Economists agree: Raising the minimum wage reduces poverty - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/04/economists-agree-raising-the-minimum-wage-reduces-poverty/ <comment><USER2> It's pretty easy to find research coming to a different conclusion than the Card/Kreuger paper that most pro-minimum-wage-increase people cite:

[http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/06/sperling-on- minimum-w...](http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/06/sperling-on-minimum- wage.html) [http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/new-study-casts-doubt-on- card-k...](http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/new-study-casts-doubt-on-card- krueger.html) [http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-which-i- disagree-w...](http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-which-i-disagree- with-paul-krugman.html)

But the best reasoning I've seen on the subject is Bryan Caplan's:

"Suppose you have a weak prior about the disemployment effects of the minimum wage. Suppose further that you think that the best empirical work in economics is very good indeed. Doesn't existing evidence then oblige you to admit that the minimum wage has roughly zero effect on employment?

"Hardly. Why not? Because there is far more 'existing evidence' than meets the eye. Research doesn't have to officially be about the minimum wage to be highly relevant to the debate. All of the following empirical literatures support the orthodox view that the minimum wage has pronounced disemployment effects:"

[http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/the_vice_of_sel....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/the_vice_of_sel.html)

<comment><USER3> Even if minimum wage does cause some unemployment that's not the beginning or the end of the story. It's a market distortion created to counteract two other market distortions - namely already existing unemployment and market concentration on the employers' side, both of which depress wages.

So even proving beyond a doubt that minimum wage causes an increase in unemployment isn't enough to abolish the institution if there isn't a better solution to the problems at hand. Plus, unemployment percentage is not a robust enough metric to base the entire conversation on.

I liked Bryan Caplan's piece but to me it was predicated on the idea that minimum wage is based on errors in logic and _not_ based on distortions in markets (especially in his conclusion.) I'm yet to see a better idea for addressing the downward effect of unemployment and oligopolization on low end wages. Caplan's solution seems to be deregulation but to me that's a bit like letting the wolves and the sheep work it out for themselves.

<comment><USER4> I am actually a little confused, why do you consider unemployment a market distortion, and how does the minimum wage helps to correct it?

<comment><USER3> OK, I'll respond to this and harryh's at the same time. First of all, "distortion" is relative to what economic model you're starting with - so it can get a bit tricky, and I'm not very concerned with using the absolute correct technical term. But I'll make my case from the ground up:

Unemployment has a downward effect on wages because there's more competition for every job, just like competition between firms for employees will increase wages. Ideally these things will all even out. Unfortunately in our current economy we have high market concentration (so low competition between firms for employees which decreases wages) and high unemployment (so high competition for each job which also decreases wages). So we see lower wages from what they would be under Perfect Competition (or an ideally functioning free market) where I'm told it's impossible for these things to persist.

Minimum wage laws put a limit on how much firms can wield this market power given to them by market conditions. Without minimum wage/collective bargaining of some sort (and without technological advances, etc.) history and economic theory agree that firms will tend to push wages down to subsistence levels in order to maximize profits. Minimum wage is not the greatest tool, and I don't actually like it - but I do think it should be higher. We have a lack of good options at the moment so we're left picking the best of the bad.

But why do I call it a distortion? Large enough unemployment, coupled with lack of competition between firms for employees causes such a shift that the free market is barely distinguishable from slavery for those at the bottom (subsistence wages are literally only enough to survive and keep working.) So I throw around the word distortion because I'm trying to communicate that unemployment gives such a large amount of market power to employers that the market becomes _fundamentally different_ from what we expect in a Free Market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If I recall, _economists_ tend to point out that the causation between minimum wage and poverty is actually reversed from its "intuitive" position.

What actually tends to happen, is that _first_ , a city/county/state/country's economy improves to the point that everyone is making a certain wage, just because of competition for workers. And _then_ , policy-makers notice this, realize that there's an upside (better civic image) and no downside (workers out of jobs) to raising the minimum wage... and so they do.

Thinking of minimum wage as an adjustable variable, rather than an indicator, is trying to use the tail to wag the dog.

<comment><USER6> Not quite. What actually happens is that by raising the minimum wage, you lift minimum wage earners from a state where they barely survive to make ends meet to one where they consume the stuff that society at large is producing. There's a virtuous circle in there. It's that thing Ford showed in its early days: paying workers extra so they can buy the cars they produce yields more economic activity for the benefit of everyone -- they also bought fridges and what not.

The trouble is stopping just short of the level at which (by minimum wage earner standards) they begin to live in opulence. That meaning, in this case, not so much when they're able to afford a yatch, but when they begin to consider putting on more debt than they can actually afford -- debt that won't get repaid. In that case, a vicious circle creeps in, because the ups and downs in excess debt levels contribute to inordinately sized booms and busts, e.g. like we have now.

So the real conclusion should be, since most people in developed countries earn barely more than the minimum wage itself: having a large consumer class benefits everyone in the economy provided that it is solvent.

<comment><USER5> > by raising the minimum wage, you lift minimum wage earners from a state > where they barely survive to make ends meet to one where they consume the > stuff that society at large is producing

Do you have a citation on this? A raise of the minimum wage actually having an _effect_ at the margins, in either direction, is unusual, because places don't tend to raise the minimum wage until it wouldn't have an effect anyway.

Raising the minimum wage does serve as a _ratchet_ , to prevent productivity from slipping down to previous levels. But this basically mirrors the other way in which places transform to exclude low earners: gentrification.

<comment><USER6> Not handy, but use your common sense if you will: if you're surviving on $8/hour or whatever it currently is in the US, and your wage increases by a dollar per hour, then all things being equal you're going to be spending that extra buck on a range of things that had been delayed for a while: shoes for the kids, new tires for the car, and what not. This is consumption, and it's going to get recycled over and over again across the economy for the benefit of everyone.

The trouble is if you increase it to $50/hour. (Assuming the businesses survive, which is indeed a big if...) In this case you buy everything you ever needed or wanted, and...?, then what? You save it, put on debt to buy a huge mansion that you'll never actually be able to afford in the end, or otherwise contribute to some random asset bubble, snd you get booms and bust cycles. (See Steve Keen's research on the latter point, fwiw.)

<comment><USER4> The question you have to ask is, where does this extra dollar come from? (owners' margins? wages of workers who are now unemployed? consumers' budgets?), and how much _extra_ consumption it generates in the still-employed workers' pockets, _compared to where it was before_?

<comment><USER7> I guess we can agree that the money is shifted downwards in the income spectrum relative to where it was before. Other things equal, lower-income households have a higher marginal propensity to consume. So shifting money downwards will boost consumption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The minimum wage is ultimately always zero; employers can simply choose to not hire you if they think your productivity is not enough to justify paying you the minimum.

As an Australian who spent a couple of years in Asia (where minimum wages are much lower than Australia's $16/hour), one of the most stinking things I noticed was how much easier it was to find work there. I have 'unskilled' Australian friends who have spent months looking for work, without luck, whereas in Singapore for instance it seemed rare for somebody to take more than a week or two to find work.

While the quality of the work may be lower than that of minimum-wage work in Australia, it at least provides unskilled individuals with an opportunity to develop the experience, skills and confidence necessary to move onto better jobs, while their Australian counterparts are still sitting around at home feeling dejected at being unable to find work.

<comment><USER9> >In Singapore for instance it seemed rare for somebody to take more than a week or two to find work.

It took me a LONG time, and the work I ultimately found was much lower paid than it would be in Australia, the US or Europe.

Singapore is a perfect example of what happens if you have no minimum wage. The majority of the country's wealth gets diverted towards profits. Wages all around are lower.

The only reason it doesn't cause massive social instability in SG is because the government keeps housing, health care and education affordable by rigid price fixing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is silly...of course it reduces poverty for those that do not lose their jobs...and if you operate under the assumption that anyone earning the minimum wage is living in poverty, then of course it would reduce the percentage of people living in poverty in aggregate.

There is still a few _major_ problems with it as policy:

1) For those that do lose their jobs, their effect is extremely negative.

2) For those with little to no work history, the possibility of being priced out of an entry level job is a huge problem, leading to the prospect of reduced earnings for the rest of their life. [1]

3) For those who do not lose their jobs, the fact that they didn't lose their jobs is indicative of more major problems...they either don't understand the value of their labor, or they don't know how to negotiate with their employers. A minimum wage increase for these people is like treating the symptoms instead of the disease, and without addressing these issues, these people will likely be underemployed for a long time.

For those reasons alone, the minimum wage is a terrible way to reduce poverty. A serious answer is three-fold:

1) Use real programs to reduce poverty. This means a robust welfare system or a negative income tax or a universal basic income. These cost money, but at least their costs are known, as opposed to the mostly invisible costs of the minimum wage.

2) Promote wage transparency laws (which help those who are underpaid to know the true value of their labor). These prohibit employers from firing or retaliating against employees for discussing wages, which is a tactic to keep information asymmetrical in the favor of the employer.

3) Abolish the minimum wage.

[1] [http://www.nber.org/papers/w5030.pdf](http://www.nber.org/papers/w5030.pdf)

<comment><USER9> >For those that do lose their jobs, their effect is extremely negative.

Raising the minimum wage does not lead to higher unemployment.

