Do "sin taxes" work? - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/08/10/do-sin-taxes-work <comment><USER2> From the article: _Sin taxes are blunt policy instruments. People who only have the occasional drink are not taking on any great health risks, yet they are taxed no differently than serious alcoholics._

But surely the alcoholics are taxed way more than people who have an occasional drink because of the sheer volume? If you drink or smoke a lot, the taxes do accumulate into significant amounts annually.

 _Policymakers should still consider implementing sin taxes if they intend to intervene to change individuals' behaviour. But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others._

It might be blunt in the economic sense if the taxed behaviour doesn't exhibit clear external costs but in a social context the scheme works great. Using taxation to discourage behaviour is a better way to collect taxes than taxing everyone.

Taxing goods or behaviour that is deemed harmful both brings in the money and also makes a statement. Further, if alcohol taxes bring in 1% of the state budget it means everyone's income is that much lower because of taxing alcohol.

"Sin taxes" are also economically unpredictable because when the collected amounts begin to drop the tax is working as intended. But socially this is exactly why they were used in the first place.

<comment><USER3> _But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others_

Unless you have a functional health care system, in which case increased costs are passed on to everyone's taxes. It would be appropriate to dedicate revenues from tobacco and alcohol taxes to medical care.

Sin taxes are taxes that fall only on the users of the products or services in question, and rarely have knock-on effects like fuel taxes (which then raise the cost of transporting everything else, but promote more efficient transportation).

Adding recycling deposits, for example, vastly increases the rate of recycling, reduces litter, provides a minor source of income for the homeless, and provides a very small tax revenue.

<comment><USER4> Smokers cost the health care system less because they die younger: [https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678)

<comment><USER5> They cost more money per year to keep alive while they're dying, and they contribute less to the economy (because they die early). The indirect costs of their mortality are far greater than the direct savings.

<comment><USER6> Why would they cost more per year when dying? Lung cancer can be pretty swift versus other diseases like Alzheimer's.

<comment><USER7> Speaking from europe where healthcare is basically free.

Medical care for these patients is extremely expensive. Each surgery costs around 50 to 60 thousand euro and it's not uncommon to get 2 or 3 of those before dying. Add to that the frequent visits to the doctor's office, the oxygen tanks if needed, the medications, etc. The other option would be to just "let them die" but that's not what we decided to do as a society.

The trend is that we are now able to keep them alive slightly longer, ( at a higher cost) and that they start developing symptoms slightly later thus reducing the potential "benefit" for society.

<comment><USER6> Alzheimer's can mean providing 24/7 care for a decade.

Not sure it's cheaper than lung cancer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "smokers tend to die earlier, meaning that they probably save governments money since they draw less from state pensions."

Wow, that's some furious hand-waving assumption if I've ever seen any. Smokers die of cancer, which costs a boatload, and smoking removes people prematurely from the workforce.

Took less than two seconds to find well studied contrary evidence:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502793/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502793/)

[https://web.stanford.edu/group/sjph/cgi-bin/sjphsite/the- eco...](https://web.stanford.edu/group/sjph/cgi-bin/sjphsite/the-economic- burden-of-smoking/)

It appears that the idea that early death is a net economic positive is actually smoking industry propaganda: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120774/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120774/)

<comment><USER9> > "smokers tend to die earlier, meaning that they probably save governments > money since they draw less from state pensions."

OK, let's call the above sentence "the claim". Looking at the nine "Main Results" of your first link, the authors do not directly address the claim, they just choose to focus on something different (all emphasis mine):

> We conclude that the direct costs and externalities to society of smoking > far outweigh any benefits that might be accruable _at least when considered > from the perspective of socially desirable outcomes_ (ie, in terms of a > healthy population and a productive workforce)...

> Apart from the income benefits of tobacco smoking, another source of > benefit, especially to the government, of smoking is the _substantial cost > savings in pension payments from premature death of smokers_. This is a > highly debated issue in the literature, because it is premised on the > thinking that a shorter life expectancy implies a reduced expenditure on > pensions. Thus, _attempts to promote this will be deemed socially > undesirable and hence cannot be incorporated into social policy design_.

