WebGL to add 3D hover effects to your website - <AUTHOR> http://glecollinet.github.io/webgl-demo/

<comment><USER2> My gut reaction to this is that it takes me back to the old days of rainbow dividers ([http://rainbowdivider.com/](http://rainbowdivider.com/)) and animated gifs, a la Strongbad's site: [http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbsite/](http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbsite/)

On the other hand, as with many web technologies, used judiciously this could be cool for interactive infographics and things like that...

<comment><USER3> My proudest moment on the internet was submitting the email that led to the creation of Strongbad's website.

<comment><USER4> As it should be! You have more of an explanation anywhere?

<comment><USER3> I should write it up. The short story is that I was losing my mind in an "Interactive Fiction" course I took as an elective within my major (Fiction Writing... I know, I know). I was self-taught in CSS, HTML, JavaScript but had never used Flash, which at the time was still fairly new. However, everything we were being exposed to in Flash was difficult for me to work through to do even the most basic action, so while I was particularly stumped on an issue I wrote the email ([http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail51.html](http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail51.html)), intentionally using the word "website" in every sentence because I just thought it'd be funny.

Didn't occur to me til just now the irony of struggling with Flash and then writing to Strongbad, which was all done up in Flash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is the first use case of 3D/WebGL for actual web sites that I've found worthwhile. I could even see myself using a stereoscopic screen to browse sites like these. No flashy fullscreen effects or epilepsy-inducing adverts, just clean 3D pop-ups to highlight content.

It's just a shame that anti-aliasing isn't forced on by default; jagged edges should really have been left behind years ago.

<comment><USER6> What? How is this possibly 'worthwhile'? All it does is add some irritating effects to logos on a webpage.

<comment><USER7> Huh? How are the pop out effects shown on the demo page irritating?

<comment><USER8> How are they not?

Seriously though, "irritating" is a matter of opinion. Explaining why something is irritating is like explaining why something tastes good.

<comment><USER9> Maybe my parents would think they're really neat and cool (as they have mentioned in similar things before to me), but I would object to that. While their claims of thinking that are perfectly rational from their own viewpoint (because they consider it novel and unique), I see it as an anti-pattern and distraction that gets in the way of productivity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if WebGL is a cause of global warming?

Instead of creating a server side animation and serving it in compressed format you force every single web-browser to render it.

Also nice work, because it looks good. I wonder if we will see the development of OpenGL caching techniques.

<comment><USER11> I don't uinderstand why you got downvotes. It's a fair, albeit somewhat misguided, comment.

Basically, a lot more power will be consumed by downloading an animation and decompressing it, assuming it is shown at comparably high quality (no noticeable compression artefacts).

On current hardware (a.k.a. the last 10 years or something), showing a flat picture or a rotating 3D object consisting of a small amount of vertices has no significant power usage difference.

In fact, there's a fair chance that what you're looking at right now is in fact a 3D-rendered rectangle positioned in front of the camera precisely such that it looks flat and fills the screen (it's a bit different than that, because there's not really a camera but that's just nitpicking), mapped with a texture containing whatever pixels the OS wants you to see.

<comment><USER12> > On current hardware (a.k.a. the last 10 years or something), showing a flat > picture or a rotating 3D object consisting of a small amount of vertices has > no significant power usage difference.

In properly optimized software, yes. In current browsers? We're not there yet. In firefox I get maybe 10fps on these animations, and in all browsers it causes a minor temperature spike that h264 video does not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> While modern web browsers today may support WebGL, there's far too many computers not using a GPU that supports WebGL. For example, my 5 year old business workstations that run the latest Ubuntu.

On-hover WebGL effects only work if you fallback to a static image (an image of the non-hover state) for browsers that don't support it.

<comment><USER14> From the article linked on the page: [http://html5hub.com/using-webgl-to- add-3d-effects-to-your-we...](http://html5hub.com/using-webgl-to- add-3d-effects-to-your-website/#i.3lpdiy14g4frns)

"Note that, in this demo, I assume the visitor is using a WebGL-enabled browser. A better practice would have been to first implement the page with static images to ensure basic functionality for everyone, then add the 3D effects as a progressive enhancement for advanced browsers."

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> How do I run it?

Crashes Firefox 23

No effects on Chromium 28.0.1500.71

>Error creating WebGL context. three.min.js:412

>Uncaught TypeError: Cannot call method 'getExtension' of null

Linux Mint 15 x64

<comment><USER16> Try: [http://get.webgl.org/](http://get.webgl.org/)

Check and make sure your 3D drivers are up to par.

Make sure webgl is enabled in chromium flags.

Are you really that surprised that 3D is flaky on linux?

<comment><USER17> I have the same problem: Firefox 23 on Debian; Intel GPU (so pretty solid drivers), get.webgl.org works fine and I can't remember when I last had trouble with 3D, but the OP's site crashes my browser.

Then again "in the wild" I wouldn't enable WebGL anyway for most sites.

Edit: I think it's a Firefox problem. Works in Chromium for me.

<comment><USER18> Intel GPUs != solid OpenGL drivers. I do a lot of work in OpenGL and I curse Intel almost daily for the multitude of bugs in their OpenGL implementations. The GPUs' only saving grace is their ubiquity so at least I get a bug report quite quickly when a work-around is required.

<comment><USER19> Which GPUs would you recommend on Linux?

<comment><USER20> Very latest Intel is ok, older are pretty slow. AMD hardware that works with the Mesa drivers is nearly as solid as Intel, but their proprietary drivers are a disaster (kernel crashes etc). Nvidia has decent proprietary drivers for desktop stuff.

On laptops, dual graphics (Nvidia calls it "Optimus", don't know about AMD) doesn't work right so Intel and Mesa-supported integrated AMD graphics are the best choices on laptops currently. There's some light at the end of the tunnel for Nvidia: [https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/HybridGraphics](https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/HybridGraphics)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I really like coupling html and webgl, but thus far I've only done it the other way round: adding html on top of webgl. I did this in my last LudumDare game jam [1]. I used html to render nice looking text on top of webgl. Although it's possible to render text within webgl it's messy, especially if you want bold or italic text, different fonts, colors etc.

[1] [http://min.psywerx.net/](http://min.psywerx.net/)

<comment><USER22> This is pretty cool! Even as simple as this is, it shows how pretty webGL can be, and how it can play nice with DOM elements. Did you have much trouble getting the text to look right?

<comment><USER21> Thanks! I had no trouble at all with the text. I just created a centered div above the webgl canvas and loaded a custom font from google fonts. I believe I used jquery to accomplish all of this.

It felt like cheating because there was no way I could make the text look this good within webgl under the time constraint (I only had 48 hours for the whole thing).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Nice effect. I really like how it made the sound of a fan spinning up, and then showing me my desktop and an application crash notification.

</comment><comment><USER24> This is great. I also don't like when 3D is gimmicky, but I think a lot of that is because we haven't explore 3D design as much as 2D design. It's young. If 3D takes off like it has for movies and games, think of all the new business opportunities that will be created around 3D web design. It's exciting.

By the way, I'm working on a open-source framework to make using 3D like this easier. It's called voodoo.js ([http://www.voodoojs.com/](http://www.voodoojs.com/)), and helps you integrate 3D with 2D content easily. Check it out!

<comment><USER25> This reminded me of voodoojs which I've come across earlier. I came here to post about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> we are entering the 3D era of geocities

</comment><comment><USER27> Interesting. On a haswell i5 with an intel 5000 series GPU it works reasonably on Chrome without any noticeable CPU or memory impact, Firefox stable works pretty well with only slightly more load, Firefox 26.0a1 dies instantly and completely.

The fact that it kills browsers for so many people so completely is a very good indication that this is in no way ready for use by anyone for anything other then "look at this shiny demo!"

Edit: Opera and Safari show nothing at all...

<comment><USER28> In Safari go to Preferences->Advanced and tick the, "Show Develop menu in menu bar" option, then select Develop->Enable WebGL.

<comment><USER27> Which is just further proof that this is in no way ready for any mainstream use.

If your (usually not technical) users have to go through two different menus just show your fancy icons you're doing it wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The one on the left is amazing! It reminds me of Zelda.

<comment><USER30> Challenge: First HTML/WebGL/JS implementation of Zelda wins 1,000,000 nerd cred (or Rupees?).

<comment><USER31> Mozilla might win : [http://browserquest.mozilla.org/](http://browserquest.mozilla.org/)

<comment><USER32> that was a super fun little game, with TONS of pop-internet-culture references...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Love that WebGL is getting attention. Native browser support is gorgeous and becoming more available as people continue to upgrade. We at Social Tables (socialtables.com) been using it with three.js to do real-time rendering of floor plans and events!

</comment><comment><USER34> Nobody's mentioned phones, so I'll point out that this works fine on the native browser of the Galaxy S 2. If you're having problems with WebGL, complain to your PC manufacturer.

That said, I hope we have a CanvasBlock extension to sit alongside FlashBlock. There are uses of WebGL that don't involve gimmicky animations or games (shameless plug: shaders for image demosaic; see my profile), but the option should belong to the users

</comment><comment><USER35> Crashes my Firefox 22.0 instantly.

<comment><USER36> it's your graphics card most likely crashing the browser.