>For those who do not lose their jobs, the fact that they didn't lose their jobs is indicative of more major problems...they either don't understand the value of their labor, or they don't know how to negotiate with their employers

That's paternalistic bullshit. In reality, they can't afford to have a long term time horizon. They usually need a job quickly and cannot afford to hold out for a better one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The basic issue is that economics is not an empirical discipline but rather a deductive one. You cannot test anything in isolation because you cannot have a control. All economists can say is "If you do X _when nothing else changes_ Y will result". It is basic economics that when the government mandates a price floor then anyone who cannot sell their goods for anything below that floor will not be able to sell their goods. Thus it will hurt those it's trying to help. No studies are going to disprove that. It's elementary logic.

<comment><USER3> > It is basic economics that when the government mandates a price floor then > anyone who cannot sell their goods for anything below that floor will not be > able to sell their goods. Thus it will hurt those it's trying to help.

Applying this to the low end of the labor market is pushed in a lot of Econ 101 classes but it requires so many assumptions to be true that the model only has a passing resemblance to reality.

To use your own logic, you can't say that raising the minimum wage won't also change other variables important to the model but assumed to be constant (maybe it causes companies to outsource, maybe it causes workers to emmigrate, maybe it raises worker productivity) - so if economists are truly constrained to _ceteris paribus_ situations then they have nothing to say about the effects in reality from a minimum wage increase.

<comment><USER11> Yes they can. This is because we can discuss what higher prices do-invariably they cause market actors to seek substitutes. If you push a $15 minimum wage it stands to reason that there would be demand for any machinery that would allow for cost savings. It would be good for the sectors of the economy that would supply these cost savings technologies. Ultimately marginal workers would get hurt even further once these technologies emerged.

<comment><USER3> Sounds like it's a choice between a short period of minimum wage pay and then getting replaced by "cost saving technologies", or a slightly longer period of subsistence wages and then still getting replaced. It's easy to argue that since the cost of technology goes down with time that any replacement of workers due to a minimum wage hike will happen anyways when the tech gets cheap enough.

Here's a question. Both market concentration (as in oligopoly) and unemployment have significant downward effects on wages especially in the low end of the labor market. I don't like minimum wage and I wish we didn't have it but it's the best solution I've seen to these problems. Do you have a solution to these problems?

<comment><USER11> Ideally I would abolish fractional reserve lending and the inflation that goes along with it. That inflation of the money supply has a medium and long term effect of raising prices. In a free market prices would drop thus your bad wage gets better even if you can't ever find a better job.

<comment><USER3> Well I certainly agree that money in general and our relationship to it could use a good rethinking - which is a surprisingly unpopular opinion considering America's financial sector pretty much imploded just a few years ago.

But I don't follow how solving that problem addresses markets becoming concentrated and member firms using that advantage to push wages down towards subsistence levels. That I think requires some sort of collective bargaining, which minimum wage is a type of (although it's likely not the best.)

<comment><USER11> Marx was concerned about wages being pushed down but even in his own lifetime it never really happened that way. It's something that seems desirable for the businessman if possible but something that they have no control over. The reason being that other companies will compete for workers and have an easy competitive advantage over firms who are trying to drive workers to poverty.

Markets work to coordinate prices for both consumers and producers. Those who resist the laws of markets pay eventually. Might not happen right away but it happens-always.

My point is that low wages are never good exactly but they can be better if those wages pay for more year over year. It's like getting a raise without having to negotiate or even do anything for it.

<comment><USER3> Ah, c'mon, don't pin it on The Bearded Guy! That stuff predated him (see Ricardo's Law of Rent: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent)). The Bearded Guy was after all the last of the Classical Economists :)

He also didn't think wages would make it to subsistence: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages#Socialist_cr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages#Socialist_criticism)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Reducing poverty" is a good reason, which is why minimum-wage advocates talk about it.

But the real reason minimum-wage advocates want to increase the minimum wage is to increase the pay of union members, who's pay is indexed to the minimum wage.

 _That 's_ the voting block that matters to politicians, not the near poor, who barely vote and certainly don't have the time (or skills) for political activity (unlike the unions).

<comment><USER9> Unions haven't mattered to politicians in decades.

However, corporate lobbyists do - they largely control Congress and the executive branch.

Wanna know why they're against a higher minimum wage? Because it's inversely proportional to their profits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Very misleading title, economists absolutely do not agree on this point, just read the responses to Card/Kreuger. My view after taking all of this in: there are valid theoretical models that both support and disagree with the view that the minimum wage reduces poverty, and so far the statistics are not clear either way. Given that we don't know, why not support more effective policies for combating poverty such as the negative income tax (Milton Friedman was a proponent of this), or even unconditional income? Those policies would be such a win-win in terms of both reducing poverty and reducing the costly bureaucracy surrounding welfare programs, but unfortunately they don't seem to be politically viable yet.

</comment><comment><USER14> Just think how prosperous we would be if the minimum wage was $100 an hour! ;-)

<comment><USER15> Just because things don't work asymptotically doesn't mean they don't work.

<comment><USER16> But why would a $15/hour minimum wage work and $100/hour won't? Where between 15 and 100 do you draw the line and why?

<comment><USER17> Why raise the thermostat setting from 40F to 65F? Why wouldn't 100F be better? Where between 65F and 100F do you draw the line and why?

<comment><USER18> I draw the line at about 74. When it starts to get into 75+ it gets uncomfortable for me personally. So instead of being dismissive I think it's actually worth thinking about the question. If $15 could work as a minimum wage, and $100 would clearly not work, where in that range does the transition happen. Or maybe $15 is already too high, but $12 could work. I certainly don't know the answer, but it's an interesting thing to ponder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Note that this is an opinion column, not a news report or a newspaper- sponsored analysis done by a reporter.

Also the author does not do justice to the subject, implying much more agreement than actually exists. I didn't want to go into the political mess of this, however, simply point out that I was a bit confused as to what I was reading.

</comment><comment><USER16> Can someone please give me his thoughts on this hypothetical situation?

Let's say a farmer buys some extra land and instead of hiring 50 people to work on it he buys a fancy tractor.

\- Would it be right for those 50 people to demand from the tractor factory to stop making tractors because they are out of work?

\- Would it be right for them to demand from the government the wages they would have received if the tractors were not made in the first place?

\- Would it be right for everyone to pay a higher price for food because farmer had to hire 50 people instead of a tractor?

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm pretty sure I can find economists who don't agree.

<comment><USER19> Yep, and I'm willing to bet ten bucks that in the next 48 hours at least one of them will write a rebuttal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> And how exactly does "there is a paper that claims X" translate into "Economists agree that X is true"?

Well, it doesn't. In fact, I would generally be skeptical about any claim that starts with "Economists agree...", such is the nature of the profession.

Also, if we actually admit the effect on poverty to be true, the most obvious way to reconcile this is that newly-unemployed (and hence poor) workers move to places with lower minimum wage, where they can find work. Fewer poor people => less poverty.

<comment><USER9> So you're saying Australians who have a MUCH higher minimum wage and MUCH lower unemployment should move to America?

Heh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So I hope those skinflints do just raise the minimum wage a tiny bit. They need to raise it a lot. A minimum wage of $50.00 per hour would relieve a great deal of poverty. P.S. [http://cafehayek.com/2014/01/the-wages-of- journalist-incompe...](http://cafehayek.com/2014/01/the-wages-of-journalist- incompetence.html)

<comment><USER22> No it wouldn't. The amount of dollars you would need to exchange for goods and services would just increase while the exchange rate for dollars would decrease.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Skimming over Arin Dube's paper, I can't help but wonder why he doesn't address any of the lurking variables. His time frame, 1990 to 2012, represents a period of vast technological change throughout the US and the rest of the world. I admit I did not read the entire paper, but it seems Mike Konczal and a lot of us are using "causality" and "correlation" interchangeably, which doesn't seem appropriate. This is not an empirical science... lengthy extrapolations don't tend to hold their ground in real-world economics. There are so many other factors and variables working that it seems silly to make these extrapolations. Again, I did not read Dube's entire paper-—he's obviously put much more thought and time into that paper than I have this comment. With that said, that is just my .02

</comment><comment><USER24> No they don't! [1-6]

The author of this piece, Mike Koczal, is an ideological blogger. You can catch him on Salon, MSNBC, TNR, etc. The main economist mentioned, Arin Dube, is not mainstream. He is actually sympathetic to Soviet central planning[7]. And the UMass Amherst Economics department has a well know for its "offbeat" views (e.g. numerous courses that take Marx seriously), not mainstream, not concensus.

The truth is this is a controversial, basicly idealogical, issue and if any consensus exists it is that the results will be mixed: some better and some worse off (i.e. unemployed).

[1] [http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart- graph/econo...](http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart- graph/economist-survey-results-whether-minimum-wage-increases-unemployment- among-young-and-unskilled-worke)

[2] [http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/what- economists...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/what-economists- think-about-raising-the-minimum-wage/?_r=0)

[3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Surveys_of_economi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Surveys_of_economists)

[4] [http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/minimum_wage.pdf](http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/minimum_wage.pdf)

[5] [http://www.epionline.org/studies/epi_minimumwage_07-2007.pdf](http://www.epionline.org/studies/epi_minimumwage_07-2007.pdf)

[6] [http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart- graph/econo...](http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart- graph/economist-survey-results-whether-minimum-wage-increases-unemployment- among-young-and-unskilled-worke)

[7] [http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/10/a-n...](http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/10/a-nobel- for-planning.html)

<comment><USER7> _" offbeat" views (e.g. numerous courses that take Marx seriously)_

Right, how could anybody possibly take one of the most important thinkers in the history of political economy seriously!