Note that they don't give a figure for the total savings on pensions, which suggests to me that they know it's very large. They only number they give is

> Manning et al. have estimated that every pack of cigarettes smoked reduces > the life expectancy by 137 minutes and pension costs by $1.82.

If we go to Manning et al, we find

> Although nonsmokers subsidize smokers' medical care and group life > insurance, smokers subsidize nonsmokers' pensions and nursing home payments. > On balance, _smokers probably pay their way at the current level of excise > taxes on cigarettes_...In contrast, drinkers do not pay their way...

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2918654](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2918654)

Your second link does not address the claim. And your last link doesn't attempt to rebut the industry-funded results they discuss.

I have no idea what the right way to think about this topic is, but you've hardly given a definitive answer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Of course, as far as governments are concerned whether such taxes reduce "sinful" activities is irrelevant, so long as they increase tax revenue and allow politicians a way to improve their public images.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Before the federal income tax was instituted, the alcohol tax was the U.S. government's single largest source of tax revenue.

The imposition of a federal income tax was the single most necessary goal for prohibitionists to push for the constitutional amendment for alcohol prohibition.

It's also worth mentioning that during the time that the federal alcohol tax was active (created under the Lincoln Administration to help pay for the Civil War), Americans drank twice per capita the amount we drink today, so it didn't even dissuade drinking all that much.

Americans were ferociously drunk in the 19th and early 20th century. Some historians argue that prohibition ended the era of the largely men-only saloons, and when women and men drank together in speakeasies, men tended to drink less, thus reducing overall alcohol consumption in the post-prohibition era.

<comment><USER11> Not saying you are totally wrong but the federal income tax has been already existing for decades at this time and the max and min rates actually went down during the prohibition era (per wikipedia). It only went up in 1932 a year before its repeal following the start of the Great depression. If it was a goal of the prohibitionists to hike up that tax it was largely unsuccessful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I feel the article was really complaining about the tax being inefficient than ineffective. The article answers with: yes, they are effective but inefficient because it's a blunt policy that impacts everyone including people that occasionally travel and drink alcohol.

Often, economic policies don't take into consideration the complexity in a patchwork approach in implementation. Yes, it's more efficient result wise, but it carries over a lot of overhead. An across the board implementation is easier to carry out.

<comment><USER13> And the claim of low efficiency also seemed to lack some numbers. While an alcohol tax certain hits the occasional drinker, it hits the alcoholic far harder because the alcoholic buys and consumers far more alcohol.

That's said, probably still an inefficient and blunt instrument. And yeah, it carries a lot of overhead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> _But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others._

Erm... really?

"Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin' says Prof David Nutt" [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210)] based on his research available here: [http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News%20stories/dnutt- lance...](http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News%20stories/dnutt- lancet-011110.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER15> My problem with sin taxes is they're usually sponsored by a corporate entity. Eg: in Seattle the sugar tax doesn't apply to Starbucks hilariously.

<comment><USER16> > Seattle the sugar tax doesn't apply to Starbucks hilariously.

Wow, to exclude an organization which sells 1000+ cal. drinks (vast majority/all from sugars) to millions of people a day, is hilarious indeed. And sad.

<comment><USER17> It's milk-based drinks that are excluded, not Starbucks specifically. So it doesn't apply to things like chocolate milk, milkshakes, or milkshakes with a small amount of coffee in them.

<comment><USER15> What's so better about a drink with milk with tons of sugar than a drink without milk with tons of sugar? The drink without milk probably has fewer calories.

This is just an example of a corporation buying out a local government.

<comment><USER18> > This is just an example of a corporation buying out a local government.

I gotta question whether it's realistic to say that Starbucks bought out local government with it's infinite resources but McDonalds couldn't afford to?

I'd love to see the actual/official reasoning behind the exclusion though

<comment><USER16> Starbucks was born/raised in Seattle.. so maybe that affiliation won them a free pass?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's bizarre reading comments on this from people in countries where these taxes do little or nothing to rectify the issue that's being taxed in the first place.

The UK is far from perfect but at least revenue raised from smoking is invested into both preventative care (ie cessation programmes) and actual treatment.