<comment><USER35> I know. It's pretty easy to crash browsers these days with WebGL. I'm not sure if the hover effect contains invalid WebGL code. (My browser plays the Epic Citadel HTML5 demo well).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Another WebGL example for my class server at

[http://ezekiel.vancouver.wsu.edu](http://ezekiel.vancouver.wsu.edu)

Seems fine under Safari (enable Web GL), and FireFox. Loops endlessly in Chrome (will hopefully fix soon). Please feel free to make fun of -- its just distracting eye candy I know.

</comment><comment><USER38> Very nice, as a demo, I just hope that no webpage ever uses WebGL this way.

(Didn't work on OS X for me, though.)

</comment><comment><USER39> Works nicely on Windows and on Firefox 23/Mac OS X. Other browsers (Chrome, Safari and Opera) on OS X show nothing at all for me. OS X 10.6.8 on a 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo iMac.

<comment><USER40> Unsure what the Chrome support is like for 10.6 but current Chrome has WebGL enabled by default. In Safari, you can manually enable it through Preferences>Advanced>Show develop menu in menu bar. Then check "Enable WebGL" in the Develop menu.

[EDIT: Also see wmil's comment below.]

<comment><USER39> Chrome is at the latest version. Even adding the "\--ignore-gpu-blacklist" flag doesn't make it work. It does output some debugging info: "(0) : fatal error C9999: marking a sampler that is not a scalar Cg compiler terminated due to fatal error"

Enabling WebGL in Safari has bugger all effect. Well, not entirely nothing... it keeps refreshing, freezes while loading or displays the message that "Safari can't display this webpage", reinforcing my very negative opinion of that browser.

<comment><USER41> Try "\--enable-webgl --ignore-gpu-blacklist "

<comment><USER39> WebGL was already enabled. I doubt the Cg compiler would have thrown an error if it weren't, anyway!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> crashes my browser firefox 23 on ubuntu 13.04

</comment><comment><USER43> Doesn't seem to do anything in Chrome/OSX.

        Error creating WebGL context.

<comment><USER21> Your might have a blacklisted gpu driver. Try running chrome with the startup flag --ignore-gpu-blacklist

<comment><USER43> Looks like the integrated GPU in the MacBooks are blacklisted.

<comment><USER21> My drivers (older ATI card) are blacklisted as well, but starting chrome with the ignore-gpu-blacklist flag works fine. WebGL also works fine within Firefox, so I really don't understand why Chrome keeps blacklisting the drivers...

<comment><USER44> It may be for security reasons if there are known flaws in those drivers. That it "works" at first glance isn't the only thing to consider here. I wouldn't advise turning off the blacklist for day-to-day browsing: those drivers are black listed for a reason.

<comment><USER21> I agree, and I don't run chrome with the flag for day-to-day browsing. I'd still like to know what that reason is though and how come Firefox doesn't have the same issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is broken on mobile for me. Cool demo, but what about devices other than a desktop browser?

<comment><USER46> It actually works great for me using the current Chrome Beta on Android, and I've heard Firefox might have started supporting WebGL on mobile as well, though a lot of platforms are still left out... iOS comes to mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> So much PITA just to view a demo. Tried FF,Chrome,Safari none seems to work.

</comment><comment><USER48> works surprisingly well on ff mobile on my S3

</comment><comment><USER49> Locked up Aurora, had to force quit.

</comment><comment><USER50> as cool as it is to have this ability, just because you can doesn't mean you should. Lest your site look like the 2013 equivalent of 1998 geocities.

</comment><comment><USER51> Where can I find a spinning 3-d globe? You know, to symbolize the internet.

</comment><comment><USER52> And it only took 30 seconds to load the _demo_!

<comment><USER53> It loaded nearly instantly for me.

<comment><USER52> That means little. If I was on the same local network as the CDN, would "it loads fast for me" make it load fast for everyone?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Dear Jesus: We survived animated gifs. We found our way through the "blink" tag with a limited number of lives lost. Please give us the clarity of mind to wield this great new power with discretion and aplomb. Amen.

<comment><USER55> This is just a sample of what is possible. There will always be people who use the wrong tool for the job, but that is not a reason to dismiss this.

<comment><USER56> It's a reason to proclaim that the people deciding on web standards are doing a horrible job.

Scripting should be _removed_ from the web, not made ever more powerful....

<comment><USER57> Yeah, god, I long for the days before Google Maps, too. Who needs that slick slippy interface when you can endlessly click arrows at the corner of a static image?

<comment><USER58> Ah, true nostalgia. Making the click, waiting for the image to download over 56k..only to realise you've loaded the wrong tile.

If anyone wants to recreate the experience, Streetmap.co.uk [1] is still going (somehow).

[1] [http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=531500&y=181500&z=120&s...](http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=531500&y=181500&z=120&sv=london&st=3&tl=Map+of+London,+City+of+London.+\[City/Town/Village\]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are Apple's price hikes a cash grab or preemption of future US tariffs? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> It could be because of various increased component/research/development/operational costs, among other things.

For reference, here are their margins over the years: [https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/gross_profit_margin](https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/gross_profit_margin)

</comment><comment><USER3> Honestly I think that Apple will keep increasing the price until it hurts their bottom line. And why wouldn't they want to do that. They are accountable to their shareholders not the consumer.

<comment><USER4> Of course, unless they know exactly where they are on the demand curve, how would they know whether it's negatively affecting their bottom line?

<comment><USER3> I'm sure they have some smart people working on that and what the people would tolerate. It's kind of like boiling a frog. If the temperature increases too much the frog jumps out. If you do it slowly the frog stays in and eventually dies.

On second thought that may not be the best analogy but it's close. As far as the demand curve goes they can just judge things by sales. If the price increase off-sets the loss of sales but increases revenue then they would keep doing it. If not they will stop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't think a 10% tariff would account for the entire increase. It may be part of it though.</comment>


Python Flask (µframework) mega tutorial - <AUTHOR> http://blog.miguelgrinberg.com/post/the-flask-mega-tutorial-part-i-hello-world

<comment><USER2> This tutorial is great. I use flask, its excellent! I tried Django first and it never felt right. The flask documentation is pretty good, and its working great for us. I highly recommend flask.

</comment><comment><USER3> Off topic, but for a moment there I mistook him for Zed Shaw. Also, this tutorial is quite fantastic (integration with Whoosh part especially)

</comment><comment><USER4> I admit that I have only skimmed the tutorial, but it really looks well written and structured to teach you Flask. I have seen other tutorials on HN with far more discussion that were no where near as good.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm having trouble getting this to load. Hard to believe you're getting HN- effected this soon with only 3 upvotes.

<comment><USER6> For what it's worth, I am having zero trouble getting this to load. The page is fast even, and remains fast in Incognito and after clearing cache.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> this is a nice overview of flask. now I can have an informed opinion about it without ever having used it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Thank you Sir! Amazing!</comment>


Disney+ and Netflix have cancelled their free trials - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-26/disney-plus-netflix-streaming-service-free-trial-hamilton/12386796 <comment><USER2> We have soo many streaming services. It is a competitive market. Keeping free trial let users to feel the contents quality.</comment>


"People simply empty out" - <AUTHOR> http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/10/people-simply-empty-out.html <comment><USER4> I feel like too many people get sucked into the idea of furthering their career, to the point that they forget to further their own life.

What is the point of existence if we never get around to experiencing it?

 _" It's not the things we do in life that we regret on our death bed, it is the things we do not." \- Randy Pausch_

<comment><USER5> Hence the somewhat curious (and I think, very American) idea of the "Golden Years". If you put your head down and work hard, taking no vacations, until you're age 65, then you flip 180 degrees in the other direction and retire into a life of full-time leisure. So if you live long enough, it really won't be a waste; you cash it in all at the end!

A Scandinavian psychologist somewhat recently proposed a typically Scandinavian reversal of this: he suggested people should work to age 80, but work proportionally less in all the years up to there. Basically redirect the pension system to subsidize more early-age vacation and less pension.

edit: [http://cphpost.dk/business/researcher-advocates-25-hour- work...](http://cphpost.dk/business/researcher-advocates-25-hour-working- week-%E2%80%93-until-age-80)

<comment><USER6> Working until 80 might sound reasonable to a software developer, but if you have a job like a construction worker or a firefighter, you may not be physically capable of doing your job at 80, even part time. So you'd have to switch careers to work into your 80s, which not everyone would be successful at pulling off.

<comment><USER5> I agree that's an open question. Whether a large proportion of people could work in _some_ job up to age 80 (possibly after changing jobs) is definitely an important part of whether it would produce a plausible system.

It doesn't have to be the same job, or to be gap-free, though. If you have a strong retraining/welfare system to cover the gaps, as Denmark has, it's not as big a deal if someone needs to take a year or two off to change jobs. If you can't do your job anymore at some point for health reasons, there is a generous system for disability leave. And, a common unemployment insurance system (a-kasse) covers being unemployed for up to two years, with up to ~$36k/yr salary and retraining / job-finding assistance. As a last resort, there's a floor of ~$22k/yr welfare that anyone can get if they have no other source of income, with no time limits. That's comparable to the low end of U.S. Social Security, so at least nobody would really end up with _no_ income.

