solving these very problems, and the only steady state, as discovered in parallel by nearly every culture on earth, is in fact the State[1]. At best you can have voluntarism within the State, but you cannot sustain anarchism without the State.

[1] Existing primitivists, such as the bushmen of Africa, have largely been forced out of their traditional lifestyle by the State. If there are primitivists who do, in fact, maintain their traditional lifestyle, they only do so under the explicit protection _of_ the State, as discussed in the freeloading example above. In other words, it's still an anarchism that requires the State to function, which is a contradiction in terms.

Hunter-gatherers are not necessarily anarchists. Many of the greatest empires in world history were built by hunter-gatherers, who on account of their hunting and gathering made much better soldiers than people living in civilizations. They ate a more balanced diet, got more exercise, knew how to kill things, and knew how to kill things as a team. Horseback archery isn't a skill you get to hone much as a farmer. If you have that basic skillset, civilizations make pretty good targets once you run low on animals.

<comment><USER3> > Statistically, Genghis Khan will eventually be born somewhere outside your > society and eventually show up at your doorstep

It's true. We need to look no further than the Spanish Revolution to find a great example in history of this.

Then again, the Most Powerful Military In The World is still playing in the sand, almost a decade later. A ragtag band of individuals is still fending them off.

As far as Jack the Ripper goes, I also agree with you. This is why I'm only sympathetic to anarchism, and not a full-blown anarchist. I have my own questions about how these kinds of situations would be resolved.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


White Hat SEO Is Mostly a Fantasy – Those Who Rank Have Shades of Grey - <AUTHOR> https://www.nicolasgorden.com/white-hat-grey-hat-and-black-hat-seo-explained/ <comment><USER2> I'd never before heard of the notion of a "white hat SEO". I have to agree with the article -- they're about as common as yeti.</comment>


Submit a movie script to Amazon studios - <AUTHOR> https://studios.amazon.com/submit/film <comment><USER2> From the submission agreement ([https://studios.amazon.com/help/submission- agreement](https://studios.amazon.com/help/submission-agreement)):

> You will have no right to compensation in connection with the exploitation > of rights you grant under this Agreement.

So, why would anyone participate in this program, if the best possible outcome is that Amazon uses your idea, makes millions, and does not pay you a cent?

<comment><USER3> Contracts in this domain are notoriously one-sided in favor of the established producers and studios. I have some writings that occasionally draw the attention of movie/television producers, and on a few occasions these talks have gone far enough that I am presented with a contract. To paraphrase some of the common conditions (where "we/us/our" refers to the producers and "you" refers to the author):

> We do not guarantee you will earn any money on this deal.

> We may cancel or sell our rights to this contract at any time, you may not.

> We can use your name and likeness in any way we deem appropriate.

> You may not make any public statement about us without our prior consent.

> If you decide to sue us for any reason, we can veto your attorney > selections.

> Even if we pull some serious shenanigans we are immune from consequence.

And so on. In each case I declined to sign; life's too short to agree to such hostile, one-sided terms. Perhaps one day I'll be approached by some aspirational, non-greedy producers. I'd be happy to sign a fair contract.

<comment><USER4> Is that even a contract at this point? I thought to legally be a contract, both sides had to gain something?

<comment><USER3> Hypothetically, what I gained was a toehold into the film industry, with the possibility of future payment. But considering the perils of Hollywood accounting [1] I wasn't hopeful about ever seeing a penny. I wasn't desperate and their offer wasn't compelling, so I walked away.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm a indie filmmaker and would love to receive movie scripts from people. Why submit to Amazon when you can submit to me or other indie filmmakers? Very small companies do not have the disadvantages regarding your rights that large studios have, and there is a greater chance of your script being turned into a film. Our budgets are often larger than you would guess, and it is common for angel investors to provide a sufficient budget for passionate filmmakers.

<comment><USER6> Sounds like a good idea for a startup!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The Similar Content clause is a gold mine. Good luck suing Amazon and proving there is "substantial similarity".

"Given the open nature of Amazon Studios, Amazon Studios participants may develop and submit scripts, movies, shows, and videos that are similar to each other. In order to prevent legal claims that could be disruptive to Amazon Studios participants and impede the ability of Amazon scripts, movies, shows and videos to be developed and released, you agree to irrevocably and forever waive any legal claim you may have under any theory of law in any territory, including, without limitation, copyright infringement or breach of implied in fact contract (idea submission), that your rights were infringed due to any similarity between your Content and any other content that is or may become available on Amazon, unless there is substantial similarity of protectable expression under United States copyright law between your Content and the other content and the other content includes a verbatim copy of a material portion of your script or other written material, if your Content is a script or other written material, or a re-use of a material portion of footage from your movie, show or other video if your Content is a movie, show, or other video. Note that the Account Agreement includes additional waivers of claims related to Content that apply to the Amazon Parties, as defined in Section 11.4 below."

Practically the contract is atrocious for the submission party. I am not familiar with the field so maybe this is standard. If it is, I highly suggest people people stay away. TL;DR: This is not legal advice and I am not licensed to practice law, but if I am reading this right, accepting this agreement is not beneficial to you to submit.

Maybe Amazon is going to play nice and offer you enough money to make it worth it. However, you have little rights or leverage once you submit anything.

</comment><comment><USER8> Why was this submitted today? This program at Amazon is 7+ years old, and nothing about it has changed recently as far as I can tell.

</comment><comment><USER9> The idea of having my script tied to my buying history is funny

<comment><USER10> that might make an interesting movie script ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> All these people here keep on saying how well Amazon protects itself legally.

What I don't see anyone saying is that the fact that if Amazon were to rip someone off, their reputation would be tarnished.