Arguments that the tax should be even higher, or substances banned, obviously come from people who have no understanding of how black markets work. Vast networks of tobacco smuggling already exist. You have to pick a balance.

</comment><comment><USER20> What has always bothered me about "sin taxes" is that it's been a way to divide and conquer the populace.

Most of the people in my city and state I've called home for a couple decades have been vocal about and voted consistently to not enact new taxes and higher taxes, even when people say "its for the children" (eg we need money for schools, need to raise property taxes)

However politicians can cut that group being vocal into pieces by coming out with alternatives like liqour taxes.

We recently enacted a new stripper tax, adding to the door fees of establishments that provide "adult entertainment".

People can debate if it's trying to reduce consumption for public health and all that, they say the money it going towards trafficking victims. I had never known there was a shortage of money there.

I don't think there is a shortage of money there, in fact our state has had a surplus of money for some time. But it makes for a nice boogey man to drum up emotions and try to make someone look like a golden knight fighting for what's right.

Sadly, the extra few bucks you take from someone at the door of these places is just reducing the discretionary spending of the patrons and therefor most likely just taking money away from the strippers (those extra few dollars would of likely ended up as tips on the stage).

Of course who is going to stand up and be vocal about not extra taxing strippers, or those self medicating with nicotine or alcohol? NOt enough of a crowd, they are easily divided and conquered.

It's often the minority that bears the burden of things like this from what I have seen, and not enough of the majority thinks about it.

Let the tourists suffer the outrageous hotel tax, let the gamblers pay for the colleges, the drinkers pay for whatever.

Divide and conquer. It's minority bashing usually.

</comment><comment><USER21> Pollution should be taxed as well.

<comment><USER22> Taxing pollution would be very easy to implement by taxing oil and coal extraction and would help realign ecology and economy but it's not going to happen in the current political climate.

<comment><USER21> The way to make it palatable is to couple it with equivalent tax cuts, to make it revenue neutral.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> >Some policymakers argue that people who engage in unhealthy habits also impose negative externalities, since they tend to present taxpayers with bigger medical bills. _In practice, however, these costs tend to be overstated._

citation needed.

</comment><comment><USER24> "Sin taxes" misses most of the problem of the availability in the first place.

In lax states I end up paying half (i.e. $25 for a $50 bottle).

That substantial difference is not taxes alone. I'd guess 15% is due to blocking private stores from entering the market.

So I would rather pay higher taxes if my total cost for liquor goes down, if that makes any sense.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm okay with "sin" taxes if the taxes goes directly to fixing the problem. Like the additional taxes for Tobacco goes to finance former smokers diseases; or that of sugar to fight obesity.

It's like "Here you pay medication/trouble while you consume".

</comment><comment><USER26> In the UK, to avoid the sugar levy, soft drinks manufacturers have added sweeteners to their recipes to reduce the sugar content. Lose-lose for all of us – wouldn't mind paying more for sugary drinks but instead we get the yuckier sweetener versions.

</comment><comment><USER27> Sounds like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_as_you_throw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_as_you_throw)

</comment><comment><USER28> The article states that Tobacco have to be treated differently because it's addictive, why sugar is different ? It's addictive too.

<comment><USER29> No, sugar is not physically addictive, unlike nicotine. There is a clear difference. Now, sure, people with certain mental or psychological issues can become addicted to sugar, but the same could be said about pretty much anything, its not the sugar that is the problem.

<comment><USER28> I was thinking about a study I read 2 or 3 years ago about rodent, sugar and cocaine.

But it seems that it's controversial.

My mistake.

[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/25/is-sugar- rea...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/25/is-sugar-really-as- addictive-as-cocaine-scientists-row-over-effect-on-body-and-brain)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I prefer sin taxes to income taxes. I'd rather be taxed for vice (gambling, prostitution, smoking, what-have-you (not that I do any of those things)) then virtue (getting up and working hard to earn a living and be a positive, value- added member of society).

</comment><comment><USER31> Hey! How did they get a photo of my belly?

</comment><comment><USER32> Clearly it works really well for politicians.

</comment><comment><USER33> TLDR: yes, they do (to some extent).