Marx has important but inconvenient things to say even today. He may not have been right about everything, but a lot is spot on. It's just that lucid writing about class struggles is rather uncomfortable to those who are winning these class struggles. In any case, those who ignore him do so at their own (intellectual) peril.

<comment><USER24> You are correct that Marx is important in the HISTORY of economics (and it's idealogical cousin, political economy) but he has contributed almost nothing to modern economics. When he wrote a 150 years ago he understood little of what you would learn in a freshman intro to economics class. For example, his most famous belief that all value is derived from labor is so simplistic and clearly wrong as to be absurd (try responding to this post without capital).

The UMass Amherst economics department describes itself as a center for "heterodox" economics[1]. Look up the definition of that word and tell me again how they are mainstream.

BTW - I found Engles to be much more lucid than Marx's rather archaic prose. He is still almost completely wrong but at least his meaning is clearer.

[1] [http://www.umass.edu/economics/facjobs.html](http://www.umass.edu/economics/facjobs.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Of course I am not an economist at all, but still I see here some paradox. Minimal wedges are paid for the jobs that require low qualifications or in fact no qualifications. So for example if we raise 4$ per hour to 5$ for such jobs, we may reduce the value of 1 dollar. If 1 hour of such job was worth 4$ and now is worth 5$, then now 1$ has less value than it used to have. As a consequence the whole economy may experience inflation. I do not believe in simple solutions to complicated problems. Printing more money do not reduce poverty and rising minimal wedges is for me a little bit like printing money.

<comment><USER9> It mostly eats into corporate profits first. Then it starts having an effect on inflation.

If you think corporate profits are too low (fwiw they're at record highs right now), and corporations deserve more profit you shouldn't support a raise in the minimum wage.

If you're interested in what happens to prices if the minimum wage is hiked, read here:

[http://184.108.40.206/lowpay/research/pdf/NMW_profits_and_pri...](http://188.8.131.52/lowpay/research/pdf/NMW_profits_and_prices.pdf)

"Our analysis of retail prices in 3 catering industries (canteens, restaurants and takeaways) does not indicate that prices in these industries were differentially affected according to their exposure to the minimum wage. Surprisingly, the only evidence of any price effect is found in the canteen industry where prices rose by a modest 1% in April 1999. "

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Well if economists agree I guess we should pass laws implementing it and send imperial storm troopers to put down any curs who dare to dissent!

</comment><comment><USER27> We can all argue about weather minimum wage hikes kill jobs, but the fact remains that there are not enough jobs, and a lot of the jobs that are around exist only because labor is cheaper than automation, which hurts efficiency and GDP. The real solution is to not worry about 1 job for every 1 person and guarantee citizens a basic income.

</comment><comment><USER28> I say cut the ridiculous amount of taxes (34 percent for those making a decent living) & increase the minimum wage.

No one can live off of $7.25 an hour and $10.10 is definitely a fair/decent wage.

Sure the cost for things will go up when it's increased, but with taxes decreased I'm more then happy to pay the higher costs. A higher cost that keeps people working and earning a living rather then not working and sitting around living off the peoples' tax dollars.

</comment><comment><USER29> As rule __always ignore the headlines __and focus on the details. Actually the article contains very little details about the actual research methodology and data.

If poverty reduction in short term is the only objective then I am pretty sure increasing minimum wages will bring some people above the poverty line set at a time before increasing the wages. But whether that reduction ins poverty is sustainable over a decade or so is the important question.

</comment><comment><USER30> Perhaps, rather than theorize about improving the American minimum wage, look to other countries that have higher minimum wage and evaluate their level of poverty (or lack thereof). Look at Australia and Norway, for example.

Granted, the lack of poverty in those countries is not solely caused by a humane minimum wage - but it's a huge factor, and a positive indicator.

I lived in the US for 7 years and could never fathom how the country as a whole could tolerate such a system.

<comment><USER6> > but it's a huge factor

[ _credible_ citation needed]

<comment><USER30> m not sure if you'll classify it as "credible" but the wikipedia article on HPI shows a clear ranking of countries that roughly correlates to the minimum wage (higher the wage, lower the poverty ranking). Which.. Doesn't seem like rocket science.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_countr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country)

<comment><USER31> Well, maybe.

Or perhaps countries with less poverty are able to support higher minimum wages?

[http://xkcd.com/552/](http://xkcd.com/552/)

<comment><USER30> And how did the process start? The poverty situation in the better off countries didn't start improving because of magical fairy dust.

One end pushes the other end, sure, but you've got to start it somewhere.

People and politicians took action and improved laws, businesses still kept going and the cycle repeats upwards.

I don't see that happening in the US. I don't mind if the change isn't minimum wage (not going to happen in America), but at least do /something/ positive.

<comment><USER31> Something must be done? By people & politicians? This is the best way to fight poverty?

I agree that it isn't "magical fairy dust" that increases wages. What do you think it generally is?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Of course it will, and will also reduce expectation of service industry tips so it's deserved rather than a given.

<comment><USER33> Only if the service industry exceptions from minimum wage are removed as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Well, the research studies only tell you:

Raising a very little bit of the minimum wage reduces a very little bit of poverty in the short run, without discussing any negative impacts to the society (in the short run or in the long run).

It is very different from "raising the minimum wage reduces poverty".

<comment><USER35> I doubt studies connect what happens to employment when a bubble collapses. It is then that the full effects of a drop in demand are felt and the new higher wage really causes demand to collapse.

By then, everyone advocating this price control is long gone. Its a time bomb that explodes in the faces of low wage workers, preventing them from repricing their services to mer the new conditions.

Of course, smaller, smarter countries like Ireland figured that out and cut their minimum wages in response to the lowered demand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhh</comment>


Ask HN: Investor went dark after getting startup financial information - <AUTHOR> Our 11 person startup had an expression of interest from quite a reputable VC and we had few months of communication regarding growth, revenues etc.
Finally the VC agreed to invest he wanted to do due-diligence by going through the customer's list rather than checking our business bank accounts. I was a bit hesitant but wanted the funding to go through, to take my mind off it and focus on the startup.
I sent the list of customers, their contact details and the revenues from each of them and the investor just vanished after that.
I know PG said that in silicon valley a verbal commitment is as good as a deal. This VC gave us verbal and email commitment and then vanished without the common courtesy of explaining why.
There has been no response to my multiple emails or phone calls. The VC is very well known and not a flyby shop.
The main issue is that the investor already has a startup in his cohort that is in the same space as us. Few months later my customers started receiving emails from this other startup.
I have no idea how to ask this VC , who has infinitely more money and power than our startup, to destroy all of our data and not use it in any way whatsoever.
I don't want the funding and I don't want to burn the bridges but I want to protect our customer data. <comment><USER3> Sounds like you got mugged, and you're trying to decide if you got mugged.

The VC obviously got what they wanted, so take the hint. The only recourse you have at this point is legal- something like tortious interference with contract if you can prove they poached your customers. You might be able to put together a fraud case if you can prove the loss.

Lawyer.

Be sure you name names on thefunded.org so this VC can't bamboozle the next victim as easily.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would like to believe that I didn't get mugged and someone or something in the list ticked him off. It would have been nice for him to open up a channel of conversation as the list is genuine and we have bootstrapped our startup so far to profits

<comment><USER4> You're lying to yourself. You got mugged. You even said it yourself - <USER2> customers started receiving emails from his other company! The writing is on the wall.

Do you have hard proof of the email your customer received?

<comment><USER5> Probably. Also remember that if posters space is specific or niche, clients usually look for other software to help them. The emails from the competitors are not a smoking gun proof. There is no way to prove or disprove it and only the investor knows what's up

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think he or she had sufficient time to vet your list so send a firm email stating to 'destroy the list and do not share. and that you hope to heard from him/her soon.

if you feel he/she conned you to serve his other master, then name them publicly.

</comment><comment><USER7> Unless you have some kinda smoking gun, dont act on this. Move on.

If stealing your customers is as simple finding out who they are and reaching out to them, then you dont have a sustainable business model.

Focus on building your business. Get back to work.

</comment><comment><USER8> That sucks but it is possible your conclusion is not correct. Possibly:

\- Vc was looking at you bc they already have experience in that market. Maybe they were considering hedging their bets with multiple companies with similar products but decided not to move forward. Now they are just too busy to get back to you. Annoying but not nefarious.

\- how did you find your customers? Could the other company have found them the same way? If your product is better then your customers should stay with you. If not, maybe your product is lacking somehow.

\- the VC is a D##K and did what you suspect. In that case did you vet the vc at all? Did you check who were their other companies for possible conflicts of interest?

With all due respect, an investor saying their interested verbally does not make for a firm investment.

<comment><USER9> Please... it's quite obvious the VC screwed him:

-The VC firm ONLY cared about the startup's CUSTOMER data. Not the FINACIAL data.

-The startups's customers started getting emails afterwards.

-The VC not only stopped contacting the startup afterwards, the VC refused to answer them.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's quite impossible that the VC downright stole the customer data. There seems to be a mixup where our customer data got into their system. Not sure how to ask them to purge our data without seeming like an asshole.