I think what they're doing is actually in genius but I don't think they're going to rip anyone off because bye being able to crowdsource ideas for scripts will help them get the best of both worlds:innovation and relevancy.

They got to stay ahead of their competition and get inspired by writers.

Do not get me wrong they may screw people over but like Bank of America was warned about its debit card scandal, the other side of the sword can be bad and the last thing Amazon needs is thousands of riders complaining to the Department of Justice or any organization that involves fraud.

<comment><USER12> > What I don't see anyone saying is that the fact that if Amazon were to rip > someone off, their reputation would be tarnished.

Studios screw over writers all the time. There's a reason that screenwriting is _strongly_ unionized. Studios don't care about their reputation with writers, because a) there's always more writers, and b) the films aren't going to get made without the studios.

Studios _especially_ don't care about tarnishing their reputation with un- represented writers (i.e, writers without an agent), because all the good writers already have representation.

<comment><USER13> Right. They even call it "Hollywood Accounting".</comment></comment></comment>


Microservices, or how to force programmers to write kinda decoupled code - <AUTHOR> Hello everyone!
We have been working at my company for a few months decoupling our 5 years old monolith to a bunch of 'micro' services (we are starting to drop the 'micro' part...) and I am totally confused...
What kind of utopian code needs to have the monolith for a kinda smooth transition to services? Let me elaborate
Our code is a f?_ing mess. Domain objects using injected services, business logic in aspects, the most coupled tests that you have ever seen (really), defining constants at the very end of the class (fck this particular piece of code!) and so on. It looks like the code has been written without any kind of affection by the 'gurus' who now are Big Data experts or Data Science (duh!) in their new roles (never our fault!).
We were aware of all of this but we didn't imagine how much it would impact our architecture migration (noobs!) So now we have our classic huge monolithic and a bunch of services (5 in production and 8 WIP).
Developers don't want to spend any time in the monolith because it sucks, we are expecting to have more and more (and more) services so the system's administrator and operations guys are close to explode, due to the highly coupling the entire system needs to be deployed at the same time which we solved using green blue deployment but it sucks.
All the code problems now become code and infrastructure problems. What was a highly coupled code, now is a highly coupled infrastructure. We had only one scalling problem to solve (the monolith) and now we have N problems.
I knew that the migration was going to be frustrating, but not this much... The ammount of technical and non-technical problemas it's too damn high!
Beware of micro/small/any service architecture! All your coupling problems are going to shine! <comment><USER2> If you can't roll a service out independent of some other process, you don't have a service based architecture, you have an even worse monolith. You are blaming other people for problems, you yourself (or your team) are introducing.

Pulling out the code is not what is important typically in these sorts of migrations, what is important are:

1 - getting product definition about when/where you can loosen your consistency constraints on your data.

2 - building specified protocols between components that can support backwards/forwards compatibility.

If you continue to need strong consistency and can't support backwards/forwards schema changes in your shared data, you cannot build a service based system and would be better off improving your monolith.

PS: There isn't anything wrong with monolithic designs (cause that word doesn't really mean anything) for a huge swath of the technical world. If your team wasn't able to develop a good monolith it is incredibly unlikely they will be able to develop a good service based system.

</comment><comment><USER3> In my experience, the code monolith doesn't need to be utopian/pristine in order to refactor to microservices, but it does need one thing: each (potential) microsevice MUST own it's own datastore.

If I have a widgets service, and it shares a datastore with my foobar service, things become very tricky to refactor. Furthermore, if every update to the widgets table requires an update to the foobar table, the unnecessary complexity is still there.

So before decoupling to microservices, I would try to refactor the monolith such that each future-service is storing its own data in a silo. This usually requires non-trivial changes to the way your apis are being consumed, and thats where the real work comes in. It also takes embracing some data design patterns that folks might be uncomfortable with (redundancy, inconsistency, etc). But once you jump those hurdles, you're usually good to go.

Hope that helps. It's not easy, by any means, but it is worth it (IMHO). But oh, yes, you're definitely going to need a strong devops/ops team to keep a suite of microservices running. Containerizing each service (such that the ops people don't have to maintain N different server types) is a good first step towards making their lives easier.

</comment><comment><USER4> Cutting your project up and putting the pieces on different hosts and calling them microservices doesn't make it true.

Some links that wil hopefully be helpful:

\- [http://www.infoq.com/presentations/scale- gilt](http://www.infoq.com/presentations/scale-gilt)

\- [https://www.datawire.io/microservices- stories/](https://www.datawire.io/microservices-stories/)

\- [http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920033158.do](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920033158.do)

</comment><comment><USER5> Your system needs to be designed, not just merely torn into (micro- or otherwise) services. Microservices approach is not a silver bullet that magically untangles all the mess. And microservices can be tangled as much as a monolith, barring difficulties with shared memory, so no clear gain here either.</comment>


O'Reilly Fluent Web Conference Live Broadcast - <AUTHOR> http://conferences.oreilly.com/fluent/javascript-html-us/public/content/video <comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately it's the last (scheduled?) presentation for today, but it just started. Previous presenter mentioned having another presentation "after the break" and is not listed for any talk tomorrow.

There are more scheduled for tomorrow, beginning at 9AM Pacific / 12 noon Eastern.</comment>


Teaching Kids to Love Math - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577615690632669590.html?mod=lifestyle_newsreel <comment><USER2> They dont need to learn how to love math, they already do. What you cant teach them is to love a system designed two hundred years ago to teach very ignorant people about math. Most of the people who "hate" math do so because they were forced to "learn" it through an antiquated system. I hated my math classes, yet was always the top score on the annual standarized tests. Its not about math, but about how they teach it.