<comment><USER34> Particularly if they're not so high as to effect a "ban", the effect is a ban on people less affluent than some mark making "sinful" purchases in a particular jurisdiction. Sin taxes are particularly regressive, since they tend to be higher than typical sales taxes (which are already regressive in some sense).

<comment><USER35> If policy makers are concerned about potential regressive effects, they could take the revenue earned and apply it towards helping the poor. One "easy" method is lowering the bottom tax bracket - in the US they could cut the explicitly regressive payroll tax.

<comment><USER36> Social security (the large majority of the payroll tax) is highly progressive when paid out and then taxed.

<comment><USER35> This isn't a critique of social security payouts -- other than political expediency, there is no particular need to couple the payments with the current payroll tax source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> CTRL+F "regressive"

0 Results

 _closes tab in disgust_

</comment><comment><USER38> sure they do, if you are ok with the government making decisions about you and your life FOR you.

<comment><USER39> "The government" is people. Are you arguing that society, collectively, should not establish a system of rules that reflects their social norms?

<comment><USER40> It may take quite a bit for people's decision to trickle up to the government...if it ever reaches there. They vote on 12000 things a year (made up the number, OK) and very few issues are so important to warrant not voting them /rising up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Modern sin taxes tend to be about maximizing tax revenue and not reducing harmful acts. When sin taxes are enacted, they tend to be relatively reasonable. I've heard as high as 20% for marijuana legislation, however I can promise you that 20-30 years after legalization, that tax will have crept slowly, higher and higher.</comment>


Millennials are killing chains like Buffalo Wild Wings and Applebee's - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-endanger-casual-dining-restaurants-2017-5 <comment><USER2> Millennials are simultaneously not buying houses because we spend too much eating out ([http://time.com/money/4778942/avocados-millennials-home- buyi...](http://time.com/money/4778942/avocados-millennials-home-buying/)) and killing off chains by not eating out enough. At some point businesses need to stop blaming everything on the "millennials" bogeyman and accept responsibility for not adapting to modern trends.

Fundamentally, I can get a far better meal by any metric - price, quality of food, flavor, often more than one of the above - pretty much anywhere other than casual dining chains like Applebees/Buffalo Wild Wings. If I'm going to dedicate the time and money to sitting down and going out, I'd like something better than two microwaved steaks and a platter of mozzarella sticks for $25.

<comment><USER3> The other thing the article ignores is that chains like Applebees have been getting worse over time. My family used to go to the local Applebees all the time in the late 1990s. In 2000, they had a major menu change. The food became much worse, and we stopped going there.

<comment><USER4> Yep. Our Applebees put in self-serve payment stations recently and the level of service went down precipitously. Servers know the computer will force 20% tip on the diner regardless of the quality of service. People are too lazy to reduce the tip appropriately.

<comment><USER5> I don't think that it's laziness that makes people not reduce the tip. I think that, somehow, when there is a default that becomes a kind of anchor and going below that is seen as ruder than it would have been if the customer was able to choose their own tip% independent of a suggestion.

At least that's kind of how I feel when I take a cab in NYC where the default tip% buttons on the credit card machines are 20/25/30.

<comment><USER6> Tip anchoring really makes me angry. It's manipulative.

<comment><USER7> If you look at tips as a cost sharing mechanism that allows the restaurant to push some of its personnel costs onto customers, it's irrational to be angry about this, just like it would be irrational to be upset about a 10% increase on the menu prices. If the food isn't worth it (spoiler: it isn't), eat elsewhere.

<comment><USER5> Further, to the degree that tip anchoring reduces tipping variance, the anchoring should actually make the system work better overall.

<comment><USER8> > Further, to the degree that tip anchoring reduces tipping variance.

Does it do that at all? I would suspect that it increases the mean but also the variance.

<comment><USER5> That's a good question. My intuition is that it would decrease the variance as people would be drawn towards the anchor. But I could be wrong. We'd need empirical data to know. There is public data available on credit card purchases in NYC cabs. That will just give you the data for payments with the anchor though, not the cash payments made without it.

<comment><USER8> > My intuition is that it would decrease the variance as people would be drawn > towards the anchor.

If it's anchor vs. no norm, sure. But anchoring is trying to move a pre- existing social norm as to tipping rates, so its an additional competing standard to which some but not all people will be drawn from whatever their prior basis was, not a standard introduced where none existed before.