<comment><USER9> He doesn't even return your calls and you are worried about coming across like an asshole? Why would He even care about deleting the data? He will tell you that it has already been erased.

I guess you could make another "startup" with fake clients and be legally prepared to screw him. Luckily, He will ask for the same info. If the fake contacts are contacted by your competitors, you can use it as proof.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Did you put any kind of NDA in place before sharing confidential information? If so, you can politely remind him that it's appropriate to destroy the data. If not ... well, he sounds like a dick.

I understand not wanting to out this investor too, the truth is, he is more powerful than you and it sucks. The best advice is take it as a lesson, and focus on your startup. You know not to do business with him, and later when he wants in on one of your oversubscribed funding rounds, you can politely point him to earlier conversations when he was not interested. :)

Don't make this into something more than it is. This will not break your business, but making it a big deal when you don't have the power/resources to do so could.

<comment><AUTHOR> >Don't make this into something more than it is. This will not break your business, but making it a big deal when you don't have the power/resources to do so could.

This is correct. I totally forgot about them until one of our customer pointed out an email they received from the other startup and wanted to know if we shared our customer's contact with third parties.

It's impossible for us know what's the correct answer here. We have to share customer information for due diligence but does that mean investors are third parties? What if the investor uses this info for their startups?

> on one of your oversubscribed funding rounds

We are not in the silicon valley or even in North America.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Get a lawyer and talk to them. However, I think the main thing is to work on their reputation. If this VC gets their name tarnished, less people are going to work with them. I know if I was looking for a VC and I knew who this person was, I would not work with them ever.

<comment><AUTHOR> >Get a lawyer and talk to them.

Ha! We are a startup from a developing country and our budget of $10 per day of facebook ads is killing us.

<comment><USER12> It is entirely possible that an attorney would take the case on contingency if it's strong.

<comment><AUTHOR> Then it all becomes a shit show. Not to mention that we get on the blacklist for every VC they talk to.

We just want to get on with our startup and we have tons of work left to scale up.

<comment><USER13> I'm sorry this happened to you, but you have a great attitude. Good luck and much respect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Naming and shaming very appropriate here. I see no reason to worry about blacklisting by other scum bags in this person's network.

</comment><comment><USER15> Speak with a lawyer. You may or may not have a case that will hold up in court, but regardless a lawyer will be able to tell you more about what your options are (including a number of options well short of going to court) and what leverage you do have, as well as potential repercussions.

</comment><comment><USER16> If a well know VC is interested in your company and resorted to underhanded tactics to get your customer list you must be doing something right.

Lesson learned, you will not make that mistake again.

Move on and continue building and innovating.

</comment><comment><USER17> Always see your customer database with baits.

<comment><USER18> I think you mean seed, but yes. The other thing is only provide a subset of your customers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> When VC == BS

</comment><comment><USER20> Tricky. I think a firm dissuasion email might make them budge. Something stating, for example:

\- The facts \- The fact that your customers started receiving emails from his startup \- The fact that what he's done is dirty \- And that you're contemplating a couple of serious actions, while staying vague.

The idea is to make him react and open dialogue, because the thing is, I don't think you have the resources for an actual legal action, so an off the table deal might be your best shot.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is how we can get blacklisted by VCs and they talk to each other which means we are royally screwed even by other VCs</comment></comment>


Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46046067 <comment><USER2> Yet more bad news on the climate change front.

Based on previous discussions on HN, I'm sure there will be plenty of people proposing ambitious and creative technological solutions.

I fear that there's an anthropic bias[0] at work where humans are convinced we will solve this problem because we've always solved other problems before. But we forget that if we _hadn 't_ solved those previous issues, we wouldn't be here to talk about it (and it has been very touch-and-go[1] before). That leads us to overestimate our chances of eventually sorting this out, too.

But maybe this is start of the great filter? [2]

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

[1] [https://io9.gizmodo.com/close-calls-three-times-when-the- hum...](https://io9.gizmodo.com/close-calls-three-times-when-the-human-race- barely-esc-1730998797)

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

<comment><USER3> We already have solved the issue. We know how to produce massive amount of energy, all day long. We just don't want to implement it, because of local incident risk. And because of this we are in the middle of a global incident. Technology available in 5 years are already too late.

<comment><USER4> > We already have solved the issue. We know how to produce massive amount of > energy, all day long. We just don't want to implement it

That means we haven't solved the issue. The solution might require as much of a change in human psychology as a change in technology.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is also a crisis of critical thought. There's an utter lack and/or willingness to imagine any other reality than the current market economy. This goes even to the length of advocating some sort of scorched earth policies to decrease the earth's population since in their mind, the only human is the market-human and is as such inherently a terrible polluter.

This is fundamentalism.

<comment><USER6> There are plenty of attempts to think about other systems, implement them, and advocate for change. They all lack something important: success.

Also ironically it is a market of competing ideas to markets.

<comment><USER7> > They all lack something important: success.

Are you sure? The increasing automation will perhaps give us a future where most people don't have to work and we'll still have plenty of food, shelter, social interaction and entertainment - the latter is almost free in this digital world.

Maybe it is just me, but it's as if one can start to see the contours of it forming, slowly, though, as many of the remaining automation tasks are really, really hard. Like building a house, or making something that can do the house chores that we don't have machines for yet.

<comment><USER6> Your counterexample is an unrealized future hypothetical utopia. I am not sure where you are going with that, but I am sure that isn't a "success" because it doesn't exist yet. That is just a simple question of logical validity not of empiricism.

<comment><USER8> Not the OP, but it is not 'unrealized' as you say. Read enlightenment now by steven pinkerton. He has a whole book about how we are currently 'realizing' this 'future hypothetical utopia'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I find that the impending climate cataclysm is really starting to affect me and my day to day life in the form of crushing depression and anxiety. It's such a huge, nebulous, threatening issue that I can't even begin to think how we go about mitigating it (as preventing it entirely seems like a dead horse to flog at this point).

I'd be really curious to know if anyone else is feeling like this? And how you may have gone some way to alleviating it through positive means? I'm always looking for practical things I can do to contribute towards a solution, even if they're small (e.g. vegan diet, strict recycling, cycling/walking nearly everywhere and so on). But it feels like a drop in the ocean. And it's really starting to weigh heavy on me mentally, as trivial as that may seem in the grand scheme of things where the future of our species might be a stake.

<comment><USER10> I'm doing very few of those things, and while it weighs on me, I think the net effect on my happiness is a drop in the bucket compared to any efforts to affect my direct surroundings positively. Do you do volunteer work, or anything in that direction? It might feel insignificant, but it's important to remember you're human, and likely to be affected more by 'direct' things, however pointless they might seem in the grander scheme.

The way I see it, it's a bit like putting on your own oxygen mask first. I've been burned out on working on 'bigger things', and in hindsight I wish I'd made sure to have 'smaller things' alongside to provide me with positive energy.

<comment><USER9> You make a good point. I think most of the paralysis and dread I feel comes from the fact that this is such a huge issue.

I've applied to volunteer at some conservation charities (Sea Shepherd, etc.) and am waiting to hear back how I can be useful to them.

I just can't shake the dread and negativity that comes over me whenever I think about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I keep asking. How to organize at the middle layer ? Not govt or nation wide, but smaller areas. I believe starting small reactions in parallel could accelerate things. Otherwise it's still talk.

<comment><USER12> I'm sorry to be that guy, but I really think blockchain offers solutions to these types of coordination problems. For example, Aragon just launched their mainnet today. They made a platform that allows distributed collaboration between groups of people. I think this could potentially reduce bureaucracy and reduce the time between idea and implementation. I have zero stake in Aragon btw, I just find it fascinating and it gives me some hope that humans can come together to positively affect the world.

<comment><USER13> Crypto could also become one of the biggest contributors to climate change, since it's literally just wasting as much energy as possible to make money.

<comment><USER12> The monetary system itself is a big contributor or climate change. Kings used to require empires in order to protect their gold stores. I think securing the longest PoW (or PoS) chain is a very good use of resources, as it's tantamount to a king protecting his gold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So i assume we have all had homework at one point in time? Does this not just feel like homework for the planet, and we are Ll procrastinating because we think we can cram it out at the last minute? How do we shock ourselves into action? This is the question i keep asking myself.

<comment><USER15> If you consider the world a classroom and the problem homework then none of the 30 students are aware they have homework. The cockroach in the corner of the room knows but everyone else didn't get the memo. My point being - I will argue that majority of the world is unaware of impending doom - either for reasons of lack of education and awareness or out of pure ignorance. People forget that modern life as you and I know it does not apply to a large population of this planet who are blissfully unaware or don't have the resources and capacity to do anything about it if they were.

It certainly doesn't help that our political and value systems have been set up to promote greed and corruption. Look at Trump, he has to be reasonably educated right? But does he give a damn? And if not, why not? The same goes for all the senators.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> 1) Go watch the movie cowspiracy on netflix. Go vegan.

2) Get an energy audit and see if your home needs more insulation. If a solar panel installation will pay for itself in a reasonable time where you live (rebates - SRECs - etc) consider getting one.

3) If you live in a warmer climate with safe biking paths - get an electric bike to go to work.

4) The next car you get should be electric or plugin hybrid. Even if it's a used car.

We cannot mess around anymore. Governments always lag society - they never lead. So we need to push to make these changes more common.