Best way to teach math? Same way as with other science. Use it. Dont teach kids fractions because of fractions. Show them how fractions work in the real world. My 10 year old niece was having trouble with the multiplication. Why? Because her teacher made them say it in front of the whole class. I went ahead and sat her down. Booted up ubuntu and taught her how multiplication works with javascript. She sat for around one hour toying with the code I wrote for her.

What do you think is more fun?

\- Standing in front of other kids who are making fun of you and saying the multiplication tables.

\- Writing done the following code and tinkering with it and calculating what the answer will be.

        var base = 5;
        var num = 4;

        var total = num * base;

        document.write(total);

        //She spent one hour with those four lines of code, and learned more about multiplication. She is now learning python. :)

<comment><USER3> _Best way to teach math? Same way as with other science. Use it._

\- Agree with this. "By doing, we Become"

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The only people who love math are math majors. Most humans don't love math.

Teaching kids to love math is pointless. Math is a tool, like a hammer or a DLL. Do you love your screwdrivers and methods? Let's teach kids about how math is useful to them in their lives, and let them take it from there.

 _Ongoing research is shedding new light on the importance of math to children's success. Math skill at kindergarten entry is an even stronger predictor of later school achievement than reading skills or the ability to pay attention, according to a 2007 study in the journal Developmental Psychology._

This is like trying to become smarter by listening to classical music. Is it ironic that those suggesting these ideas can't separate correlation from causation?

<comment><USER5> > The only people who love math are math majors. Most humans don't love math.

Oh, this is so wrong. Did you like Avatar? Then you like math. Avatar is one long, beautiful mathematical expression, from beginning to end.

> This is like trying to become smarter by listening to classical music.

Granted the problem with the basic idea, this has it all over trying to become smarter by listening to Country & Western music.

> Is it ironic that those suggesting these ideas can't separate correlation > from causation?

Math is neither a cause nor an effect -- it is both.

I could argue this point in detail, but instead I will get Bertrand Russell argue it for me: "Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty — a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as poetry."

Richard Feynman said, "To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature."

I can't think of a place that equals America for complete and willful misunderstanding of mathematics.

<comment><USER6> > Oh, this is so wrong. Did you like Avatar? Then you like math. Avatar is one > long, beautiful mathematical expression, from beginning to end.

Can you elaborate? To me, the interesting part of mathematics is the process of manipulating expressions, not the expressions themselves. For example, the number pi would be pretty boring if it weren't for the theorems related to it.

<comment><USER7> That argument confuses 'loving math' with 'loving things made of math'. I enjoy eating cake and playing video games, that does not make me a chemist and developer.

Your parent comment missed the point of his parent.

<comment><USER5> > That argument confuses 'loving math' with 'loving things made of math'.

That might be a fair objection if they could be separated. If I say y = cos(x) * e^-x^2, when expressed in two dimensions I get this:

<http://i.imgur.com/MePPy.png>

And in three dimensions I get this:

<http://i.imgur.com/9gr4u.jpg>

But I'm still looking at y = cos(x) * e^-x^2 -- the picture only confirms the mathematical identity. So it is with Avatar -- when we watch Avatar, we're looking at math.

And much of nature is defined using math -- note that I said, not _described_ , but _defined_. Here's an example -- there are species of locusts (cicadas, actually) that reproduce at 13-year and 17-year intervals. Until recently, no on knew why. It turns out that both 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and this ties into a survival strategy hatched by natural selection (quite by chance). All explained here:

[http://arachnoid.com/prime_numbers/index.html#Mathematical_L...](http://arachnoid.com/prime_numbers/index.html#Mathematical_Locusts)

In other words, the locust survival strategy is math speaking out loud.

If you read a book in which a seashore is described, do you argue that the description isn't germane to the thing being described? If the writer isn't skilled, or the reader is lacking in the capacity for visualization, then that is perhaps a legitimate objection, but for most people, words convey meaning. So does math. Math is a language in much the same way that words are a language.

The distinction between "loving math" and "loving things made of math" is dubious at best. When P.A.M. Dirac wrote his now-famous equation that describes how relativistic electrons behave, he noticed that it had two solutions -- sort of like a quadratic equation.

At first he doubted that there could really be two kinds of matter, as his equation suggested. But within a few years antimatter was observed, and Dirac forever afterward wished he had been willing to take his own equation at face value and predict antimatter himself.

My point? The math told him something about reality that no one knew, even him. To put it another way, _the math was reality._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How is learning maths playfully not insisted upon in this article or the comments? 2 examples: \- many card games require players to count points depending on the cards they won. lots of adding and mental calculation training in a fun setting. \- more advanced games like DragonBox, which blew me away from a purely game design point of view. FYI, I'm a game designer and I had never seen a game teach players, 5yo and adults alike, how to solve an equation for x in a matter of hours, while actually being fun, and WITHOUT triggering math-phobic reflexes.. (<http://dragonboxapp.com/>)

</comment><comment><USER5> The article fails to mention the single most effective way to improve math education -- _teach mathematics first, then arithmetic later_.

What do I mean by that? This is mathematics: [http://www.hdwallpapers.in/walls/jake_sully_avatar_2009-norm...](http://www.hdwallpapers.in/walls/jake_sully_avatar_2009-normal.jpg)

And this is arithmetic: <http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/bjp/v37n2a/a07frma1.gif>

The second part (arithmetic) is required for the first, but it doesn't need to be presented first.

The problem is easy to state -- we're teaching mathematics in the wrong order.

<comment><USER9> _The problem is easy to state -- we're teaching mathematics in the wrong order._

Where would we go to find a real-world example of mathematics being taught in the correct order to elementary-age pupils? There are many different schools (and many different settings for learning outside school) in many different countries. What is a good place to look for examples of demonstrably successful practice?