The wager is that enough people would be productive post-65 to have a significant overall effect.

<comment><USER7> > a large proportion of people could work in some job up to age 80 (possibly > after changing jobs)

It would be an interesting question given most of the aged people change their job. Then those categories of jobs would probably be overrun by aged people seeking those jobs, and hence poor wages and rampant unemployment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Today, too many people have jobs to support their lifestyles, not their lives. People end up working to continue making monthly payments on houses larger than they need, cars fancier than they need, and they won't be able to fully enjoy those things because they're always working 9-5. Today, we are a lot further along than we were 50 years ago. People aren't working in factories to put bread on the table, people are working in offices to pay for their next new car or big screen TV.

My goal is to make as much money as I can as fast as I can so that instead of trying to become the next billionaire, I can stop working and become the next great thinker. I value knowledge and happiness over money.

<comment><USER9> _People buy things they can 't afford, with money that they don't have, to impress people that they don't like_

I realized I could live off of $25000/yr and maintain a modestly comfortable lifestyle at the same time. I am on track to retire before I am 40. Anyone can do it.

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/22/getting-rich- from-...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/22/getting-rich-from-zero-to- hero-in-one-blog-post/)

<comment><USER10> >>Anyone can do it.

Correction: anyone who graduates without debt and starts their careers making good money can do it.

<comment><USER11> And is willing to live in fairly shitty places.

(You're not retiring on $25K a year in any part of Boston, NYC, Seattle, or any other reasonably vibrant urban area without making brutal compromises in terms of quality of life.)

<comment><USER12> There are plenty of areas that are cheaper than Boston, NYC, or Seattle, and yet not "fairly shitty".

For example, $25k a year can be quite comfortable in Denver, which is a reasonably vibrant urban area.

<comment><USER11> If you like flyover states (I don't, but I'll grant that you might), Denver with even just one kid and a car--because the RTD isn't very good, and honestly for me at least that's a huge gamebreaker because I am happy to never own a car again--is going to be a pretty shitty life.

<comment><USER12> > "Denver with even just one kid and a car ... is going to be a pretty shitty > life."

I'm living in Denver with one kid, a car, and less than $25k in income. And my life is awesome.

Maybe you have a different definition of "shitty" than me. Or maybe you don't realize how well you can live on that kind of money with a paid off house.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can I just say that I love Charles Bukowski? If you've never read him go buy his books now. There's so much humanity in there. Some will think he's a downer or depressing, but I think he's genius. His life reminds me of this quote by Hokusai:

 _When I was 50 I had published a universe of designs. But all I have done before the the age of 70 is not worth bothering with. At 75 I 'll have learned something of the pattern of nature, of animals, of plants, of trees, birds, fish and insects. When I am 80 you will see real progress. At 90 I shall have cut my way deeply into the mystery of life itself. At 100, I shall be a marvelous artist. At 110, everything I create; a dot, a line, will jump to life as never before._

Never stop learning, folks.

<comment><USER14> I can't stomach the guy. He was an abusive drunk who thought it was funny to kick women.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8KJiay6EI0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8KJiay6EI0)

<comment><USER15> I watched that. Here's my take:

Fiance: I am and will continue to sleep with other men.

Bukowski: You f __ _ing w_ *re [kicks].

Relationships are hard. While I don't agree with physical or verbal abuse, I think in this case Fiance probably hurt Bukowski more with her words than he did with his kick. It certainly didn't seem like he was kicking her because he "thought it was funny to kick women".

<comment><USER16> > While I don't agree with physical or verbal abuse, I think in this case > Fiance probably hurt Bukowski more with her words than he did with his kick.

So you do agree with physical abuse. According to you, if your partner says something that upsets you, its totally OK to hit them. That is domestic abuse 101.

<comment><USER15> > So you do agree with physical abuse. According to you, if your partner says > something that upsets you, its totally OK to hit them. That is domestic > abuse 101.

That's absurd. Where did I say "if your partner says something that upsets you, it's totally OK to hit them"?

I stated that:

a) Bukowski's fiance probably hurt Bukowski (by stating that she cheats on him) more than he did by kicking her.

b) It didn't seem like his reasons for kicking her were because he "thought it was funny to kick women."

Please read more carefully before you troll me, sir.

<comment><USER16> > a) Bukowski's fiance probably hurt Bukowski (by stating that she cheats on > him) more than he did by kicking her.

Why would that be relevant whatsoever to why someone kicks their partner? You said you don't agree with abuse as a preface and then immediately put physical abuse on the level with having your feelings hurt by something someone said.

I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or know anyone that has been, but these kinds of statements happen all the time as a way to create a justification for the abuse inflicted on someone. It's not only abusers that do this, but people that are friends and acquaintances of both the abuser and abused.

<comment><USER15> > Why would that be relevant whatsoever to why someone kicks their partner? > You said you don't agree with abuse as a preface and then immediately put > physical abuse on the level with having your feelings hurt by something > someone said.

1\. I stated that I don't agree with abuse (physical or emotional).

2\. I stated that in this case I thought the emotional abuse Bukowski's fiance inflicted on Bukowski was worse than the physical abuse he inflicted on her. That's my opinion. I think the way that she casually taunted him with her infidelity is _serious_ abuse. The kick is also terribly abusive.

I don't know all the facts, only what I saw in the video. I don't know if Bukowski went on to be a serial abuser or not, but that's not relevant to what happened in the video, which is the subject of this discussion.

You say: "I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or know anyone that has been" \- the answer is yes. I don't know if you've ever been cheated on by someone you're in love with.

<comment><USER16> > 2\. I stated that in this case I thought the emotional abuse Bukowski's > fiance inflicted on Bukowski was worse than the physical abuse he inflicted > on her. That's my opinion. I think the way that she casually taunted him > with her infidelity is _serious_ abuse. The kick is also terribly abusive.

How exactly is being honest about not wanting and not committing to a monogamous relationship on an equal playing field as getting hit? Moreover, even if you considered that verbally and/or emotionally abusive, that in no way justifies hitting someone.

> I don't know if Bukowski went on to be a serial abuser or not, but that's > not relevant to what happened in the video, which is the subject of this > discussion.

If Bukowski was a serial abuser, it is most certainly 100% relevant to the video in question. Domestic abuse isn't about a single incident, its about a continuum of behavior and events.

> You say: "I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or > know anyone that has been" \- the answer is yes. I don't know if you've ever > been cheated on by someone you're in love with.

I have, but hitting someone and being cheated on are not even remotely on the same playing field. In fact, it is a common tactic for abusers to accuse or blame partners for the abuse by insinuating or referring to actual past instances of cheating.

<comment><USER15> > "but hitting someone and being cheated on are not even remotely on the same > playing field"

Hey man, I think we've covered some interesting ground here, but I think we just have to agree to disagree. I certainly don't think that cheating should be punished with physical abuse. However, I do think that the cheating on someone who you're engaged to and clearly expects monogamy is worse than hitting someone once. I just do.

Also, let's not forget that, whilst unacceptable, the kick was solicited by her admission of infidelity, whereas the infidelity is seemingly unsolicited.

<comment><USER16> > I certainly don't think that cheating should be punished with physical > abuse. However, I do think that the cheating on someone who you're engaged > to and clearly expects monogamy is worse than hitting someone once. I just > do.

Cheating on someone is a violation of that person's trust. Hitting your partner is violation of their physical integrity.

> Also, let's not forget that, whilst unacceptable, the kick was solicited by > her admission of infidelity, whereas the infidelity is seemingly > unsolicited.

What is the point of making this statement if not to excuse her getting hit or to make her getting hit seem like "she was asking for it"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >>You know my old saying, "Slavery was never abolished, it was only extended to include all the colors."

Some people balk at the idea of "wage slavery," primarily because they think it is so different from the traditional slavery that it should not be called that.

But the question is, if you are doing something and the alternative is starvation and death, are you really a free human being? If you think about it for a while, the answer becomes clear: you are not free. Sure, you have the freedom to switch from one slave-owner to another, but at no point in the process do you have real freedom.

<comment><USER17> I agree that wage slavery exists but let's be serious, slavery in many societies, including the US was a brutal existence that included beatings & intentional separations of families, often even if you as a slave were compliant in the system. If you weren't compliant you were subject to torture and/or a violent death. The cruelty of slavery stretches far beyond the lack of freedom you're describing here.

<comment><USER18> Okay, you have an excellent point that modern slavery is a kinder, more gentle version. Now, instead of being beaten physically, you are gutted mentally via long hours and unreasonable schedules. Now, you "choose" to live away from the rest of your family because a job could earn you so much more money.

Even the punishment has become more moral and more evenly applied to all to of course avoid discrimination. You are subject to mental assault by all others and even by yourself when you do not follow the game of the wage slave. A violent death? A violent death would be a needle prick relative to the 60 years you are expected to slowly break yourself in half.

Indeed, the lack of freedom is but one facet, but honestly, while we have become more free have we really gained anything in terms of long term ability to do what we actually desire or be our own masters?

<comment><USER19> I have to disagree. Strong people will pursue their passion and find their ways. Weak people will succumb and be scared. It depends entirely on the person. Most people simply prefer stability, that's all there is to it.