<comment><USER17> I do that stuff but it's not going to save the world.

To save the world we need: a substantial price on carbon, a faster path to developing advanced nuclear power (in addition to continuing renewables deployment), a major rollout of lab-grown meat as soon as it's affordable with decent quality, negative emissions methods both technological (direct air capture) and biological (kelp, reforesting), and maybe some kind of solar radiation management if things go too far.

In short we need a global WWII-level effort. Instead we're encouraging people to ride bikes and eat their veggies.

<comment><USER18> > To save the world we need: a substantial price on carbon,

No we don't. Global warming is a self-reinforcing effect. So there's no point to slowing down emissions. No point at all. Even if you get it to zero, the resulting concentrations will still accelerate into the right. Even if you get it negative at the same rate we're producing it today (which would eliminate all human co2 contributions EVER in ~60 years) would do nothing but delay.

So why bother ? This avenue is closed, and useless.

We glued a grenade to our hand, and pulled the pin. Messing around trying to insert the pin back in provides nothing but comic relief. We need to adapt. To limit the damage, and fix things.

As you say, only direct geoengineering can work. On the plus side: doesn't require global cooperation. On the downside: that'll make someone clearly directly responsible for the (MUCH worse) effects global cooling will have, especially locally ... so it's extremely incompatible with how current green parties think and "influence policy".

Whereas the current "complain and do nothing but token efforts" is very good at getting constant attention, votes and money. But only if the problem keeps getting worse.

So just like everyone they accuse, green and leftist parties themselves are dependent on global warming happening and getting worse. Maybe that, too, is a reason why we have nothing but token efforts. Also, they would have to admit that "mother nature"/gaia is definitely NOT going to save our ass, even if we stop polluting.

Additionally, Gaia, so to speak, has already decided to inflict global warming on us, as a punishment or just because, take your pick, effectively for what humanity did at the end of the 19th (not 20th) century. So we need to inflict further damage on the ecosystem artificially controlling the temperature to prevent worse. But that'll futher destroy habitats, and on a much larger scale than what we've seen so far.

Not eating meat, capturing co2, lab-grown meat, even nuclear power ... just can't work. Only geoengineering can work.

<comment><USER19> If we ceased all carbon emissions today the earth would continue to warm for centuries, sure. But if we did that then it wouldn't the total temperature rise be lower, requiring less geoengineering? How is that pointless?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Nuclear war can reverse global warming [1]. Some argue that since nuclear weapons exist, they will likely be used sooner or later.

1\. [https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nucl...](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear- war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/)

<comment><USER21> I thought it was almost decided recently(definitely later than 2011) that actually, nuclear war wouldn't cause global cooldown, or if it did it would be extremely temporary, definitely not on the scale of decades or centuries.

Another interesting fact is that we have detonated nearly 2500 nukes since we first made them, and it had observably zero impact on climate, despite each one releasing gigantic amounts of energy into the atmosphere.

<comment><USER22> Most of the purported cooling comes from the ashes of burning cities blanketing the atmosphere; so we would not expect any effect from tests.

Still I think the methodology of the studies that produced this theory have been widely discredited.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The oceans have a mass 1000 times that of the atmosphere. So if they were predicting 2C increase in the heat of the atmosphere wouldn't that be .002 deg Celsius in the ocean? Can you even measure that give the vastness of the ocean?

<comment><USER24> It's more complex than that. To heat up by those 2C, water takes over 4 times as much energy as air does. On the other hand, most of the warming happens in the upper layer of the ocean, which is a big issue because it messes with the ocean's circulation.

<comment><USER23> <i know this is 3 days later, I'm sorry>

So when I said that the ocean has 1000x the mass of the atmosphere, I did the math earlier to get the _total_ mass of both. That is a different calculation than the below per unit of volume measurement.

Sea water has a mass of ~1000kg/m^3. Sea level air has a mass of 1.2kg/m^3. How does it only take 4 times as much energy to heat up a cubic meter of seawater than a cubic meter of air? Wouldn't it be ~820 times as much?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> At what level of crisis does one country with a large enough arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles target the largest population centres of the world as the last resort to reach sustainable levels of humanity?

Is this being war-gamed at the highest level of any of the big three world powers that have this kind of arsenal?

Countries that are net exporters of primary materials and foods would be more valuable than those which are net importers.

Try to minimize effects on arable land and base ecosystems - limit the damage to the boundaries of worthless cement and asphalt.

How many times in a row with the likeliest variables does the modeling have to result in "them or potentially everyone" before the decision is made to press the big red button?

Who decides the variables? What population numbers are we talking? What about retribution?

What about more subtle alternatives? Taking out an entire country's power grid under the guise of a terrorist act, let the ensuing chaos be it's own form of population control, then comes the big bang under cover of chaos it is more difficult to attribute.

This sounds like a dystopian story which would get turned into a bad movie with a happy ending starring The Rock or Tom Cruise being reunited with their daughter who was at college in one of the targeted cities but as luck would have it was visiting less fortunate rural orphans when it all went down, and she still had her makeup clutch.

I really don't know if I should have posted this or not. I've spent the last hour reading the other comments and the overwhelming feeling i get is that there's very little hope. Someone even quoted Peter Watts, so i can't be going too far thinking that this a real future option can I? I don't even know if i think its a remotely realistic scenario, but i do know that war is humanity's most effective population control with historic precedent.

<comment><USER26> I vote we start with your hometown.

<comment><USER27> Maybe just me, but unless I am mistaken you mean that if you are willing to call for the mass killing of other people's friends and families (for ANY reason, but in this case for the greater good) then you should be willing to start with your own friends and family. In the end, I don't think genocide is the solution for any problem large or small, but if you are going to suggest it as a solution you had better offer your own pound of flesh in the bargain.

Did I read too much into your statement?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> If everyone knew how to grow food locally there would be less transportation waste, more community, & stronger immune systems from working the dirt with hands instead of exclusively machines.

<comment><USER29> It also would make the food more expensive.

<comment><USER28> Not if you shared a plot of land with neighbors and contributed to upkeep. Essentially free. Not practical in urban setting, which is why I avoid cities.

<comment><USER30> It's only free if your time is worth zero. It's net more expensive if you have a job that you wouldn't be doing.

<comment><USER28> The benefits mentioned in the parent could potentially be worth allocated time. Growing food does not require a quantity of time that would interfere with work - bulk labor is required for planting and harvesting, but monitoring growth throughout the season is a great pre/post work activity to share with others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> If they got this number wrong by 60% for all these years and just noticed, why should I trust anything else about all of their different, conflicting climate models?

<comment><USER31> They didn't get it wrong. They did the best they could with the data they had, which they knew was sparse.

"However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 2007"

You'll note here the methodology isn't the issue, but rather the dataset. They've improved the dataset.

> why should I trust anything else

Well, technically, you shouldn't. You can look at the data and review it yourself. The problem is, you aren't probably an expert in the field. Which means at some level, you've already put your trust in the experts at some level.

Furthermore, to double down on the "they didn't get it wrong" comment:

"Our result - which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 1991 - suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates."

You'll note here that this they concluded the actual warming was still within the previous estimates. And considering estimates are just that, this further backs up their claim.

<comment><USER30> Ok, let's even stipulate that it's a failure of data rather than methodology. The computerized climate models have very sensitive dependence on this kind of poorly measured data. Why should I trust them if that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined?

<comment><USER31> > Why should I trust them if that data is subject to wild swings as > measurements get refined?

You are begging the question here.

Simply put, "that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined", isn't reflected in the article. It's something you are making up. Again, the data was within the estimation previously made. They've refined that data.

A wild swing would in fact go from showing one thing to showing another thing entirely. That's how a swing works. What really happened is the predication was correct. We are now getting to see more precisely how correct.

Regardless, I honestly don't believe you are being honest here, since you are asking the same question and not putting any effort into this. You are trolling. If you aren't, put forth some effort. You think you are being "smart," but the truth is, you aren't.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Open Source at Pinterest (new site) - <AUTHOR> https://opensource.pinterest.com <comment><USER2> Fancy. Is the site itself open source? Wanted to contribute a copy change for Teletraan (it says `production years` and probably needs a `for` in the middle).</comment>


Facebook: Please fix this security loophole before its too late - <AUTHOR> https://salt.agency/blog/facebook-security-loophole/

<comment><AUTHOR> The issue has now been checked & confirmed by Guardian - [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/09/facebook-p...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/09/facebook- privacy-settings-users-mobile-phone-number)

</comment><comment><USER2> Isn't a search (or querying of data) analogous to this one which landed weev in prison?

1) Generate list of possibly valid numbers 2) Query service to determine something 3) Get prosecuted 4) Go to jail

Just wondering...

</comment><comment><USER3> That's a regular feature / intended behaviour of the FB search. It's quite useful to be able to search for people by their email address or phone number IMHO.</comment>


Trov – Automatically track the value of every thing you own - <AUTHOR> http://www.trov.com

<comment><USER2> As someone commented on product hunt I kinda feel not too good about referencing all my belongings somewhere online. The day you want good targets for a juicy robbery you know where to look.