AFTER EDIT: Thanks for the reply. The thing I would want to look at in such intervention studies is how the teaching effectiveness is measured.

AFTER FURTHER EDIT: Oh, I see the video "Teaching Math Without Words, A Visual Approach to learning Math from MIND Research Institute" is one I have watched before, and have discussed among other mathematics teachers. Similarly, the publication Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School is a publication I subscribe to as a member of NCTM. I should start out in my reaction to both of these links you've kindly shared by pointing out that my own bent in thinking about mathematics is to think visually, and indeed that is why I like Sawyer's book Vision in Elementary Mathematics (which leads off my longer reply in this thread) so well.

But although I like visual approaches to teaching mathematics very well, and use them in the mathematics classes I teach, I also like studies of educational interventions to check results. So far, I can't find a publication by independent researchers (after searching Google Scholar and the new Microsoft Academic Search) that verifies the educational effectiveness claims made in the video for the proprietary intervention described there. The company's own website

[http://www.mindresearch.net/cont/research/re_publications.ph...](http://www.mindresearch.net/cont/research/re_publications.php)

provides only a very sparse set of links to published research on the issue.

Plainly, a more visual approach along the lines of the typical school textbooks used in Taiwan, Singapore, and Japan would be a better presentation of mathematics content than is found in typical United States textbooks. That should be possible to deliver without any computers at all, as it was delivered to pupils in Taiwan in my wife's generation, when Taiwan was still a poor, Third World country.

<comment><USER5> > Where would we go to find a real-world example of mathematics being taught > in the correct order to elementary-age pupils?

Good question -- and it seems this idea is being put into practice. Here are some examples:

"Using Art to Teach Fraction, Decimal, and Percent Equivalents" : <http://mason.gmu.edu/~jsuh4/math%20masterpiece.pdf> (PDF)

"Teaching Math Without Words, A Visual Approach to learning Math" (TED talk) : <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7odhYT8yzUM>

"Teaching with Visuals: Students Respond to Images" : <http://www.edutopia.org/visuals-math-curriculum>

There are many other similar examples. Here's one from an article I wrote ("each member of the running sum of odd numbers is a perfect square"):

<http://arachnoid.com/example/index.html#Math_Example>

The graphic says it all.

> The thing I would want to look at in such intervention studies is how the > teaching effectiveness is measured.

That will take much longer and is fraught with measurement difficulties (as with all social science questions). We might end up with people possessed of self-confidence about their math skills, but who can't balance a checkbook. (I say this as the devil's advocate, not because I actually believe that will be the outcome.)

> But although I like visual approaches to teaching mathematics very well, and > use them in the mathematics classes I teach, I also like studies of > educational interventions to check results.

Yes, a perfectly legitimate concern, and one especially important if one is to openly advocate a change in public school curricula. It is equally clear that there are no reliable data on outcomes at this time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I find the most challenging part to putting this into action is the same things that one finds challenging when designing a test for a class: getting the challenge level correct.

For a while this summer I'd write out simple math problems for my daughter to do when she got up. I stopped when I realized that I was doing harm by consistently getting the difficulty of my questions wrong. These kinds of articles make it seem easy, but I find it quite difficult.

For obvious reasons, I'm continuing to try to help my children with math (and other things!), but like most things, it seems to require patience, careful thought, and practice.

</comment><comment><USER11> Children are betting at learning than we are at teaching. You can try teaching 2+2, but if you're uncomfortable with math, then your children will not only learn 2+2 from you, they will also learn "math is hard." And having to un- learn that lesson is a very large, very difficult barrier to have to overcome. When you teach your kids math, don't just teach them 2+2, also make sure that they learn math is fun & easy.

</comment><comment><USER7> As a math undergrad dealing with mathematical anxiety (how silly, I know), I wish math education started with logic.

Is there evidence that learning discrete math first leads to better skill, or that it is easier/more fun for kids? or even teachers?

I suspect I only feel this way because discrete math seems so foundational now, but perhaps _what_ is taught matters less than _how_ it's taught.

I wish education was more empirical.

</comment><comment><USER12> Worth noting that a way NOT to teach kids to love math is to inundate them with arithmetic. My math education, like many in the US, was an endless barrage of memorizing facts, solving equations, then memorizing some more facts. It was not until college that I began to see the essence of math is creativity. Kids are naturally creative and inquisitive and we should use this to our advantage in early education. We should explore topics like topology and infinity, topics that still blow my adult, math-major mind. We also need to encourage students to be creators in math. One of the ways we learn to love reading is by writing and making up our own stories. We can have students make puzzles, write computer programs, and see that they can invent things with math.

For a more informed perspective on how we teach math all wrong, I recommend Lockhart's Lament: <http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf>

<comment><USER13> I spent an _hour_ last night working on a math homework assignment with my second-grader. The practice was adding up single digits to sums greater than 10.

The idea behind the problem (say 9+5) is to "make a 10" and then figure out the sum from the remainder. So 9+5 -> 10+4 = 14. _But he didn't know which numbers routinely added up to 10_. That was never memorized. The assignment was so focused on strategy and technique that it neglected the fact that the basic tools aren't there.

There's a point where you need to memorize _something_ to make the strategy and discovery easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> An interesting article, pointing out that mathematics anxiety on the part of adults sometimes limits engagement with mathematics learning opportunities among children. Mathematician W. W. Sawyer wrote about this quite a while ago: "The proper thing for a parent to say is, 'I did badly at mathematics, but I had a very bad teacher. I wish I had had a good one.'" W. W. Sawyer, Vision in Elementary Mathematics (1964), page 5. Elementary school teachers in the United States often fear mathematics themselves,

[http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2010/01/25/female- teachers-...](http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2010/01/25/female-teachers-can- transfer-fear-math-and-undermine-girls-math-performance)

[http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/41192533?uid=3739736&#...](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/41192533?uid=3739736&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101177886117)

and from time to time regret the gaps in their own mathematical education.