Not everybody has this amazing idea they are absolutely passionate about and prioritize above everything else.

I just started working in a corporate environment. I'm the best at what I do. I work beyond hours. I also have a life. I can choose to go home and have a four hour game of thrones session, or I can invest my time into personal interests and developing myself.

It's up to the individual entirely. We live in a world where we are capable of forging our own path.

There is no lack of freedom, there is simply too much of it.

> while we have become more free have we really gained anything in terms of > long term ability to do what we actually desire or be our own masters?

YES. You have all the resources at your fingertips. Institutions, counselling, meetups for specific interests, the INTERNET where you can communicate with anybody in a millisecond.

It's up to you what you do with these powers. Will you be complacent, or will you use them to your advantage? It's sad that most people use our new found technological superpowers to bore themselves instead of learn about our beautiful planet and all it has to offer.

<comment><USER20> The attitude that came through in your comment is exactly what I try to uphold. I say 'try', because after 21 years of complacency the discipline needed to bring this attitude into the next day has humbled me for how often I fail to do so.

I'm in the middle of making monumental changes in my life, and if I had helped ingrain a lesson or mindset into another person as much as your outlook helped me, I would've liked to know.

<comment><USER19> All the best to you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have three things to say about this:

1\. Many people are horrified by the thought of not being a simple worker bee. They say they want change, but they don't. They want the security of someone else taking care of them. The reason wealth exists is because there are people that cannot live this way, and thus, make their own way. You cannot fault hard working business owners because their employees put themselves in a place to require said employment in order to sustain a life they consider normal.

2\. There will always be wealth. If the US gave up capitalism in favor of socialism, the money would be placed in the hands of the whole, and in this case, the government. At that point, the government has the money and the power. We're screwed.

3\. Life is suffering. There is no perfection on this realm. Solve this problem and another will follow. This is a symptom of life in samsara. Bukowski recognized this, which is why he talked of a simple life without possessions. If you truly want to break free of 'the man,' you'll have to life a life defined by something other than money, objects, and achievements. For most of us, this is nearly impossible. Middle ground is an illusion.

<comment><USER22> >They want the security of someone else taking care of them.

Performing a job, even a "simple worker bee" job, is still a job, not charity. As a worker, you perform a function, and the company pays you for your time/expertise/ideas/efforts/output/etc. What the hell part of that is charity, or being "taken care of"?

I find your implication that the employer is somehow doing the employee a favor by paying them for their work baffling and wrong-headed.

<comment><USER23> Everything in life is a trade-off. Being an employee at a decently sized company is about trading certain pleasantries (e.g. having to deal with the 9 to 5 drill) for certain benefits (e.g. a stable income).

Similarly in jobs that have no paid overtime, you are usually compensated a bit more and don't always have to work overtime.

Taken care of in this context is talking about the stability a company provides you. It isn't given to you out of charity, you certainly earn it, but it doesn't come free either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I support and understand what he's saying, but I think too many times we set up this false choice between "pursuing our dreams" and "working for the man"

There's honor -- and authenticity -- in making choices for your life that involve working in the system.

I used to look down on those who worked jobs they hated and would say things like "That's just not for me. I don't know how you can do it." until one day somebody took me aside and pointed out what an insulting and condescending attitude I had. I was being a jerk, a well-paid, able-to-pick-what-I-want-to- do jerk. Other people did not have the same lives or face the same choices as I did. I should respect their uniqueness and decisions -- even if they loudly and publicly complained about them.

I have learned that for myself it is too easy to go off on a wild tangent about how one lifestyle is so much better than another, talking about slavery and such, just like in this letter. Basically I was being a judgmental prick, substituting my values for other people's and then declaring that my choices and values were best for everybody.

I finally realized that the quality of life is something each of us owns through our own personal choices.

So I don't do that anymore.

<comment><USER25> That other people don't have a choice in doing that jobs they complain about doesn't mean there is "honour" in that. It's degrading to be forced into doing something you see no value in.

And what does "authenticity" even mean in this context? There is authenticity and uniqueness in the things people do _despite_ their soul killing jobs, but what's authentic about, say, selling your body? I find this just as condescending, sorry: If those people complain, i.e. if they say it sucks for them, then it sucks for them. Talking about authenticy and uniqueness, and pretending they have much a of a choice, is respecting a strawman (i.e. decisions they never got to make), while disrespecting their actual situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> You know, I don't see the career ascent about forgetting my own life. I see it as a way I can do good for this world. If I have people under my span of control, I can impart what I believe to be good in this world as a part of my leadership and management style.

I also want to be a motivational speaker when I 'grow up'. I came from humble beginnings. Some people's talks have really changed my life. In order to give those talks and be invited to speak, yes you have to ascend the established social order.

Am I wasting my life by working a lot? No. The things I work so hard for have real effects in this world. My mom has been working for over 40 years of her life. If I do things right, she'll be able to retire eventually. Do I work harder than other people do for the same, or less, compensation? I'm sure I do. But you know what, you have to make the best of the situation you're in.

I was recently invited to give my first talk. Here is the abridged executive summary: [http://www.evernote.com/shard/s34/sh/9a92bf45-27e1-4470-be7e...](http://www.evernote.com/shard/s34/sh/9a92bf45-27e1-4470-be7e-4aca3aba5cac/4a5fdbf41d26cb91d0aa5cff7b093f96)

<comment><USER27> >>I don't see the career ascent about forgetting my own life. I see it as a way I can do good for this world. If I have people under my span of control, I can impart what I believe to be good in this world as a part of my leadership and management style.

I'm saving this for later, because I love it. Thank you.

<comment><USER26> thanks for the comment

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> _They never pay the slaves enough so they can get free, just enough so they can stay alive and come back to work._

I do love my job, though there is so much more I want to do with my life - <USER2> much more I could do that (as far as I can tell) would really help humanity. Unfortunately I'm locked into working because of student loans and overall cost of living. I try to do work in my free time but sadly 3 hours a night does not build a company with enough revenue to grant me freedom.

By the time I've earned enough from my job to afford not having a job I worry I'll have moved on to a different life stage where kids will take up my evenings.

I know I'm not the only talented, driven 20-something in this situation and with student loans recently so high, it is a pity to think that overall out generation will have fewer who are able to make their ideas real because of it. Thanks to YC for offsetting that effect and helping us believe we can "get free".

<comment><USER29> Unfortunately, the modern day tech incubator model serves a very narrow audience with a very limiting set of criteria (e.g. billion dollar markets). There are lots of other people like the gentlemen referenced in the article that simply want to build a self-sustaining income stream. Crowdsourcing is helping to fill that vacuum at least partially; but I think more can be done in this arena to help people escape the awful "Office Space"-like dronework that, unfortunately, is still the norm today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I've been at my current full-time job a bit over a year. The previous six years were a mix of freelance, contract, and startup work -- sometimes full- time, sometimes way-more-than-full-time, and sometimes not at all... but usually part-time.

There are some things I like about the current job, and if I stick around at least another six months, I'll likely play a key role in overhauling the front end of a major automaker's website using state-of-the art. Not a bad feather to stick in a cap.

On the other hand, the chances that I'll do anything else in the meanwhile seem pretty slim. I notice in the last year alone, my energy for original/personal projects is diminished, I feel less creative/thoughtful in general -- and arguably even less _interesting_ than during the aforementioned freelance period. I do feel, as Bukowski put it, somewhat emptied out by my work.

It's possible what I really need is a different full-time gig, since I have been in some full-time situations that felt energizing. But I'm starting to be convinced that when I'm hiring myself out part-time, I stay more personally grounded _and_ sharper as far as my general skills and strength in the field goes.

Unfortunately, steady skilled part-time employment seems to be considerably more difficult to find than full-time.

</comment><comment><USER31> i sold my startup about 3 months ago, and immediately starting looking for another job. after a couple months, a couple interesting but-not-exciting offers, and one interview process that ended in me not getting an offer, i finally took a worthy vacation. while on a boat in the caribbean, a couple things occurred to me: (1) i really don't need to work for the next ~10 years (2) in that time, i will likely stumble on another opportunity similar to the previous one, which has afforded me this financial freedom (3) i am way more interested in learning, exploring, and art than a "real" job, even a job like my previous one, that i particularly enjoyed. (4) i am very fortunate to be in this position, and i really don't want to waste it.

so i've been giving this topic some serious thought. to work or not to work? that is the question.

<comment><USER32> I am currently taking a sabbatical of sorts after slaving away and saving up for 5 years. I threw most of my savings into index funds, and then set up automatic withdrawals to my savings account. This forces me to try and live within a certain budget. If all goes well (i.e. market stays healthy), I will have only spent down a small amount of my savings by the time I return to the labor force. In the mean time, I have been taking some coursera classes, toying with some side projects, and doing some R&R. I highly recommend it for people who can afford to do this.

<comment><USER33> How much savings did you have? I'm considering doing the same at some point, though my quick glance at index funds makes it seem like I'd get basically nothing. What sort of budget does this afford you?

<comment><USER32> Vangaurd low cost index funds. Supposedly, you can count on 8-10% annual return. I also did/do some occasional stock picking which has gotten good results (but I wouldn't count on that being sustainable). I probably spend about 20k a year, and have savings in the low 6 digits.