</comment><comment><USER3> Url changed from [http://www.producthunt.com/posts/trov](http://www.producthunt.com/posts/trov), which points to this.</comment>


Facebook down? - <AUTHOR>

People in Ireland - facebook down? <comment><USER2> Routine "is down" posts are not on topic for HN. HN calls for posts of intellectual interest, and there's nothing particularly interesting about this or that site being (or not being) down for a bit.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER3> in his defense, you linked to:"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."</comment></comment>


Is SQL pronounced "s-q-l" or "sequel"? - <AUTHOR> Is SQL pronounced "s-q-l" or "sequel"? <comment><USER2> I hear them both on a daily basis, neither are wrong. A classic article about this: [http://patorjk.com/blog/2012/01/26/pronouncing-sql-s-q-l- or-...](http://patorjk.com/blog/2012/01/26/pronouncing-sql-s-q-l-or-sequel/)

</comment><comment><USER3> SQL is an initialism for _Structured Query Language_. So the correct pronunciation is "s-q-l". Acronyms have a natural flow and can be read as is (NASA, LASER etc.). Initialisms do not and must be read one letter at a time.

Grammar. It's magic.

<comment><USER4> If I follow your logic properly, then, when reading the sentence

"The disk with all the PNG files was read too frequently for the IDE controller, so we switched to a SCSI drive"

you would pronounce "PNG" as "Pea En Gee", "IDE" as "Eyed", and "SCSI" as "Ess See Ess Eye"? I would have pronounced "PNG" as "Ping", "IDE" as "Eye Dee Ee", and "SCSI" as "Scuzzy". I wonder if our differences are regional?

For the record, I pronounce "SQL" the same was that you do.

<comment><USER5> Is saying "Ping" actually a thing? I've only ever heard "P-N-G"

<comment><USER4> For what it's worth, the W3 pronounced it "ping", but this might just be a holdover from the 90s. I've honestly heard both.

[http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG-Introduction.html](http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG- Introduction.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Both, I often find that microsofties say sequel and open source guys say s-q-l, but that is just a personal observation.

<comment><USER7> I've noticed that as well

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Back before I ever spoke to anyone about databases, I pronounced it to myself as "squirrel". Good times.

</comment><comment><USER9> S Q L ...

Sequel is incorrect, but it often overtakes within a company if a few people don't realize this and start referring to it.

</comment><comment><USER10> When I worked at Gupta Technologies back in the '80s and we wrote SQLBase and SQLWindows, we all pronounced it "sequel".

These were people who came from Oracle and such places, so I naturally assumed that this pronunciation was correct.

</comment><comment><USER11> Who has time for 3 syllables? "Sequel"!!

<comment><USER12> "Se-quel" is 2 syllables.

<comment><USER13> And S-Q-L is 3, so "Se-quel" saves time. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Neither-- it's pronounced "Gif".

<comment><USER15> Like the present or like the peanut butter?

<comment><USER16> Peanut butter makes a great present!

(Unless the recipient is allergic)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 'Sequel', because even though it's grammatically incorrect, it rolls off the tongue much better.

</comment><comment><USER18> "Sequel". But I also used to pronounce LED (light-emitting diode) as "lead" until I heard an optical engineer (with PhD) say "l-e-d" and felt stupid. "Ping"(PNG) still sounds weird to me but scuzzy(SCSI) and as-key(ASCII) don't. It's a mystery.

</comment><comment><USER19> "s-q-l". It is ambiguous if pronounced "sequel". :)

</comment><comment><USER15> Standalone, "s-q-l". In compounds--SQL Server, SQLDeveloper, PL/SQL, MySQL-- usually "sequel". But again "s-q-l" in PostgreSQL and T-SQL.

Do I feel strongly about it? No.

</comment><comment><USER20> Yes, and I don't mean to be snarky. I hear it each way.

</comment><comment><USER21> When I worked with a lot of MySQL users, they tended to say "s-q-l". These days I'm in SQL server and they say "sequel".

</comment><comment><USER22> Both are acceptable.

</comment><comment><USER23> Hmmm, I've always said "sequel" but that's just because I heard someone else say it that way when I first heard of it.

</comment><comment><USER24> I pronounce it "squirrel" just to troll people.

</comment><comment><USER25> Pronounce it as a vowel-less word i.e.: "skwll"

</comment><comment><USER26> i use both, randomly. It should be used for a pRNG.

</comment><comment><USER27> Inside Microsoft: sequel, outside Microsoft: s-q-l</comment>


Employees'online reviews are good predictors of a firm's financial results - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2017-11-staff-satisfaction-affects-company.html <comment><AUTHOR> I thought this was interesting because it is an actual study, and attempts to look at leading indicators, rather than mere correlation (where you could imagine employees at more successful companies being more satisfied).</comment>


Silicon Valley takes a right turn - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/opinion/silicon-valley-takes-a-right-turn.html <comment><USER2> "Among Ferenstein's findings: a minority, 29 percent, of tech company founders described labor unions as "good," compared to 73 percent of Democrats."

Are these feelings shared by tech-sector workers at-large? Unions are responsible for so many improvements in workplace rights, and have traditionally been at the forefront of working and middle class struggles!

<comment><USER3> It's incredibly depressing if true. The labor movement gave us weekends and the 8 hour day. While not every union is positive, unions as a concept are the natural counterbalance to business interests, protecting individual worker rights.

I wonder, though, if it's simply a matter of modernization. What would a 21st century union look like? Are there examples to look to?</comment></comment>


Erase All Kittens: Introduce kids to HTML by modifying a game while playing - <AUTHOR> http://eraseallkittens.com

<comment><USER2> Looks pretty cool! My daughter is not yet 2 years old so it's a bit early, but I can't wait to introduce her to programming. (I myself started at 13)</comment>


Riak To Support Secondary Indices - <AUTHOR> http://www.oscon.com/oscon2011/public/schedule/detail/19806 With Secondary Indices, users can tag their data with values, and can later query across their tagged data with simple SQL-style queries.
The following query, for example, will select the first 20 keys tagged with country of 'Germany' and category of 'bread', 'sausage', or 'beer', sorted by category and name:
FROM food
WHERE country_id='Germany' AND category_id IN ('bread', 'sausage', 'beer') SORT BY category_id ASC, name_txt ASC SLICE 1 TO 20 <comment><USER2> The title should read 'Riak _will_ support Secondary Indices.' As an open source company, we strive for transparent engineering; this is intended as a preview of some upcoming functionality. We haven't set a release date yet.

Just want to properly set expectations.

That said, we appreciate the interest and attention. :)

<comment><USER3> Will this, unlike Riak Search, provide the same guarantees about your data as the normal operations?

<comment><USER4> The design of secondary indexes is much simpler, more tightly integrated, and more transparent than Riak Search. It will feel more like part of the same datastore, rather than something you have to deal with on the side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This could make riak actually useful to the masses as a fine database! Certainly one of my biggest beefs with riak was the overly difficult interface it has and its lack of secondary indexes.

The choice of protocol buffers as the serialization format is also kind of weak imho. There are some really piss poor protobuf implementations that are slower than serializing to xml or json. The python version especially comes to mind.

<comment><USER6> Sorry, I'm going to make an assumption that by interface difficulty you mean it's ability to be queried (map reduce only + lucene {optional})? Also, nothing forces you to use protobuffs, you can tell riak what (via the content type of an http header) what your data is and get it back as such. I don't see that as a weakness.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I haven't seen anything announced on Basho's website either. The talk abstract describes the talk as being the "unveiling" of secondary indices so it does seem like July is the release date.

</comment><comment><USER7> The link seems to have dissolved; now redirecting to the front page of oscon.</comment>


The Real Bill Gates joins Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/jan/20/bill-gates-twitters

<comment><USER2> Link: <http://twitter.com/billgates>

I assume (based on his first few tweets) that he'll be using it to promote his foundation primarily. I selfishly wish that he would use it less for self promotion and more for just odd ideas/thoughts, I think it would be really interesting to get into his mind occasionally.

<comment><USER3> Actually that would make sense for him too, so he can get more followers and mix the foundation stuff into a larger audience.

<comment><USER4> 227,000 followers in 24 hours isn't too shabby :) I don't think he'll have too much problem getting followers.

<comment><USER3> Yes it's exceptionally good, though some of the key people tech people may unfollow him if he only talks about his foundation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I guess 140 characters ought to be enough for anybody.

<comment><USER6> but in this case they _are_ proving to be enough for anybody.

<comment><USER7> Unless you're Steven Fry, Ricky Gervais, Miley Cirus, etc etc

I agree with the poster who recently likened Twitter to Mullets. We'll look back thoroughly embarrassed.

<comment><USER8> Twitter ought to let you do long form posts, but have a separate, mandatory field where you only have 140 character to entice people to read the rest.

<comment><USER9> That would reinvent existing functionality, badly. You can already post a long form essay to your blog and then post a teaser + link on Twitter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I like how his first Tweet is a "Hello World". Still a programmer at heart I guess.

<comment><USER11> Ironic, as that was probably the truest that cliché has ever been.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The rapid growth in his follower numbers is certainly impressive, but I'm more curious about who _he_ chooses to follow. Looking through the list, it was mostly foundations. What struck me as odd was that he followed Ashton Kutcher and Ashley Tisdale. We all have our reasons for choosing who we want to read/hear, I would love to know why he lent his mindshare to those two.

<comment><USER13> Kutcher has 4.5 mil twitter followers, Tisdale has 2.5 mil, it was probably a good way to end up in the stream of the top twitter celebrities to get that initial bump

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I realise that he will get a lot of @replies but its a shame that he's just replying to the celebrities on twitter..