<http://www.ams.org/notices/200502/fea-kenschaft.pdf>

"The teachers are eager and able to learn. I vividly remember one summer class when I taught why the multiplication algorithm works for two-digit numbers using base ten blocks. I have no difficulty doing this with third graders, but this particular class was all elementary school teachers. At the end of the half hour, one third-grade teacher raised her hand. 'Why wasn't I told this secret before?' she demanded. It was one of those rare speechless moments for Pat Kenschaft. In the quiet that ensued, the teacher stood up.

"'Did you know this secret before?' she asked the person nearest her. She shook her head. 'Did you know this secret before?' the inquirer persisted, walking around the class. 'Did you know this secret before?' she kept asking. Everyone shook her or his head. She whirled around and looked at me with fury in her eyes. 'Why wasn't I taught this before? I've been teaching third grade for thirty years. If I had been taught this thirty years ago, I could have been such a better teacher!!!'"

The last time I posted a link to this article on HN, another HN participant kindly posted a link to what is surely the "secret" referred to by the elementary school teacher,

[http://www.tech4mathed.com/MAT156/topics%20test%202/twodigit...](http://www.tech4mathed.com/MAT156/topics%20test%202/twodigitmultiplication.htm)

pedagogical content knowledge that would be very routine for any elementary mathematics teacher in east Asia.

[http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary- Mathematic...](http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary-Mathematics- Understanding/dp/0415873843/)

(book link above, review links below)

<http://www.ams.org/notices/199908/rev-howe.pdf>

<http://www.math.wisc.edu/~askey/ask-gian.pdf>

So this advice for parents is good in helping parents provide a supportive environment for their children's mathematics learning.

I have frequent occasion to write about mathematics education here on Hacker News. My occupation is 1) providing supplemental lessons in advanced mathematics to pupils from ten counties in Minnesota through a nonprofit corporation I cofounded and 2) coordinating parent workshops and other aspects of the summer program Epsilon Camp,

<http://www.epsiloncamp.org/>

perhaps the most advanced mathematics program of its kind for YOUNG learners in North America.

To date, I recommend to my own children and to my clients in my own supplemental mathematics education program that they also turn to ALEKS,

<http://www.aleks.com/>

which is a commerical online site (in which I have no economic interest) delivering personalized instruction in mathematics through precalculus mathematics. The ALEKS website includes links to research publicatoins on which ALEKS is based.

I also recommend the Art of Problem Solving (AoPS)

<http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/>

(where I first took on the screenname that I also use here on HN) for more online mathematics instruction resources, and I also share specific links to specialized sites on particular topics with clients and with my children. I should note for onlookers that the articles on mathematics learning on the AoPS website

<http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/articles.php>?

are very good indeed, especially "The Calculus Trap."

My children make quite a bit of voluntary use of Khan Academy (both watching videos and working online exercises) and I am gratified that my previous suggestions to the Khan Academy developers here on HN

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2760663>

have been followed up as Khan Academy developers have communicated with me by email about new problem formats available in their online exercises, which are becoming increasingly challenging.

Besides that, I fill my house with books about mathematics, and circulate other books about mathematics frequently from various local libraries.

I also recommend that all my students use the American Mathematics Competition

<http://amc.maa.org/>

materials and other mathematical contest materials as a reality check on how well they are learning mathematics.

In general, I think mathematics is much too important a subject to be single- sourced from any source. Especially, mathematics is much too important to be left to the United States public school system in its current condition. I was rereading The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World's Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom (1999) last month. It reminded me of facts I had already learned from other sources, including living overseas for two three- year stays in east Asia.

"Readers who are parents will know that there are differences among American teachers; they might even have fought to move their child from one teacher's class into another teacher's class. Our point is that these differences, which appear so large within our culture, are dwarfed by the gap in general methods of teaching that exist across cultures. We are not talking about gaps in teachers' competence but about a gap in teaching methods." p. x

"When we watched a lesson from another country, we suddenly saw something different. Now we were struck by the similarity among the U.S. lessons and by how different they were from the other country's lesson. When we watched a Japanese lesson, for example, we noticed that the teacher presents a problem to the students without first demonstrating how to solve the problem. We realized that U.S. teachers almost never do this, and now we saw that a feature we hardly noticed before is perhaps one of the most important features of U.S. lessons--that the teacher almost always demonstrates a procedure for solving problems before assigning them to students. This is the value of cross-cultural comparisons. They allow us to detect the underlying commonalities that define particular systems of teaching, commonalities that otherwise hide in the background." p. 77

Plenty of authors, including some who should be better known and mentioned more often by HN participants, have had plenty of thoughtful things to say about ways in which United States mathematical education could improve.

A discussion of the Common Core Standards in Mathematics, "The Common Core Math StandardsAre they a step forward or backward?"

<http://educationnext.org/the-common-core-math-standards/>

gets into further details of how mathematicians look at the general school curriculum in the United States. It is not the worst curriculum possible, and survivors of the system often have access to outside resources to supplement school lessons, but the public school instruction in mathematics in the United States still shows plenty of room for improvement.

The last time I posted about these issues, a reply asked what I think about essay "Lockhart's Lament." I think it is an interesting read, but less practical for reforming mathematics education than I had hoped. I wonder if Lockhart's forthcoming book Measurement

[http://www.amazon.com/Measurement-Paul- Lockhart/dp/067405755...](http://www.amazon.com/Measurement-Paul- Lockhart/dp/0674057554/)

will be a successful attempt to teach mathematical reasoning to students who have already lost confidence in learning mathematics, which would be a great contribution to society.