<comment><USER5> Ya, that makes sense. Could go either way. Def one of those "not gonna know without looking at the data" situations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Let's read between the lines, as these articles rarely do.

> "Millennial consumers are more attracted than their elders to cooking at > home..."

Almost as if this generation, having less to spend, has learned to enjoy cheaper options.

> "...ordering delivery from restaurants and eating quickly, in fast-casual or > quick-serve restaurants...Customers often spend less when ordering > delivery..."

Supporting the argument that they're poorer on average, with a dash of having less free time. I wonder how much this behavior intersects with having to work multiple jobs?

Combined with sub-par food from these establishments, it's no wonder they're having problems.

</comment><comment><USER10> Speaking as a Gen-Xer, I'm always amused by these news articles accusing Millenials of killing one thing or another simply through non-participation. I guess back in my day I was responsible for killing country clubs and small- town bowling alleys. Go figure!

<comment><USER11> I also appreciate the language of articles like this one and the one about malls that BI published awhile back. Wherein it's implied heavily that there is some moral imperative to support MNCs and millennials should be ashamed for abstaining from it.

<comment><USER10> _millennials should be ashamed for abstaining from it_

I know - such selfishness! Think of the shareholders!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This probably also has something to do with the ability to get on-demand restaurant ratings for virtually any establishment. It used to be that the only way to know you'd get a decent meal was to visit a large brand name, and that's simply not the case anymore. Now the great restaurants have similarly great reviews and that's where people choose to go, regardless of whether they'd heard of it before.

<comment><USER13> I just wanted to highlight this comment. The rating review systems are becoming a trusted source of information more so than advertisements.

Reminds me of another comment on here that talked about how so much of tech is solving communication problems. In this case the communication of past human experiences to a current restaraunt goer.

<comment><USER14> > The rating review systems are becoming a trusted source of information more > so than advertisements.

And this is also precisely why I don't have any moral reservations blocking ads. Ads are being obsoleted as a source of information so that it's increasingly hard to justify why we would need any of them to fulfil our needs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The entire article misses the point.

All of the chains like Buffalo Wild Wings and Applebee's serve absolutely horrible food, with horrible service, with no redeeming qualities anywhere in the experience.

And then do so at an abusively high price.

 _Fuck them_ , and they deserve to go under.

<comment><USER16> Sure the food and service are horrible, but on the other hand, the tables are sticky and the floor is filthy with scraps of food.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Adapt or die, if you can't figure out what your customers want then you deserve to go out of business. I've never seen a company become successful by blaming their customers for their problems. Take a deep breath figure out what your flaws are and you can fix them.

</comment><comment><USER18> It could also be that the chains aren't know for good food. When pressed with Spending money on Dinner, It's more often a local small restaurant that I go to vs. a chain. I think the excessive use of microwave cooking is what turned me off. I do however see the value in more casual dine and go restaurants. I'd rather order the food I want and get out with exception of _date night_.

<comment><USER19> I think it's more the atmosphere than the food.

I like Buffalo Wild Wings food (well, the wings at least), but everytime I go there it's this gymnasium-sized open restaurant with awful music playing... There's a bar, but it's not what I want a bar to be. There are booths, but they offer no privacy.

It's just a place to get wings, which is fine, but for what I spend going to bdubs I can go to any number of other places with equally good or better food, which also have a better atmosphere.

<comment><USER20> My thing with BW3's is that watching sports at a sports bar kinda sucks. You can't hear the commentating and you can't really hear your friends either.

We'll still order takeout on occasion but if we're gonna sit down to eat there's no reason to eat at BW3's. Applebee's, Friday's , and Ruby Tuesday's just aren't good enough for the money you spend. I'd rather eat somewhere local with a more interesting and well executed menu for the money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I also feel like the food at these places has gotten worse over the past five or ten years plus smaller portions.

I feel like ten years ago more of the food was cooked on premises but now it seems like almost everything is frozen and microwaved.

<comment><USER22> Yep and places like BWW completely changed their menu structure for the worse. These places sunk themselves.