I waited until I had 5-10x my annual expenses, but obviously you can do it with less. My main recommendation would to be have at least an extra 6 months of living expenses beyond what you need (so if you are taking a year off, have at least 1.5 yrs of living expenses) in case it takes a while to find work again. The main advantage of saving more than that is you can use the returns from your investments to offset some of your costs a bit.

<comment><USER34> You can also count on index funds to lose 50% of their value in two years in an upcoming crisis. The roaring 90s and mid 2000s isn't a pattern that will continue to repeat itself. The fed can't keep printing the S&P500 up forever.

I think made a great decision, but you ought to diversify your nest egg.

<comment><USER32> I agree that there is some risk, but I am not sure how I would be able to diversify any more than I already have. I have my money split into about 6 different index funds, primarily diversified globally, although I have a few industry/sector specific funds. And then I have about 30% of my savings in stocks that I picked, most of which are pretty stable companies with fairly long term future/outlook (so they would, in theory, come out of a recession in good shape, even if they took a few hits).

If there is some other asset class I am missing, let me know. In the meantime, I think I will take my chances with the market. Worst case, if things get bad, I can just go back to work (left my old company, in a fairly recession proof industry, on good terms)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> $100 are about $650 in todays money [1].

[1]: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100%24+from+1969](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100%24+from+1969)

<comment><USER36> No. It is $3323.

      1oz gold coin price in USD:
      1969 40
      2013 1362

<comment><USER37> You are taking the value of a tangible asset from 1969 and comparing it to todays value of said tangible asset. This in _no_ way illustrates the inflation rate. All it shows (assuming your numbers are right) is the increase in the perceived value of gold in that time frame. The original comment's $650 number is close enough to be considered accurate

<comment><USER38> What's the distinction between "perceived value" and just normal value?

<comment><USER39> Little but that's sort of a distraction to the main point of the discussion. Using gold is no more helpful than say using the price of a barrel of crude oil then and now.

<comment><USER40> Interestingly, using crude oil gets you about the same results as gold. The figures above show a 34x nominal increase in the price of gold, while crude oil over the same period went up 32x.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> _> In 1969, publisher John Martin offered to pay Charles Bukowski $100 each and every month for the rest of his life, on one condition: that he quit his job at the post office and become a writer._

this makes me think of basic income, which might be one approach to ending wage slavery:

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

</comment><comment><USER42> Such beautiful words. Love the last line: "To not to have entirely wasted one's life seems to be a worthy accomplishment, if only for myself."

<comment><USER43> I am adding this line to my .bashrc file.

<comment><USER44> -bash: To: command not found

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm glad he made it out, but that's a sad story. When you stop and think about what he's saying, it's depressing. And, it's true.

</comment><comment><USER46> I don't happen to believe the wage system is slavery (I do happen to believe we have a modern slavery system, but that's another story)

"They never pay the slaves enough so they can get free, just enough so they can stay alive and come back to work." But then why don't the slaves leave? Unlike in the past, nobody is holding a gun to their head. One possibility, probably popular among entrepreneurial types, is the slaves don't leave, because they don't think they can leave. It's a problem that is easily solved! All the boring types need is a little bit of education, for them to learn that leaving is possibility.

But maybe, what scares us a little bit, is that maybe the slaves don't want to leave. They value that security that the boring life brings them (that is why they complain "it ain't right" \- because they have lost something they really valued). This is the really scary thing, because we don't want to be boring but we could see ourselves making the same choice. At the same time we don't understand the choice of the slaves to not leave, we identify with it at a level that we maybe can't explain. But is it a wrong choice? Who are we to judge others for choosing security over wealth or self-exploration? Maybe we are at a knife edge- a little bit less motivation here, a marginal preference there, a taste of failure here, and we, too, would pick security over wealth (of money, of intellect, of experience). I think that the strange paternalistic attitude of the passage is a result of the fear - the fear of that condition.

<comment><USER47> Django unchained briefly visited that idea when Leonardo pondered why don't the slaves revolt or leave? The slave has nowhere to go.

Wage slavery, the term, was coined when industrial jobs were coming on to the scene in the north and there was still slavery in the south. Groups of laborers in these new factories soon went on protest. They self-described their situation as being similar to slave work/living standards but with a wage. Basically what we today would call inhumane.

This sentiment never diminished but instead was overwhelmed by the dominance of industrialized work in this format. Their protest fell on deaf ears because now all the jobs offered were like that and unions decided to fight for better working conditions instead of the system at large. Which leads us to today.

It's hypocritical when employees lambaste labor movements but will gladly partake the fruits of better wages and working standards.

It seem human nature will put up with a lot of things. An anthropological account i read: The anthropologist visited some area around Tibet. The system in place there required newly married women upon marriage to leave their husbands and work for the lord of the area, often as a concubine. After a year or so she would leave but not to return to her husband but instead go to a work camp where she would serve as a comfort girl. After that she returned.

The obviously shocked anthropologist asked why did people put up with this arrangement? It seems the reply was a "that's the way it was" sentiment.

<comment><USER46> well, I guess I put a bit of a teaser in there. I don't believe in the concept of wage slavery. I believe we have _debt_ slavery. I.E. Where someone else owns your labor and enforces that ownership using the law.

This is not to say I think lending should be abolished, I just think that paying back should be voluntary, the counterparty should assume all financial risk and the borrower should assume all reputation risk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> > What do they do it for? Sex? TV? An automobile on monthly payments? Or > children? Children who are just going to do the same things that they did?

Hm... abject terror of homelessness.

</comment><comment><USER49> This essay isn't particularly good. "The Abolition of Work" and "Quitting the Paint Factory" are both much better essays on the same topic.

[http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm](http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm)

[http://paulbe.dreamwidth.org/961.html](http://paulbe.dreamwidth.org/961.html)

</comment><comment><USER50> "A man can never drink his fill by waiting in line for the tap"

That quote motivates me everyday, because it reminds me that the things I want in life will never be achieved by working at a place in any capacity where the choice of my continued employment lies in the hands of any one person.

</comment><comment><USER51> _" They never pay the slaves enough so they can get free, just enough so they can stay alive and come back to work."_

I suspect the author is being intentionally misleading regarding the costs of staying alive. It doesn't take $20,000/year. More like $5,000, and even that is being generous.

Early Retirement Extreme and other books cover this in more detail, of course.

I do agree with the overall sentiment of his article, but the concept that the current state of affairs is some kind of intentional conspiracy is incorrect. People like the security of being indebted and forced to work, it seems. They are not forced into such a life.

</comment><comment><USER39> I was struck by the fact that it was written in 1969 yet is incredibly contemporary. Will we lament the same things in 2060?

<comment><USER52> i would say yes, because the human condition hardly ever changes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm not sure the alternative is any better as a startup founder/employee. You're putting in greater amounts of hours, blood, sweat, and tears for less money in a lot of cases. Sometimes it pays off, oftentimes it doesn't. Bear in mind I speak as a corporate wage-slave whose company just announced layoffs after a "record quarter". The answer must be to win the lottery, maybe I should start playing...

</comment><comment><USER54> The early part of my career was spent chasing everything, and ironically, it was when I had the least amount of money. In 1998 I got my first job and immediately got a nice apartment in which to live and a decent car to get around. Even with these somewhat reasonable purchases I was already butting up against what I could afford. And by afford, I mean how much money I had. Soon enough the credit card debt slipped in and I was trapped. Trapped by my debt and all of the obligations that went with it.

This cycle did not stop until I was making a bit more money and finally got serious about saving and investing. When this happened my other priorities shifted dramatically. I was no longer obsessed about getting the newest / best thing or what have you. I paid off my debts and vowed to from then on always live well beneath my means, which I have.

Since that time I've never felt trapped. I'm disciplined about long term saving and having at least six months of normal living expenses in the bank. I've quit jobs that I simply did not like and later found other jobs that I did. I only regret that I did not do this sooner.

</comment><comment><USER55> Reminds me how lucky I (we?) are to be free of the monotonous prison of every day life which most Americans are stuck in.

<comment><USER10> Who is "we"?

<comment><USER55> In general, most developers have a lot of freedom in employment and can probably escape it given a little planning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> It's my opinion that people live the life they choose. No one is tricking you into it. Who's to say which way of life is right?

Some people enjoy the pleasures of material things and stability. Some enjoy risk and experiences. People always are a bit jealous of the other side but probably are happier with the road they chose.

<comment><USER57> 1/2 true.

I didn't choose...

To have my ass kicked, repeatedly, both at home and at school.

To be bounced around as a child, moving 28 times before graduating, having 3 foster families

To have a grave life threatening illness.

To become a young parent (thought I was sterile, but it only takes one, right)?

Things I did choose...

Somehow avoided drugs.

Books and computers, mostly as escapism, lucky me geeks now do well economically.

Became a stable parent, deferring my dreams until my son graduated.

Always trying to improve my well being, eg exercise, nutrition, seeking new treatments for my diseases, etc.

Conclusion...

I've been on the streets and in support groups with others who had their choices taken away, didn't have access to the resources and opportunities I had, or simply didn't know they were born awesome and could choose life.

And I recognize that many have had things far worse than me.