<comment><USER14> As a father of two (both under 3) I want to (obviously) supplement my childrens official education with home encouragement - but resources and kicking off points like that above are - well I am sure they are around, I just don't know where.

I am half considering starting the Concerned Parent (tm) github repo

Is there any value in a github repo on recommended books and practises to help polyfilla in the cracks in the school system?- different approaches could have their own branches, commits could be discussed (Did you like that book The Teaching Gap? Should it be recommended? etc)

No I am not trying to recreate mumsnet. How crazy is this?

<comment><USER15> It's not crazy, but it's inefficient. Go hang out in home schooler forums instead. People homeschool for many different reasons, but I think it's great that it's still allowed in the US. The result of a diversity of people with diverse needs meeting a private market that hasn't yet been eradicated by "progressive" teachers' unions and the politicians they employ, is a cornucopia of private resources available to parents and students who exercise some initiative.

These resources are under constant discussion on homeschooling forums.

<comment><USER14> Thank you - as a brit I had always assumed it was, well, nutjob territory. Will look into it.

<comment><USER15> Yes, the mainstream media and the educational establishments in both the US and UK are dominated by the same leftist statists who, in order to promote their social agenda, need to portray all those who don't surrender themselves to the state programs as obvious nutjobs.

Those who leave the herd do so for all sorts of reasons, religious, academic (my case--like many homeschoolers, I'm an atheist), political, special educational need, lifestyle (e.g., frequent travel), or whatever. That's the nature of independent individuals. That level of diversity means that you can find plenty of people you'll consider nutty, which makes it easy for the media to push the message that those who leave the state herd are mentally defective.

But look at the effectiveness of the state schools and ask yourself, if the state system were shrunk down to the size of the various small homeschooling alternatives, would the state program be one you would pick for your own kids, or would one of the alternatives seem much more sensible? If you suspect the latter, maybe the state system is the real nutjob territory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I loved "Prof. E. McSquared's Calculus Primer" when I was learning Calculus (look for used prices):

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0913232475/ref=olp_product_...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0913232475/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=)

Home page here: <http://www.math.sjsu.edu/~swann/mcsqrd.html>

Fun and funny, written in a comic book format. It illustrates the concepts in such an entertaining style, but makes the point better than many textbooks.

<comment><USER17> Along those lines, you might enjoy _Thinking Physics_. ([http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Physics-Understandable- Practi...](http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Physics-Understandable-Practical- Reality/dp/0935218084))

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> That's great. Can you now teach me how I (~20 year old) can be interested in math? I deeply want to understand it but it gets so boring after a while... Is there any help for me out there?

<comment><USER19> I recommend Calculus Made Easy by Thompson. This book is short but complete. I read it at 22.

I gave up on mathematics after my first college course but found that for everything I wanted to get into, Machine Learning & Bayesian stats, it was essential . A year later I know math better than ever before even though I haven't stepped inside a classroom in years.

You're probably getting bored because most math books are hundreds of pages long and in addition to the material they include mathematicians bio's, several solution methods, and the explanations of edge cases.

<comment><USER20> You can't justify a $200 price tag for a 100 page text book.

<comment><USER5> That might sometimes be true, but the textbook the OP referred to is less than $16.00:

[http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Made-Easy-Silvanus- Thompson/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Made-Easy-Silvanus- Thompson/dp/0312185480)

<comment><USER20> Which is why no one will ever use it, because you can't justify a $200 price tag for a 100 page text books.

e.g. no college will ever endorse this book as a text, because they need to sell 60k in calc 101 text books each semester so they can get their cut.

<comment><USER5> > ... no college will ever endorse this book as a text ...

Yes, fair enough, however I think the discussion is not so much about schooling as education. Not all education takes place in college -- and with costs rising as they are, I predict a future with many more autodidacts -- self-educators.

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." -- Mark Twain

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Numeracy is the foundation for math. That is what we should be teaching kids. It makes it much easier to transition to more logic-intensive modes of analyisis later on.

</comment><comment><USER21> Math skills are essential to everything, so I like this!

</comment><comment><USER22> Most elementary schools have all subjects taught by one teacher. (At least mine did; my K-12 education was entirely in the US public school system.) Kids taking different subjects from different teachers doesn't happen until middle or high school.

So I'd guess that most teachers of young kids probably chose to train as elementary-education generalists, and math was hard and scary for them. There are several mechanisms by which this might rub off on their pupils:

1\. If the teacher doesn't have an innate joy and passion for their subject, the lack of enthusiasm may be contagious.

2\. The teacher may have no idea why things like the addition algorithm work, and no idea how to explain it to their students.

3\. Most of the math classes in elementary school were largely spent reviewing material covered in previous years. Having an expectation that students should know material that's been covered in previous lectures is simple common sense. I'm not against an occasional review class, mind you, but spending an entire quarter or semester on nothing but previously covered material strikes me as a colossal waste of everyone's time.

4\. High-stakes standardized testing is a recipe for disaster. The tests don't accurately measure anything but the amount of time and effort teachers spend teaching to the test. I was pretty far out of elementary school by the time No Child Left Behind hit the fan, but I'd imagine even knowledgeable, passionate teachers who want to motivate their students with the joy of learning to use their imagination to manipulate abstract ideas get immense pressure from above to turn their class into nothing but drill, drill, drill.