<comment><USER23> Within the last 5 years, BWW removed honey mustard from the selection of sauces available for wings, and they replaced it with "bourbon honey mustard," which absolutely tastes like ass. Whenever that was, that's when they lost this millennial's business. I complained to my server but they said the decision came down from corporate and there was nothing they could do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Meh. The restaurant business is always in constant churn, and it's almost as trendy as fashion. This week "casual dining" is out; next week it'll be back in and the analysts will have some plausible-sounding explanation.

<comment><USER25> Most likely it will be millennial focused.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The article hints at this but I think the rise of fast-casual is more responsible. Why pay 20% more just to have someone bring your food to you? The value just isn't there to justify it.

</comment><comment><USER27> Buffalo Wild Wings is awful. I can barely have a conversation with anyone because everyone's attention is constantly being grabbed by 50 big screen tvs blaring sound and loud music. Not to mention the food is not good and the tables are always sticky.

I also wonder if there is evidence that millenials are more health conscious and see these places as unhealthy?

<comment><USER16> Wait, the tables are sticky even AFTER they're wiped down with that filthy damp rag??

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Seriously, I would go to Applebee's if they had a better selection of gluten free options. My wife has celiac and the entire family doesn't go there to eat if they can't properly serve her.

Right now, they bring out some giant chart and you have to decipher it while cross referencing the menu. It takes longer, lowers your confidence that they know what they are doing and is embarrassing for the person having to dig through it all. Somebody at Applebee's needs to take a trip to Outback and ask for a gluten free menu.

Bottom line: if somebody in the group will have to worry about their meal, the restaurant is off the list.

<comment> mark-r It surprises me that more restaurants haven't figured out that gluten-free is a big trend. Certainly the grocery stores have noticed. The chances that one member of your group will have issues are high enough to affect sales.

<comment><USER6> I think because it is exactly that, a trend, and not a very strong one. It's unpredictable and no one is sure when it's going to collapse, but there might be the sentiment that it is going to collapse and I don't want to get sucked down with it

<comment><USER28> I realize that some people have picked it up as trendy, but for many it's a medical necessity and not an optional choice.

Vegan is a trend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Millennials are not making as much as other generations, and at the same time they are spending outside their means. They spend money on travels, eating out at hipster places, bars and electronics such as upgrading their iphone every year. Chains like Buffalo are not exciting, they cater to Moms and Dads because they are not organic, fusion or Instagramable.

<comment><USER30> A lot of my millenial friends are mothers and fathers...

Anyway. We avoid Applebee's and Buffalo Wild Wings. The food is terrible. Even if it was mediocre, it's overpriced. There are better restaurants _at the same price_ , or lower.

> and at the same time they are spending outside their means

It amuses me to no end that we millenials are simultaneously criticized for not spending enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Um, YAY!. Nothing is worse than some real estate baron dropping a couple mil and building some zombie chain restaurant. They know nothing about food and care only about squeezing profits out of the locals.

Nobody local every opens a chain and so they don't care about the community or food quality.

I try very hard to stick to locally owned restaurants but sometimes they're few and far between - especially in a college town like I live.

</comment><comment><USER31> As someone who has been around a little while, I've noticed that your typical casual-dining chain has a lifecycle that usually ends with bankruptcy. Their staying power depends mostly on their quality (both food and dining experience) and somewhat on their trendiness.

Lower-tier restaurants, e.g. McD's or even Domino's, probably have some immunity to this problem because the expectations are rather low.

As far as pizza goes, I've been known to eat the frozen stuff, so the big delivery chains are a huge step up.

I have also noticed when dining at more ethnic places (in my case, Viet pho), younger people are more common there.

Ditto for tapas - which some people my age don't seem to like because the portions are small.

So if millenials are to blame - to echo the sentiments of another commentor - for the de-mediocritization of American dining, then I will die a little happier.

</comment><comment><USER32> I am over 40 and I normally patronize eateries in NYC or cook at home.

Recently after years, I went to TGI Fridays. I was amused at how bad the food was in quality and nutritive value [1]. It was hard to find anything healthy to eat. Until a decade ago, going to TGIF or Applebees defined dining out, or chilling after work, in most of the US.