We're all just trying to do the best we know how.

So I try not to judge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> One link: [http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/)

</comment><comment><USER59> IS even the question of leading a meaningful fulfilling life uniquely modern?

How many cavemen or Egyptians or middle age serfs were running around saying "Boy I need more experiences to give my life meaning"?

Maybe we have amazing lives and because we are human beings we are always looking for more.

<comment><USER60> "How many cavemen or Egyptians or middle age serfs were running around saying "Boy I need more experiences to give my life meaning"?"

They did. We don't have recordings on the cavemen, but in the Middle Ages you had people becoming monks, joining the Crusades, etc..

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> One of the scoutmasters of my troop, 45 years ago, was a warehouseman. I doubt that his job was exciting. I imagine he took some satisfaction in doing it well. I suspect that his true satisfaction came from his family and community.

I have relatives and shirttail relatives who never attended or never finished college and have worked at blue-collar trades. Some are happy, some aren't, I don't know how many would recognize themselves as emptied out. Some rightly would not.

Anthony Trollope spent his working life in the British post office. Having more regular ways than Bukowski, he rose to responsible positions, but he worked steadily. I imagine that the readers of 2113 will mostly rate Trollope higher than Bukowski.

</comment><comment><USER62> Employment is, by definition, exploitation. If the objective of the company is to profit, it _has_ to pay the employee less than the value he generates. The alternative is profiting out of non-internalized costs (e.g., exploiting natural resources).

<comment><USER52> there are other forms of organization out there - a non-profit, "cooperative" organization could and should be the norm. This form of organization means that everyone in the org is an owner, and is paid according to the work they do. There is no fat cat at the top that don't do work but takes in money. I believe in brazil there is a manufacturing company that is like this - <USER3> worker gets a slice of the profit.

<comment><USER60> Here in Uruguay, we have lots of "cooperatives" (our country has a long socialist story), most work out well, but they come across many of the same problems that faced the old Soviet Union, and you do get "fat cats" at the top regardless of the supposed equality system.

[http://uruguayeduca.edu.uy/Userfiles/P0001/File/Cooperativis...](http://uruguayeduca.edu.uy/Userfiles/P0001/File/Cooperativismo%20en%20Uruguay.pdf)

We have:

\- Transport cooperatives

\- Dairy products cooperative (Conaprole)

\- Healthcare cooperatives, which serve most of the population ("Mutualistas", based on Mutualism)

\- An Insurance cooperative

\- Credit Union cooperatives

\- Housing cooperatives (those are the ones that worked out for the worst)

In many cases, they compete with non-cooperatives.

Edit: while they should be equal, even if they get same or slightly better pay, cooperative directors have lots of actual power, which can be turned to money if they so desire (kickbacks, etc...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Buk, you are great when you are a farmer's son. But then, when you take your first job, then second, and then you start to think about art of yours, and then you drink more, and then you found a firm with the best friends of yours, and then you quit because one of them start to bully you in a pursuit of power, and then you go to Shanghai to earn your salary in response to a generous proposition - you realize - one thing to do is to work hard, another is to rest; it's up to you to choose. I am choosing hard work, no matter for what's purpose. And that is why I love you, Buk.

</comment><comment><USER64> He seems to speak of the supervisor of the packers as someone who is above the working life, but the fact is that he is trapped for life as well, he just happens to be trapped one sport higher on a very long ladder.

I figure this being trapped is a sentiment a lot of people share, although I know of a significant minority of people who enjoy their jobs and lives, even after 30 years of "paycheck slavery".

The whole story reminds me of the song Factory by Bruce Springsteen.

</comment><comment><USER65> This goes off the tracks for me about midway through. While for many people the reality described is actually their life, there are many of us (and I'd imagine a huge percentage of those reading this) that aren't slaves. If you're making over 70-80k/year, you have the capacity to save a lot and do the things you want to do before you hit 55, 65, or 75.

</comment><comment><USER66> I enjoy Bukowski's work.

But the insights he shares in this letter are tempered by the fact that he didn't quit his job at the Post Office until _after_ a would-be patron "employed" him to write.

Still... Some people never go crazy...

</comment><comment><USER67> The letter and people here do not get that most people simply want to be told what to do. This gives them main sense of work and accomplishment. This also lays down fundation for creating societies.

</comment><comment><USER68> One thing to realize is that Bukowski always considered his full time job to be being a drunk. He just switched his second job from various menial jobs to writing.

</comment><comment><USER69> Sad reality, but one hopes we finally crack the code, so to speak, within our lifetimes.

</comment><comment><USER70> What a terrible submission title.

</comment><comment><USER71> Interesting fact: 100usd in 1969 bought you nearly 3 ounces of gold. Price of gold today is 1350usd. Today's value of 100usd in 1969 would be about $4k. Not bad at all.

<comment><USER60> 100 USD from 1969 would be equivalent to 636 USD today. So it would have been a great buy, but you have to take inflation into account.

Also, 100 USD from 1969 invested in the stock market (S&P 500) in 1969 would have given you 5403 USD from 2013 today, so buying those ounces wouldn't even have been the best investment.

Almost any solid investment over 50 years would give absurd returns.

[http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/](http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)

Edit: source for the S&P quote:

[http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm](http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm)

<comment><USER71> In my book equating for inflation is simply representing price in gold. I.e. did you know that the oil price for the past 50 years is the same if you use gold to measure it? Flat line. The same goes for the cost of living, etc. Salaries are down though. Here is your inflation. Gold isn't an investment. Gold is just a currency that can't be created out of thin air. It represents energy and labor needed to get it out of the ground. Currently the mining cost is about $1,200 with gold price about $1,300. That's why looks worse than S&P the price is as low as the production cost at the moment.

If you are interested in the real inflation rate, I'd advise to use formula that was last used by the US Government in 1980s in Reagan years. By that formula the current inflation is at 10%. In 1990s the Government added a lot of absurdities to the formula confusing technological progress with inflation hence the official inflation is non-existent while the average healthcare premium is up from 5 to 20% every year not to even mention about the cost of necessities like gas, food, energy, all the result of doubling monetary base by the FED in 2008-2012 to rescue zombie banks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> So beautifully voices exactly what I've been thinking.

<comment><USER73> Beautiful _and_ depressing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> This guy worked at a bunch of "shitty" jobs. I think he would be better served advocating that people get a good education and perhaps end up doing something that they actually enjoy. Sorting mail and packing lighting fixtures sucks...

Don't force your reality on the rest of us Hank.

</comment><comment><USER75> Wow. Never thought Bukowski would make it on HN, let alone this high.

</comment><comment><USER76> Bukowski = automatic upvote</comment>


Big brother: UK camera grid to track cars via license plates - <AUTHOR> http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/whos_watching_you/8064333.stm

<comment><USER2> We already do this in Arizona.

Guys...1984 was a WARNING, not a set of _instructions_.

<comment><USER3> I live in Phoenix and you're right, some of these cameras are set up to photo every license plate that passes regardless of whether the box detected a traffic violation. It's billed as an Amber Alert mechanism so when authorities identify a suspect they plug in his license plate and every camera sniffs every vehicle. The problem is the organizations involved have been very dodgy about revealing the scope and logging details. So we're left to wonder if in addition to catching bad guys Big Brother is tracking innocent non-suspects. I'm not convinced they are and it's not necessarily bad if they did but given the track record of our government the past 8 years we should probably demand transparency.

Originally we were told all these boxes did was equitably enforce speed and red-light laws efficiently at a great profit over human officers. But now it's turning into "Oh and by the way we'll be photographing the innocent non- violators too." Maybe we need an outside group of hackers to act in an oversight capacity. Or maybe we should just design that license plate switching feature from Knight Rider so if you do speed you're giving someone else a ticket. (Note to Sherriff Joe: I'm just kidding.)

I am reminded of that scene in the movie Brazil when a bug literally falls into a government computer, the suspect's name gets misspelled and an innocent person is punished for what another (innocent) person did. I just hope the two Phoenix based companies working on this camera technology, Redflex and American Traffic Systems, operate on a higher set of principles than GoDaddy headquarters which is just down the street and given its turnover possibly a significant source of traffic company employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks to the amount of science fiction on exactly this topic, it's like we can see our future - but we're choosing to ignore it. What they're trying to do, they're doing for "good" reasons - of that I'm sure. It's just that they don't understand the larger consequences, none of us do. And we (the general population) will continue to not understand until it is ultimately too late.

</comment><comment><USER5> I have developed license plate-reading technology which can use a modern digital camera. Just put the technology in the hands of the masses and we can track our own cars.

<comment><USER6> Would you be willing to provide more information regarding this?

<comment><USER5> Not currently. It's in an early alpha version which doesn't work all the time, and I haven't touched the codebase in a couple of years. I'll post to HN when I've checked it out.

It rips text from images so OCR can be more accurate. For some reason, it's working on normal text, but not number plates right now...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm wondering when we're going to see the corresponding drop in punishment severity as the deterrence portion of the equation approaches nil.</comment>


Static Typing: Give me a break - <AUTHOR> http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2013/01/20/static-typing-give-me-a-break/ <comment><USER2> The article presents the usual dichotomy: static typing helps with correctness but makes programs harder to write--your language is less expressive. I used to believe this too. Now I think this is a false dichotomy. In this rare instance, you can have your cake and eat it too.