5\. The very name, "No Child Left Behind," implies is that the goal is to have the entire class proceed at the pace of the least capable student. On the face of it, this is deliberately aiming for poor results. For those of us who have never observed the human race in action before, let me explain: People are different; they have different levels of mental strength, motivation, talent, and parental support; they have different areas of interest, different areas of talent, put in different amounts of effort, and think in different ways. It is inevitable, then, that some people will be better at math than others. But we seem to be trying extremely hard to deny this simple and obvious truth, to bring the least capable students to a level of competence that they may never achieve, at great cost to taxpayers and immense frustration for everyone. Meanwhile, the middle- and high-capability tiers of the class are bored, frustrated and alienated by the endless repetition of very dull tasks -- which is most assuredly _not_ what mathematics is about, especially since the invention of cheap, ubiquitous computers.</comment>


Ask HN: When should I commit fully to my side project? - <AUTHOR> I work 3 days a week as a health professional, spend 1 day on my side project (website), and 1 day looking after a toddler.
Side project has been going 8 years and is now at the point that it's reliably earning twice what I earn as a health professional (80% Adsense, 20% digital product sales). I have a year's salary in savings (enough to pay my share of the mortgage for 6 years).
I have lots of ideas to develop the website but need more time to do so - toddler has eaten all my free time! I'm worried that if I quit as a health professional I may never go back if I need to. And I worry about Adsense not being a reliable source of income.
When do you know it's the right time to commit fully to the side project? <comment><USER2> What happens on the other two days of the week?

<comment><AUTHOR> Weekends used to be for working on the project, but child has changed priorities - for the better! Just wonder what other people said to themselves to make the leap.

<comment><USER2> Priorities changed for me as well...and as awesome as the boy was as a toddler, he's more so as a teenager.

Anyway, the internet can't give or deny permission for quitting a regular job or tell you if it is the right or wrong time.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds <comment><USER2> Why they didn't in 2018: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18099488](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18099488)

Why they didn't at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13810764](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13810764)</comment>


... because Ruby isn't terse enough yet - <AUTHOR> http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/10/stringtoproc.html

<comment><USER2> What is a "point-free holomorphism" ?

I study math, hack Scheme, and find myself totally confused by terminology.

Maybe it's a riddle or something -- "What does complex-smoothness have to do with lambda calculus?"

<comment><USER3> It was actually a typo. Fixed, thank you.

<comment><USER2> No, thank you.

I've just been forced to learn about a new language proposal, a new (to me) set of morphisms, and a nonstandard approach to proving stuff in topology. That's a rich link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> In Paul Graham's Accumulator Generator comparison (<http://www.paulgraham.com/accgen.html>) Ruby is now terser than any language except Arc.

        foo = 'n -> x -> n += x'.to_proc

        f = foo[4]
        f[2] # => 6
        f[2] # => 8

(This would be even terser:

        foo = &'n -> x -> n += x'

but the ampersand syntax is only allowed after a method call.)

<comment><USER4> I think Haskell is overall terser than Ruby. The trouble with the accgen test is that it's imperative, and Haskell isn't meant to be. Here's the Haskell implementation that I would submit:

      putStrLn "Don't do that, you nimwit!"

<comment><USER5> The Erlang version is unnecessarily verbose (and also semantically different) because it uses 2 processes. It can be rewritten as

Foo = fun(N) -> put(var, N), fun(X) -> V = get(var) + X, put(var, V), V end end.

It's not as concise as Ruby or Arc, but it's a one liner. However, similar to Haskell, this style of programming is discouraged in Erlang.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is cute but first-class functions would be better. I've had to switch to Python to find them.

</comment><comment><USER7> The Perl Golf anti-pattern.

<comment><USER8> I tend to agree with you. It's obvious to me that the following code evaluates to 6:

      r = 2
      foo = lambda {|x| x * r}
      foo.call(3)

And it's obvious to me that the following code raises an ArgumentError:

      foo = lambda {|x,r| x * r}
      foo.call(3)

But what does this do?

      r = 2
      bar = 'x*r'.to_proc
      bar(3)

Do I get the 6, or do I get the ArgumentError?

UPDATE: I presume the answer is "ArgumentError" (because the alternative appears to be positively _evil_ ), and that what I really need to do is this:

      r = 2
      bar = 'x -> x*r'.to_proc
      bar(3)

Why is this such an improvement over lambda? Couldn't these folks just _fix_ lambda (e.g. to remove the need for that annoying .call method every time I use the result) rather than deciding that every Ruby programmer needs to learn yet another argument syntax?

<comment><USER3> "these folks"

There are at least two kinds of folks: those who are "fixing" Ruby the language, such as the Rubinius team, and those who are "using" the language.

I am in the latter camp. So sometimes I complain about what is broken--[http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/02/why-ruby-is-not- acceptab...](http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/02/why-ruby-is-not- acceptable.html--and) sometimes I hack around it. But no, I am in no position to change the language. If I was, I would actually implement the point-free and underscore conventions natively.

If you want to use closures, you want to use lambda, not String#to_proc. If you dislike using .call, Ruby also allows [] syntax, so:

        r = 2
        foo = lambda {|x| x * r}
        foo.[3]

May be a little less objectionable.

<comment><USER8> I cannot get foo.[3] to work:

      syntax error, unexpected '['

But please don't spend too much time explaining what I'm doing wrong, because I'm afraid I don't like foo.[3] anyway. :)

Let me demonstrate my problem by taking a simulated tour through my brain as it encounters foo.[3] for the first time:

"WTF?

"Did someone mistype foo[3]?

"No, wait, surely it's supposed to be foo(3). I'm pretty sure that foo is a function. Didn't we set it equal to a lambda expression three lines ago?

"Maybe I need glasses. Let's adjust my monitor. No, those are square brackets, all right. And that really is a period between "foo" and the brackets.