The food, once cautiously chosen for pain avoidance, costed $35 for two. I won't know enough to comment how America at large treats these chains, or even if they have the same cultural relevance they had in the 1990s, but I for one see their whimsical demise.

1\. [https://www.tgifridays.com/pdf/nutrition.pdf](https://www.tgifridays.com/pdf/nutrition.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER33> I wonder how much Netflix has affected restaurant sales. Given the choice between an expensive Sysco bag-o-food and my own cooking + superior bevs + catching up on shows, I know what I usually choose. It's a shame, because it's not just chain restaurants that serve crap, many mom-and-pop places do too for economic (or labor quality) reasons -- and their success is not strictly tied to the quality of the food.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think it's also possible that millennial's are realizing and recognizing the awful system that these chain restaurants perpetuate with servers making low wages, tipping, bad food, and high prices. Whereas my parents generation have always seen these as nice occasional dinners out, millennials see them as perpetuating a disadvantaged system.

</comment><comment><USER34> Won't somebody think of terrible corporate strip-mall sprawl America?

</comment><comment><USER35> The Riblet is a terrible signature food and deserves to be destroyed.

</comment><comment><USER36> So are my parents.</comment>


Grasping the essence of life: men help ex-offenders embrace positive masculinity - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/grasping-essence-life-men-helping-ex-offenders-embrace-positive/?utm_content=buffer7645e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER2> Key highlight:

"Of the 54 men who have graduated from the six programmes run to date, there has been an 80pc drop in offending rates, and as many as 80pc of them have found employment or gone into further education."</comment>


Future Investment Bankers vs Builders - <AUTHOR> http://daltoncaldwell.tumblr.com/post/12708481139/fibs-vs-builders

<comment><USER2> To get the conversation going: [http://www.quora.com/How-can-the-job-of-M-A- dealmakers-be-au...](http://www.quora.com/How-can-the-job-of-M-A-dealmakers- be-automated-into-obsolescence)</comment>


Interactive Data Visualization of Geospatial Data - <AUTHOR> http://adilmoujahid.com/posts/2016/08/interactive-data-visualization-geospatial-d3-dc-leaflet-python/ <comment><USER2> This is fantastic. I'm planning to build something similar in the coming months.

Only minor nit pick, not the easiest to read on mobile

[http://m.imgur.com/Uloatup.jpg](http://m.imgur.com/Uloatup.jpg)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback! I will fix it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Very cool! Dc.js is a very powerful and quick way to build interactive crossfiltered charts.

At MapD we built our own visualization frontend using Dc.js as a base, except we leverage GPUs on the backend both for SQL and rendering data. The upshot is we can scale to multi-billion row datasets with millisecond response times.

You can see an example with 200M streaming geocoded tweets here - [https://www.mapd.com/demos/tweetmap](https://www.mapd.com/demos/tweetmap).

</comment><comment><USER4> Awesome! The GIF is great but would really love a link to a live demo to play with :)

Didn't know could do heatmap via leaflet - does it respond to crossfilter filtering?</comment>


Golden hat - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hat <comment><USER2> Golden Hat would be a good name for a security researcher that sells his or her findings to the highest bidder.

<comment><USER3> When I saw the title I thought it was some kind of a talent retention scheme, like "golden handcuffs"...

<comment><USER4> Likewise. Maybe a financial incentive to stay in your current role rather than accepting a promotion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Far better than a tin-foil hat ... it's a better conductor [1] and far less prone to tarnishing [2].

[1] [http://www.kp44.org/electric/ElectricalConductivityOfMateria...](http://www.kp44.org/electric/ElectricalConductivityOfMaterials.php)

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

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't call 9% a much better conductor.

[tin foil] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil)

This being HN I get to be a pedant... I'm really bored in work. Sorry.

<comment><USER4> If you're going to be a pedant you need to be an accurate pedant. smoyer didn't say "a much better conductor", just "a better conductor", and as you say yourself, gold _is_ 9% better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When submitting these wikipedia articles, it's a good idea to leave a comment with a little quip about why you found this interesting.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, meant to earlier - I find the calendrical significance fascinating. It's almost a form of proto-writing in some ways (in the sense that it encodes knowledge in a material yet non-illustrative form) but I love the fact that it does so while also being, well, a hat. I also enjoy the potential connections to other Bronze Age oddities like the Trondheim Sun Chariot and the Nebra Sky Disk:

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

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

But if I had to be totally honest, I found this while researching the history of wizard hats and that's what I like the most about it. Granted, there's almost certainly no link there, but it's fun to imagine a scenario whereby Bronze Age proto-druid ceremonial headgear leads to Gandalf's hat.