<comment><USER15> Ah, but what's interesting though is that his @reply counts just as much as yours or mine. To even notice Bill's reply, they'd have to sift through all the @replies that they get every day.

<comment><USER16> I'd imagine that some Twitter clients allow them to have a celebrity-only view, so they can filter out the noise from the plebs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> @melinda playing bridge w/ warren this afternoon and then and then and then [Report this problem? (Y/N)]

</comment><comment><USER18> >190k followers in 19 hours. Very impressive.

<comment><USER19> >218k followers now.

I wonder how many are following him with the intention of trying to escalate their Microsoft tech support problems or just general bashing of Microsoft. I'll bet he learned how to block people early on.

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure if you're trying to bash Microsoft here or not, but I'm going to assume you were genuinely curious.

The reason that most people are following him (anecdotally anyway) is that he's a well known (the most well known?) and successful person in the tech space who has just joined. There isn't any reason why he can't turn off seeing "@ replies" from people he doesn't follow either - doing that will only show tweets from people you follow. Twitter's settings are pretty configurable for users who have tons of followers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> BTW, is Paul Allen on Twitter?

</comment><comment><USER21> So, bets how long until he gets hacked ? :)

</comment><comment><USER22> "I'm Bill Gates, yes I'm the real Gates all of you other Bill Gateses are just imitating"... ;-)

</comment><comment><USER23> He's a little late to the party, but since he's tweeting for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, I'll cut him some slack.</comment>


New social network for data people – what do you think? - <AUTHOR> https://data.world <comment><USER2> it's really helpful</comment>


Microsoft's Mobile Comeback Is Looking Terrible - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsofts_mobile_comeback_is_looking_terrible.php

<comment><AUTHOR> short version: "In the three months ending in February, Microsoft's share of U.S. smartphone subscribers was 3.9%, according to comScore. That's down from 5.2% last November and 7.7% last February."</comment>


Show HN: Dial-O-Spresso – a phone controlled coffee machine - <AUTHOR> http://ninjablocks.com/2012/10/23/dial-o-spresso-internet-phone-espresso/

<comment><USER2> It doesn't appear to be HTCPCP/1.0 compliant. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2324>

</comment><comment><USER3> We've come a long way from coffee pot webcams <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Room_coffee_pot>

</comment><comment><USER4> What are the relays connected to?</comment>


VueJS – Two way data binding and state management with Vuex and strict mode - <AUTHOR> https://ypereirareis.github.io/blog/2017/04/25/vuejs-two-way-data-binding-state-management-vuex-strict-mode/ <comment><USER2> > Two way data binding [...] is a very good option for small applications or > POC. But for very complex UI you should consider using one way data binding > and explicit state updates/mutations.

I don't agree with this. Two-way data binding is a powerful tool that can make composing components very effective when used correctly in any size application.

If you have a number of custom generic input components (sliders, color pickers, value inputs with popup sliders, etc...). Being able to compose them into a custom ui just by binding with v-model is remarkably efficient for the developer.

Having said that this is only good when you compose dumb or generic inputs. Once you are in a component that is a bit more high level then yes, absolutely Vuex is the right way to manage your state.

The problem is that to bind components with v-model you have to deep-clone your data, and watch it. This is far from ideal. I raised an issue related to this because I think Vue is kind of missing something here.

[https://github.com/vuejs/vue/issues/4373](https://github.com/vuejs/vue/issues/4373)

<comment> Fire-Dragon-DoL I work with angular and I'm scared badly of two-way data binding. I moved it to only work with simple fields as you described, but even in that case ended up being a problem. Once the bug was detected, in the end you need some kind of local variable (local to the component) to avoid the two-way data binding change causing weird behavior outside (things change from down to up, urgh.)

Be careful, long term two way databinding bites badly. The best idea is still a simple event when the value change, and trigger the change from top to bottom, not bottom-top

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So just to be clear, you are not supposed to do two way data binding in a way that would violate strict mode. Strict mode is a debug mode to help you catch the errors that should not be there, whether it's on or off.

My preferred way to handle stuff like this is to have authoritative data in Vuex (e.g.: a user object), and have a `formData` object attached to the Vue instance. The `formData` will get modified directly with an `<input v-model="formData.first_name">`, etc. and when the form's submit event fires is when I tell Vuex to update the authoritative object.

The nice advantage of this method is that you can easily reset the form to its initial values without having to store a copy of the original object. You also don't update the authoritative object one field at a time, but all at once. Lastly, it lets you do whole form validation (do the passwords match? Did the user provide either a phone number or an email address, etc.)

<comment><USER4> That's exactly how I do it. Vuex makes this super simple due to the fact that if you need the authoritative data in any component in the tree you can grab it from the central store by using getters at negligible overhead.

Vue really got it right using the prototype extension model for plugins.

I use React+Redux at my day job and I have to say that it is an absolute pain in the ass to do state management with Redux vs Vuex. Redux forces you to split all of your logic out into separate tiny little functions and constants. It even encourages you to split this all out into separate files.

Between the api functions, actions, reducers, connectors, routers, it all gets very complex very quickly. The worst part is using `react-redux` and creating connectors where I have to explicitly pass whatever actions and state I want to use explicitly to a container where I need to propagate that state to a component that's nested five levels deep. Then, if that component needs to dispatch an action I have to propagate the event through 5 different callbacks to get it back to the connected container. With Vuex, I can access the store in any component in one line and dispatch actions to the store from any component anywhere in the tree and rest easy knowing my component tree will update with the data changes. I'm seriously considering starting a re-write in Vue at this point because It's much easier to maintain and refactor.

<comment><USER5> Hi. I'm a Redux maintainer. A few quick thoughts.

First, Redux does not _force_ you to split your logic up into "separate tiny little functions". That's the _encouraged_ approach, but you are absolutely free to structure your reducer logic any way you want. You may want to read through the "Structuring Reducers" section I wrote for the docs: [http://redux.js.org/docs/recipes/StructuringReducers.html](http://redux.js.org/docs/recipes/StructuringReducers.html) .

Second, you _can_ manually write logic in each of your components to access the Redux store via React context. However, the point of the React-Redux `connect` function is to generate "container" components that manage that store interaction logic for you, allowing you to focus on writing more "presentational" components that simply receive functions and values as props. You _can_ even directly import the store into your component files and reference it directly, although that's discouraged for several reasons (per the Redux FAQ at [http://redux.js.org/docs/faq/StoreSetup.html#store-setup- mul...](http://redux.js.org/docs/faq/StoreSetup.html#store-setup-multiple- stores) ).

Third, you shouldn't need to "propagate an event through 5 different callbacks". One of the main points of Redux is that you can `connect()` _any_ component to give it access to the store. If a deeply nested component needs to extract a couple values from the store, or dispatch an action, go ahead and connect it - you don't have limit yourself to only a couple connected components higher up in the tree (per [http://redux.js.org/docs/faq/ReactRedux.html#react- multiple-...](http://redux.js.org/docs/faq/ReactRedux.html#react-multiple- components) ).

Lemme toss out a few resources for you.

I keep a big list of links to high-quality tutorials and articles on React, Redux, and related topics, at [https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux- links](https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux-links) . Specifically intended to be a great starting point for anyone trying to learn the ecosystem, as well as a solid source of good info on more advanced topics.

Also, the Reactiflux chat channels on Discord are a great place to hang out, ask questions, and learn. The invite link is at [https://www.reactiflux.com](https://www.reactiflux.com) . Please feel free to drop by and discuss any pain points or questions you have. I'm usually online evenings US time, and there's always a bunch of people happy to discuss things.

<comment><USER3> Since you are here, would you mind doing a quick comparison between Redux and Vuex? I settled on Vue/Vuex over React/Redux specifically because Redux seemed to have more complexity when it came to mutations, promises, etc. Why did Redux choose the path it did and what is the advantage of using it over Vuex (of course other than the rendering libraries they work with respectively)?

<comment><USER5> To be honest, I really haven't read up on Vue or Vuex at all, so I can't make any good comparisons.

I _can_ say that I'm currently working on a blog post that will discuss what actual technical limitations Redux requires (and where/why those limitations exist), vs how Redux is _intended_ to be used, vs how it's _possible_ to use Redux. I've been doing research for that post by reviewing many of the early Redux issues and discussions, and will be including some of that info in my post. Hoping to make progress on that post this weekend - if you're interested, keep an eye on my blog at [http://blog.isquaredsoftware.com](http://blog.isquaredsoftware.com) .

I did write a comment on Reddit yesterday where I pasted a quote of Redux's stated objectives from an early version of the README, which may be informative: [https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/67gvic/i_just_d...](https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/67gvic/i_just_dont_get_what_is_worth_the_extra/dgqbhmb/) .

In general, Dan and Andrew's primary goals were to enable time-travel debugging, server rendering, and state traceability, as well as offering up extension points so that developers could customize things like async behavior for their own preferences. That led to the effective requirements of immutable data handling, composed functions for organizing "write" logic, and the creation of "middleware" as the preferred approach for implementing async handling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When people feel the need to write blog posts discussing the various alternatives to binding data to a view, its probably a sign that the framework didn't get it right.