I used to mostly use dynamically types languages: Python, JavaScript, Perl, Scheme. I also used Java and C++, but did not think they were worth the sacrifice in productivity. However, recently, I've been using Haskell. I really like it for reasons of correctness; however, I was also pleasantly surprised to find I was more productive in Haskell than in any dynamically typed language--even Racket (a Scheme variant).

There is one very simple feature in Haskell that makes it concretely _more_ expressive than a dynamically typed language: typeclasses. You can have values polymorphic on their return type, which makes things like overloaded string and numeric literals possible.

However, it's more than this. Types help me think about my problem and constrain the solution space. I often overcome logical problems by figuring out how the yours should match.

There are a bunch of factors like that, but they really are a matter of preference. Typeclasses aren't: you simply can't do certain things as easily without them. QuickCheck is another great example; it's far easier to use in Haskell than in, say, Erlang.

For my most recent project, I was able to use 18-bit words very easily. Moreover, it would be trivial to make my code generic over the exact type of number used! I'm thinking of passing in probability distributions instead of numbers per se. That's also easy thanks to typeclasses.

In summary: I've found static typing can be more expressive, partly out of preference but largely thanks to typeclasses. Somebody once asked me what I thought the most important feature of Haskell was. I said typeclasses, and I still stand by that.

</comment><comment><USER3> Whether or not people should use static typing is not really a question for type theory, but a question of human factors and target area. Programming languages address a range of needs: collaboration or maintenance, performance, ease of expression in problem domain, cost of error, etc.

Programming languages sit at the mind/machine interface, I don't think it is very useful to evaluate them solely from a PLT standpoint.

<comment><USER4> It's always struck me as curious that PLT does not overlap much with human factors. What is a programming language but the human interface to an automaton?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You'd think that a self-styled "programming junkie" wouldn't confuse strong and static typing, or weak and dynamic typing.

<comment><USER6> Making the "strong/weak" versus "static/dynamic" distinction is much more common in dynamic typing circles than static typing circles. And it makes total sense. Static typing people think of types as being syntactic. "Dynamic" typing seems like a misnomer--either the syntactic terms have strong types or they don't.

<comment><USER7> Common usage has definitely varied over the time I've used it. I remember one professor back in school even referring to C as strongly typed and Scheme as weakly typed.

I think some of the confusion is that the nature of the two sets of labels are commonly misunderstood. They're supposed to represent two orthogonal dichotomies about how languages design. In truth there is an orthogonal pair of dichotomies in there, but it's not captured by that set of labels. And the labels aren't really orthogonal.

The real dichotomies concern two different places where you can track type information: It can be associated with variables, or it can be associated with values. Some languages that represent the possibilities well are:

      - C: Variables, but not values
      - Ruby: Values, but not variables
      - C#: Both values and variables
      - FORTH: Neither variables nor values.

As for how they're commonly described: C is the classic example of static and weak, and C# is a good example of static and strong (though admittedly it has facilites for switching both off in a controlled manner). Ruby is dynamic and strong.

But nobody wants to call FORTH dynamic and weak, and for good reason: The very phrase "dynamically typed" implies that types are tracked, just dynamically. But FORTH doesn't track types at all; it's much more correct to describe it as untyped.

So that's where it breaks down: While strong vs. weak corresponds well to the question of whether types are associated with values, dynamic vs. static is not actually an orthogonal dichotomy, because the word dynamic describes a decision about both ways of tracking type: Dynamic languages associate type with values but not with variables. And my earlier description of Ruby as "dynamic and strong" is redundant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It is also worth pointing out first there are various flavors. There is a range of type strengths. Maybe from something like Haskell down to, I don't know, Javascript with stuff like [1,10,4,21].sort() = [1,10,21,4].

There is strong typing vs weak typing as well, and either can appear in a dynamic language. There also allowing nulls and also having or not having algebraic types.

> That's part of a more general preference, for preserving information. When > I'm programming, I know what kind of thing I expect in a parameter, and I > know what I expect to return.

Doesn't a functional single assignment language like Clojure or Erlang then make most sense? If your goal is to preserve information and knowing that no funny business has been happening behind your back (when you are not "figuratively" looking) isn't that what you want? This is even more important if this is a concurrent program.

You also have to ask yourself, what is the overall goal here. Ok maybe it is just aesthetics, maybe there is a small or (not so small) amount pleasure derived in figuring out the types and specifying that. Maybe it helps larger teams work better. Or it helps the compiler to make faster code (v8 might disagree though).

Most people would perhaps arrive at -- "I want my program to not crash as often". One way to do it is to then have a provable correct program. For avionics there is some degree of that. But it is very expensive. But another way is to assume your program will crash, no matter how strong your types are. Then fault isolation is a better strategy.

<comment><USER9> There's also two different (popular) typing approaches: inheritance and structural typing. Each gives you different ways of reasoning about functions and data.

Most of the hangups with static typing seem to come from three problems: Excessive boilerplate, excessive "type purity", and excessive compilation time. I would also argue that a lot of the hangups with static typing come from Java.

Java requires a lot of boilerplate to manage class constructors, etc. However, this is greatly reduced in new languages thanks to type inference.

Java is supposed to be about "pure" OOP, making it very difficult (and slow) to invoke any sort of dynamic method. It can't even type arbitrary methods, once again due to its object-centric focus. However, newer languages are offering more ways of dealing with different type systems, and/or dodging typing altogether in certain cases.

The last problem is with compilation time, which can eat into development time the same way that testing does.

There's newer static-typed languages that are making big improvements across all of these problems. Scala, Haxe, Dart, and Typescript are ways of making development easier for pre-existing platforms... either by relaxing type issues on the jvm, or providing type features for dynamic runtimes (js).

On the other hand, dynamic languages are starting to get very sophisticated linters that are catching classes of errors that are typically found by static typing.

So, in a way, both camps are addressing problems in their own way. I'm primarily in the static camp, but I develop using a lot of dynamic languages, and have been impressed with the tooling and resources available there. However, I see more improvements coming from the new static languages.

<comment><USER10> "The last problem is with compilation time, which can eat into development time the same way that testing does."

The Haxe->Neko compiler is fast past any expectation, when I started using it I simply could not believe how fast it went.

<comment><USER9> bias alert: I'm a huge Haxe fan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here is the bottom line: static typing is getting much closer to the sweet spot by increasingly gaining dynamic typing advantages (e.g. type inference, which means less verbose sources) than dynamically typed languages are going in the other direction.

It's becoming increasingly hard to justify using a dynamically typed language these days.

<comment><USER12> There are far more compelling advantages to dynamic typing than fewer keystrokes.

Static type checking attempts to use compile time information to make claims about the runtime behavior of a program. This technique obviously fails to the extent that the runtime environment diverges from the compile time environment. Dynamic type checking, on the other hand, has no such limitation: it has perfect fidelity to the runtime environment because it occurs within that runtime environment. Even if the runtime environment itself changes at runtime!

Here's a concrete example. You compile a Haskell program that dynamically links a package. You then install a newer version of the package, which has an incompatible API change. Your program, which reported no type errors, now has a type error (a static typist may not agree this is a type error, but a dynamic typist would assert it is). And if your program starts at all, it will likely fall over and die, because GHC's codegen is brittle against such changes.

Fortunately, we do not suffer this fate on platforms like OS X or iOS, where binaries routinely run on multiple prior and future releases of the OS, with their accompanying shared libraries, while taking advantage of newer features whenever available. ObjC's dynamic typing is a big help here: it's simple to express "call this method, if it exists." And if you call a method that does not exist, you get a readable exception instead of being sent wildly through a random slot in a vtable.

(And oh yeah, having a stable ABI helps too.)

So this is one of the big strengths of dynamic typing: it works even if you don't know where exactly your program will run.

<comment><USER11> Sorry but claiming that executables written in a dynamically typed languages are resistant to invalid dynamic linking is not just bizarre, it's nonsense.

Either the code you are writing is 100% in the dynamically typed language and it couldn't care less about dynamic linking, or it's invoking functions in a dynamically linked library through an FFI, and it will fail like any other language.

<comment><USER12> What constitutes "invalid dynamic linking" is ABI and therefore language (and toolset) dependent. In C++, adding or removing a variable or virtual function from a class is an incompatible change: it will break binary compatibility with subclasses. In Haskell, adding a new entry to an algebraic data type also breaks binary compatibility. But in dynamically typed languages, these changes are usually benign.

The binary brittleness of C++ and Haskell is not a direct consequence of their lack of dynamic typing, but it is a consequence of the underlying assumption: that the compile time environment fully describes the runtime environment, and so no provisions need be made for their divergence.

I don't understand your second paragraph. Maybe you think that code written in dynamically typed languages cannot be compiled into shared objects? I work on a large Objective-C dynamic library, which is compiled to machine code and loaded by the dynamic linker, just like a C library. The dynamic aspects of ObjC pay us big dividends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For me, the strongest overlooked argument for strong static type systems (like Haskell's) is security. With them, you can make the compiler prove that your code is free of certain commonly exploited classes of security problems (e.g., XSS and other injections).