"Maybe Google can help. But I'm not sure how to google '.[]'

"Oh, no -- is this one of those mysterious edge cases of the Ruby syntax? Do I hear _Why laughing at me? Does foo.[] magically target the eigenclass, or the metaclass, or the zetaclass, or something? Or did one of the libraries secretly redefine the core language behind my back?

"omigod, I should have learned Python.

"No, wait! The dot means that we're calling a method. And I know that [] is a method -- we redefine it all the time. So foo.[3] is just an obscure-ass way of calling foo[3] .

"Which makes no sense, because I thought foo was a function. So I must be wrong.

"WTF?"

[ten minutes later]

"Aargh! I went through _ten minutes of confusion_ just to save _three characters_?"

I may have exaggerated this a little. And, yet, I really did have _no idea_ that .[] works, and I still have no idea _how_ it works. (Of course, in my version of Ruby, it apparently _doesn't_ work, which makes it hard to investigate.)

Now, don't get me wrong -- Ruby is my favorite programming language. Quite often, after the tortured syntax, the monkey-patched class, or the strange new DSL stops you dead in your tracks, you'll struggle through the learning curve and discover that you have _a powerful new technique_. This starts on day zero of Ruby, when you see your first block. It looks like nothing on Earth, but it turns out to be _insanely great_.

Symbol#to_proc is a borderline case. I like the idea, but I hate the syntax. The &: doesn't bother me as much as the lack of curly brackets. To me, idiomatic Ruby is about blocks -- I expect map() and inject() and delete_if() to take blocks, not arguments. I would really prefer this:

      my_array.map {_.get_funky}

Reading this makes me happy. There's a map() call, so I expect a block, and look -- there are the curly brackets. And because it's a block, the stuff inside it must be a method call. And, in fact, the underscore and the dot mean that we're invoking a method on a placeholder. All is well with the world, and no higher brain functions need to be engaged.

But, you know, life isn't perfect. Language is about communication, and ultimately the language you speak is determined by what other people are speaking. Symbol#to_proc is powerful enough to become popular, and popular enough to be idiomatic, so we all have to learn it. Perhaps I'll even start using it.

But I'm afraid String#to_proc, like foo.[x], is past the point of diminishing returns. Do I really need a version of lambda that is not only utterly unlike Ruby's usual lambda, but is even _less_ like Scheme's lambda? And are my colleagues really going to forgive me for asking them to learn Haskell syntax in order to read something as trivial as lambda {|x,y| x+y} ? I'm not even sure if I could forgive myself!

<comment><USER3> "I cannot get foo.[3] to work"

Hey, neither can I. Quite possibly because foo.[3] actually doesn't work, it's foo[3] that works and I made a typo.

Sorry about that, and especially too bad considering how your first reaction was to consider the possibility that your version of Ruby was at fault instead of the possibility that I made a careless error. I appreciate the implied vote of confidence, but I'm aghast at the consequences.

I appreciate your taking the time to share your reaction. I'm mulling over exactly what I prefer about the point-free syntax, and the prod to think thinks over may help me understand my own views in more depth.

<comment><USER8> So, part of me is tempted to use this as an example of the reason why languages benefit from a certain amount of redundancy and consistency. :)

The other part of me is quite embarrassed, because I thought I had _tried_ foo[3] and failed. I guess that's why everyone in the Ruby community prefers automated testing!

Of course, if I thought that applying an array reference to a Proc made any sort of intuitive sense, I might have tried it more carefully. :) I still wish that I could just say foo(x).

Anyway, I'm glad you appreciated my report from the field. And of _course_ you prefer the point-free syntax -- you know Haskell, you know Lisp, you seem to know a certain amount of mathematics. It all makes perfect sense to you, just as I can only dimly remember the time when vector calculus didn't make perfect sense to me.

But I shouldn't indulge my love for German by randomly German syntax into my English prose inserting. Unless I have a very good reason: perhaps I want to borrow the uniquely compact German word _shadenfreude_ , or perhaps essential it is the alien character of Yoda to establish. When you break the rules in Ruby code that you intend to show to someone else (and is there really any other kind of code?) you need to convince the reader that you had a very good reason, because you're making him or her work harder to understand you.

Keep playing with the syntax for a while. You may find that it's so elegant that it is worth defending against the inevitable skeptics. And, if not, at least golf is a very pleasant way to pass the time!

<comment><USER3> "golf is a very pleasant way to pass the time!"

Golf is a good walk spoiled => Golf is good code spoiled.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> hmm, i dunno... self-modifying code can lead to insanity... :)</comment>


Dell Ships Infected Replacement Motherboards - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2010/07/dell_ships_infected_replacemen.php

<comment><USER2> They don't discuss how the malware got into the ROM in the first place. To me that is even more interesting. Could it be that the malware in the ROM was put there by somebody working for Dell or somebody that had access to the ROM chip manufacturing?</comment>


Ask HN: How did you overcome your limiting beliefs? - <AUTHOR>

All great people overcome their limiting beliefs on the way to becoming extraordinary. I notice this in just about every biography I read or biopic I watch.
So my question is, how did you overcome your limiting beliefs ? I have made a lot of progress in the last few years but still not where I want to be in life.
Thanks for any feedback. <comment><USER2> Check out claudesteiner.com.

Theory, history, and examples are here.

Website is older but the concepts and items you are requesting are free there.

Good researching ... well phrased and well formed question. Beliefs are at the core and their formation and motivation are key considerations. Change requires becoming aware of which beliefs are required to achieve your life's goals, plus a system of correcting them as they are discovered. Emotion is part of the difficulty since we are basically emotional beings, with a recently added rational cortex. So being able to become emotionally literate is a requirement of solving these kinds of issues in our childhood programming.</comment>