<comment><USER7> Having multiple methods for data binding isn't a downside. Different situations call for different approaches. Opinioned frameworks need to get it right but Vue gives us the freedom to implement different approaches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Could be useful in a dashboard with constantly changing data? I will definitely check it out</comment>


Ask HN: Feedback for an API to send triggered emails? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN, Would love some feedback on our service. Triggering emails from your code sounds like a solved problem. We think not. Instead of writing your email logic in your code, we ask you to send events to us, as you'd do with Mixpanel/GA. You can then configure emails as triggers from our dashboard.
Benefits:
* Flexibility in adding/modifying your emails without code changes
* Test out different schedule intervals, email messages
* Add drip campaigns based on customer events - an "ordered" event is enough to send a transaction email, a feedback email and perhaps even a reminder email for a repeat purchase.
* We are adding support for push notifications/sms next, so especially useful if you are already sending different kinds of messages.
What do you think about the service? Would you use it?
(website: www.nudgespot.com/developers, in case you are curious)
(I tried posting this yesterday, but didn't see any responses, sorry for the repost.) <comment><USER2> It'd be difficult for me to justify a service like this over Mandrill. I saw where you compare them, but I don't find myself writing much "mailer code" (assuming this means what I think it means?) and I certainly don't have to make code changes just to change a template.

They also allow scheduled sending, though changing this would require a code change (minor, but honestly, this seems like the kind of thing I'd like to have in version control).

As far as email, it sounds like you're mostly providing what Mandrill is, but with a bit more abstraction. I'm really interested in seeing what you do with push/SMS though, because having all of that integrated into one platform sounds like a real value add.

I'd enjoy discussing this in depth with you if you'd like, email's in my profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right about how our service compares with Mandrill. But, there are a bunch of companies that we've spoken to, who do send a lot of emails, and they've found the abstraction we provide to be useful.

A big reason for the abstraction is to support SMS/push notifications. I'll drop you an email, but can't find it in your profile. Can you update it or drop me an email?

Thanks, Suresh

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Howdy!

Colin from Customer.io here. Sounds like you've got your own take on using events to send emails. Building this type of system gets harder the more you scale, but it's a lot of fun. Feel free to email me if you ever want to chat. You can probably guess my email.

Cheers, Colin

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Colin! We've been fans of Customer.io, hopefully we can offer something that is both different and at least as good as Customer.io :). I'm taking up your offer and dropping you an email. All the best!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How would you position yourself differently from intercom.io? (I use them currently and they seem to do what you mention).

<comment><AUTHOR> Intercom.io is similar. Intercom.io is seen as a service to help retain your customers. Though there are overlaps, our focus is to build an API that makes it easy to configure any kind of rule to trigger messages.

We hope to make it easy to configure rules like "send an email if a customer's total order value crosses $1000" or "Send a reminder if a customer's activity over a week is lower than their average" and so on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't think repost is a problem (if you don't do it constantly and too much).

I would try another Show HN, but with the direct URL tomorrow - it worked for me, i did a no upvoted Show HN, them a no upvoted Ask HN, them a successfull 43 points Show HN. There is a lot of luck in it, try once more.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have heard a lot of good things about SendGrid. They really understand transactional email.

www.sendgrid.com

</comment><comment><USER7> This sounds like customer.io

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, i see that you've been part of IFTTT. We hope to build something more like IFTTT actually, but for processing events. Is it ok if i can ping you offline?

<comment><USER7> yeah, absolutely</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: extendable project management tool for a 20-50 people Internet company? - <AUTHOR>

I have been searching so many project management tools such as Redmine, JIRA....etc. There are pros and cons for those software. The redmine seems not so user friendly for a beginner although I think it's worthwhile to get used to it. The JIRA is more beautiful but isn't free. I'm not
quite sure whether it's extendable or not. The teambox and trello is beautiful and easy to use, but it seems that they are not good for the size of my company both. Are there any other goods or view of points? <comment><USER2> JIRA is definitely the best and has a plugin API and an active plugin community.</comment>


Why the universe may be teeming with aliens  - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.600-why-the-universe-may-be-teeming-with-aliens.html?full=true

<comment><USER3> Maybe I am missing something, but this article doesn't seems to support the hypothesis the title advances.

First it explains that the habitable zone for planets is bigger than we thought, but then it also introduces a ton of new criteria (other than distance from the planet's star) that must be met for a planet to support life (size, composition, orbit, etc.).

To me that implies that there is likely LESS life out there, not more. The summary version of the article as I read it is: over the past 20 years the habitable zone got bigger, but we realized that habitable zone is only one requirement of many for a planet to be habitable.

How does that support the article's title? (Serious question, not trying to be snarky. Me = not a science guy.)

<comment><USER4> May be the author derived the title from this last sentence: _What if exotic forms of life could thrive where there is no liquid water at all - <USER2> around in lakes of liquid methane on Saturn's frigid moon, Titan, for example?_

But then these things have been known and being considered for decades. What calls for an article on this with such a sensational title?

Looks like this publication has a thing for sensationalism.IMO, not a very good indicator of being scientific.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Pulse — A simple pulsating indicator. - <AUTHOR> http://moeedm.com/sandbox/pulse/ Feel free to use it in your application. You can make it imageless but I used an image just because you can easily swap it out and its a little less code. <comment><USER2> Top of hacker news: a dot that.... pulses. And doesn't even work in most browsers.

I mean I know it's the weekend and maybe a slow news day, but really?

</comment><comment><USER3> Stick it on Github as three files - image, html, css - so folks can "watch" it. I've found that the watch feature of github helps me remember all these little nifty snippets of functionality so that, one day, when the need comes around, I actually remember that the thing exists, I can find it easily, and I can use it.

<comment><USER4> The only problem about that on GitHub is that you can't "unwatch" all the notifications while still watching the project. I'm watching 128 repositories and my news feed is just noise to me now. :-/

<comment><USER3> Someone from GitHub needs to see this comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I do not get it. All I see is a blue dot. Clicking it says "target acquired" but I can not acquire a new target...

<comment><USER6> It only works on webkit browsers.

<comment><USER7> Using JavaScript to render to a canvas will work in all modern browsers, while maintaining (or even enhancing) the CSS's flexibility. I first thought the JavaScript solution would even be about the length of Moeed's CSS, but after writing it out my code's about 5x longer :(

edit: here's a jsfiddle of it in action <http://jsfiddle.net/MftVp/>

<comment><USER8> With jQuery I doubt it would be 5x longer.

<comment><USER9> jQuery doesn't provide anything that would make the above code shorter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Are you using an image element to support printing? There's no other reasons to not use CSS3 to create the dot (or the somewhat more pragmatic approach of setting it as a background image on the target element, reducing your markup), as I see it?

I think you should also expect that people could want more than one target on their maps. There's no downside to switching from IDs to classes here.

</comment><comment><USER11> I understand it is a very neat piece of CSS scripting, but how does this compare to a simple animated GIF from _practical perspective_?

<comment><USER7> GIF's don't support alpha transparency, making them the opposite of practical for an effect like this.

<comment><USER12> At least GIFs work more or less the same on all browsers. This is an excellent example of how _not_ to do it.

Imagine the support call: "Click on the blinking dot" : "I don't see any blinking dot" : "It blinks for me, do you use a webkit browser?" : "A what?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I recently did something similar for more general elements as a jquery plugin: <http://jquerypulsate.kilianvalkhof.com/> it uses the _outline-offset_ css property, which doesn't seem that well known but seems quite useful too.

<comment><USER14> Very nice, I see myself using this before friday :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Nice little effect. Could work well on realtime force-directed graphs:

<http://mbostock.github.com/d3/ex/force.html>

</comment><comment><USER16> Last year I (along with the rest of our Node Knockout team) built a game that had a pulsing dot similar to this one. We used Raphael (SVG/VML). Although it's much heavier than this using Raphael is cross-browser. It might be a suitable fallback.

I want to open source the whole project but haven't had time to clean it up.

<comment><USER17> My suggestion: don't bother cleaning it up, just publish it. If the two realistic options are your code dropping off the face of the earth because it's never published, or it being put in a place where someone might find it useful and run with it, the latter is far more beneficial to society.

If you're concerned about your personal reputation (which in my experience tends to be the case) then consider you're likely better off as a prolific coder than a sparse one, and if anything we should be pushing the industry towards more open exchange of code so as to reduce loss & waste.

<comment><USER16> By clean it up I mean make it work again. It was built on an older version of Node and doesn't work with API changes made since then.

What you say is true though. I'll set a deadline to fix it by. If it isn't done by then I'll just put it up.

My code is always perfect in every way so I'm not worried about reputation. /sarcasm

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Pretty nice, but it appears that whatever method is used to generate the pulse, it causes the CPU utilization of the Desktop Windows Manager (dwm.exe) to shoot up to about 10-15% when using Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER19> <blink> 2.0?

</comment><comment><USER20> I must agree with most people complaining here, it should work on ALL modern browsers (including IE9).

The implementation is not even great either, see this screenr I made: <http://screenr.com/azAs>

</comment><comment><USER21> I'll be more impressed when this can work on my non-JS enabled browser.

</comment><comment><USER22> doesn't pulse on chrome 14.0.835.165m on windows

</comment><comment><USER23> I would make the pulsing ring easier to see

</comment><comment><USER24> haha this looks like the one on Foursquare, neat work regardless though :)

</comment><comment><USER25> A little bit (i.e. completely) derivative of the Maps app on the iPhone.</comment>