Without them, you're on your own. And, for almost all values of _you_ , that means you are pretty much guaranteed to have serious holes in your software. It's not like you can _test_ these holes away. If you don't realize that you need to escape string _X_ into the language of string _Y_ before combining _X_ with _Y_ , do you think you're going to know to write the test that checks for whether you failed to escape _X_?

EDIT: minor tweak for clarity.

<comment><USER14> Maybe Haskell is the exception but I find it hard to believe that a compiler can do that for you, IMO, the __only __way to have a decent shot at being safe from XSS is to sanitize your inputs with a whitelist.

<comment><USER15> The compiler _alone_ cannot do this, but the compiler combined with judicious use of the type system can. This is really the big value-add of Haskell/ML- style type systems; you can fit so many useful constraints into the type system that you can enlist the compiler into proving that you haven't made various common mistakes. If you can formalize an application logic error into a type error, you can use the compiler to enforce a wide variety of application logic error checking at compile time.

A simple example: suppose that every web form input is mapped into an "UnsafeUserInput rawtype" (that is, an algebraic data type parametrized over the raw input type). By simply ensuring that your output code only works on "SanitizedUserInput" types, you enforce that at some point in the code you apply a sanitization function to any unsafe input. Now the compiler is working for you, checking that your overall data flow respects the constraints you've encoded into the type system. In this style of programming, the type system becomes a way of encoding your desired integrity constraints inline with the functions and data types rather than outside the application logic in test suites.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The author again falls into the strong vs. weak, and static vs. dynamic trap without a _solid_ understanding of the terminology. As per usual the widespread misuse of the terms has made them useless. It is worth reading from a more rigorous source, such as Luca Cardelli: <http://lucacardelli.name/Papers/OnUnderstanding.A4.pdf>. Or ignoring them as Benjamin Pierce says, "I spent a few weeks... trying to sort out the terminology of "strongly typed," "statically typed," "safe," etc., and found it amazingly difficult.... The usage of these terms is so various as to render them almost useless.".

<comment><USER17> Incredibly awesome read. Thanks for sharing this!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I never got that impression from that comic. It's not funny because some people are idiots, it's funny because it's revealing a language barrier. The punchline is about typing discipline wars, not about camp B's fragile ego.

<comment><USER19> Agreed. I remember i read that comic a while ago and i didn't get the impression that the author was trying to mock dynamic typing proponents at all. The interpretation i got from the comic was more on the lines of "as most of the people who know about type category prefer static typing, discussions on that subject tend to be very uninteresting".

And another possible interpretation is that the comic just expresses the author's _preference_ (pun intended) of type category as a topic of discussion and thus finds the "dynamic vs static language" discussions uninteresting (because, let's face it, they are almost never about type category).

My interpretations might be completely biased though, as the first comic from CCC that i read was this one (<http://ro-che.info/ccc/18.html>), which could have caused a personal bias because of the good first impression :)

<comment><USER18> My suspicions only grew when I read the first comment thread on that post. It's a bit disturbing, but the actual slights all seem to be coming from the guy imagining being slighted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is, to me, a really poignant post. I think there's a level of civility that sometimes can be lacking in our daily lives as engineers, and markcc does a good service by writing well about it.

<comment><USER20> The inability to distinguish static/dynamic strong/weak isn't a minor mistake like fluffing up some grammar, it betrays serious ignorance of the subject material.

He's very opinionated and doesn't seem to know the subject material very well. He's just expressing his opinion slightly more loudly and eruditely than others.

I don't see the redeeming value here.

<comment><USER21> I don't think he's confused about the distinction between them. There's one sentence in the beginning where he probably meant "dynamically typed" rather than "weakly typed", but for the rest of his post, his terms are chosen correctly. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt, than dismiss his opinion because of what might just have been a typo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is analogous to saying that customary units aren't better in an absolute sense than metric units, which is obviously true--driving through Jersey, I'm not going to insist that the gas station attendant give me 10 liters of gasoline, because the metric system is "just better." OTOH, it's stupid to encourage people to keep using customary units because "everyone should decide which units are best for themselves."

Getting literal again, if you think static typing is a PITA, you probably haven't used a modern language with type inference. There is really no downside to it anymore.

</comment><comment><USER23> While I think the analysis of the comic is probably correct, both in terms of how it is intended and how it is most frequently read, I think the described relationship (horrible abuse of Venn diagrams notwithstanding) would hold without any negative implication about dynamic typing proponents: most programmers don't know much type theory - those motivated to learn will be those with a preference for static typing.

</comment><comment><USER24> Static Typing: Hurry Up and Compile!

Dynamic Typing: Crap, did I really miss that?

<comment><USER25> Hurry up and compile?

I think a lot of times features of languages are highlighted because they make it easier or faster do write code. And so it should be. But a huge factor in this is IDE support. Those people sticking to their various flavor of the month text editors don't understand this.

Here are some examples of my own work: I used a lot of java, and its annoying that everything needs to be defined and if you change the definition, there is a large amount of work to do. And takes time to compile. This would be terrible except if you use an IDE, for example Eclipse: Eclipse has an iterative compiler - it keeps your entire project compiled at all times. If you change a line of code, the iterative compiler analyzes what must be re- compiled and does that in the background. This is so fast you wont ever notice it. The effect is that there is no compile step, ever. Compiling is a non- issue. Same for strong static typing: The IDE allows one to just write code, like a = "foo" and deal with the consequences later, it will ask you whether you want to define a as a local or instance variable, or if it already exists if you want to change the type to string. Then it makes all necessary adjustments across the entire project. De facto you have the advantages of both strong and weak typing.

The IDE therefore is very effective at eliminating perceived weaknesses of languages, with code generation, inference, refactoring, intention guessing etc.

Another example is Objective-C. I was about to lose my mind with the sheer verbosity and redundancy of this language, then along came AppCode IDE and removed all the problems.

Its like there is a pure programming language out there - Ruby is probably closest - which allows one to express code most succinctly. The most expressive pure language. But all the others can be made to be very close to that with IDE support. Its not a co-incidence - computers can automate all mindless, repeating tasks and if you take all those away from any language what is left is pure logic.

<comment><USER24> Well, we can agree that Java is not in any way expressive; as result, there are few intermediary steps that would slow down the compilation process.

Which is interesting, there are actually 3 issues at play: 1) Dynamic languages: slow runtime cost, but expressive and fun to work with 2) Static (simple) languages: fast compilation, but soul draining 3) Static (complex) languages: slow compilation, but expressive and fun to work with.

Here are examples of 1,2,3: Ruby Java Scala

I'm in the latter camp, thus the hurry up and compile! ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think dynamic typing is better for explorative programming, for getting something working quickly, and then you iterate. Static typing requires a little more upfront design - i.e. understanding what you're doing before you start.

I've thought that present web development is in constant flux, as businesses figure out how to get their data online; frameworks etc are also in flux. And so dynamic typing is beneficial. Then, once we've established the best way to do things, static typing will again become important...

But it could be that development - change - has accelerated, and will only get faster. In which case, whatever gets you to working, to iterating and adapting to change, will be favoured. Which is a pity, because I _like_ static typing.

<comment><USER27> Like the OP you are confusing static with strong and dynamic with weak; static typing has nothing to do with declaring types but with the compiler doing type-checking at compile-time, whereas dynamic only implies this type-checking is done at run-time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> A simple counter-argument:

Why is Smalltalk (an archetypal 'dynamic' language) so darned easy to work with, and (very importantly) _get right_?

Is it coincidence that much research in modern programming languages and concepts is being conducted using Smalltalk-like environments? (Examples: <http://scg.unibe.ch/research/helvetia>, <http://www.viewpointsresearch.org/>)

</comment><comment><USER29> Arguments like this keep getting rehashed purely due to personal bias. There is no universal answer, use the right tool for the job.

</comment><comment><USER30> Don't "throw away" your type information, preserve it in unit tests (which are typically far easier to write in a dynamically typed language).

</comment><comment><USER31> I also know who drew the linked comic: Simon Peyton Jones, the only person on planet Earth who still makes use of the Comic Sans font in 2013.</comment>


21-Year-Old Game Developer Hits Big Time - <AUTHOR> http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/12/12/21-year-old-game-developer-hits-big-time

<comment><USER2> good game - reminds me of Flashback an old Amiga game</comment>


Ask HN: Where have all the netbooks gone? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Tablets ate them up, and quite comprehensively at that.

You can get a new Win8 tablet in a similar spec and post-inflation price range to the old netbooks(Atom CPU, $250-350). Attach a keyboard to that and it's basically the same experience, just a little faster and slimmer.

You can get a cheaper tablet if you opt for Android - or a more expensive small laptop if you get an ultrabook. So the price spectrum is actually covered better than it used to be, just with different categories.</comment>


Virtual worship was already on the rise in India. Then Covid-19 hit - <AUTHOR> https://restofworld.org/2020/hey-bhagwan/ <comment><USER2> In China people have to worship CCP; In India people have to worship RSS;</comment>


Can You Spot the Troll? - <AUTHOR> https://spotthetroll.org/ <comment><USER2> I thought I was good at spotting fake accounts but no, I misclassified two trolls as real.</comment>