<comment><USER8> > whereby Bronze Age proto-druid ceremonial headgear leads to Gandalf's hat.

Or, more likely, vice versa, given the end of the Third Age was far before 1000 BC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You mention a golden hat, and people respond with:

        - Tinfoil hat
        - Wizard hat
        - Blackhat/whitehat hackers
        - Red Hat Enterprise Linux

That looks like a nice cross-section of HN readers' typical interests. You could probably make some interesting demographic observations on the basis of this data.

P.S. Am I the only one who immediately thought of the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland?

<comment><USER10> Apple announces iHat; people begin queuing at stores. Reddit tips its e-fedora, which is actually an e-trilby. Maker community angrily notes that the oldest surviving combination stealth television remote and infrared camera-blinder hat is now nearly 20 years old. Popehat.com reminds everyone that it is actually a law blog. Several geeks go off on their own to make their own rabbit fur felt, only better, because they're going to use Haskell instead of C.

Actual milliners gape in astonishment as a SV startup selling nothing but virtual digital hats is acquired for $350 million.

Then the tech industry catches sight of another shiny object.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Reminded me instantly of the Papal Tiaras which there have been several of throughout history.

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

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

There are some truly magnificent ones, the second link has a lot of images linked.

<comment><USER12> "Quick! Death is coming! Put on the golden hat!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This Wikipedia article reads like it's a passage from a Harry Potter fanfic written by an archaeology nerd, describing the Sorting Hat at the wizarding school for rich kids who couldn't get into Hogwarts because they were too pretentious...

</comment><comment><USER14> Designed for Homo Capensis, perhaps?

[http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=1889...](http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=18891)

</comment><comment><USER15> Golden... err, "hats"... yeah right. Looks definitely phallic to me.

<comment><USER16> [http://www.quickmeme.com/img/26/2649625d2abe63c7d66c958aa9c4...](http://www.quickmeme.com/img/26/2649625d2abe63c7d66c958aa9c476dd6cae917da286a25713a7de36fef1ea0c.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "We are from France."

Amusing that one of these was found in France.

</comment><comment><USER18> Was expecting some niche variation on RHEL.

</comment><comment><USER19> The pope needs to step up his hat game.</comment>


Display your current git branch as part of your bash prompt - <AUTHOR> http://gist.github.com/168835

<comment><USER2> Cool! I've practically created my own framework in Bash to hack my prompt but I never thought about sharing it.

My prompt shows the git branch, svn revision, and active virtualenv ("workon" and "deactivate" are virtualenv commands in the screenshot below). Also, mine has COLORS! (Colors within the dynamic function are much harder than they sound)

Here's a quick screenshot: [http://img.skitch.com/20090817-gtp7bgkmdn14j84ryhepa2edke.pn...](http://img.skitch.com/20090817-gtp7bgkmdn14j84ryhepa2edke.png)

You can extend it pretty easily to show whatever you want by doing little more than adding another function. Throw this into ~/.profile if you want to try it: <http://pastebin.com/f79a9af51>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Emmett and I figured this out the other day at the request of one of our other engineers; I thought that some of you might be interested in it.

<comment><USER3> It's better to use a plumbing command for this sort of thing; git- completion.bash ([http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob;f=contrib/comple...](http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob;f=contrib/completion/git- completion.bash;h=5543dc4d14e22b065cbc41ed8af0f695c0464152;hb=HEAD)) has a thorough example. (The actual command called is 'git symbolic-ref HEAD'.)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's definitely a lot more full-featured, but seems like overkill for what I was trying to do.

Had I known about `git symbolic-ref`, I might have used that instead of `git branch`. On the other hand, I would have needed to re-implement lots of what `git branch` does, such as detecting the difference between not being in a git repository and simply not being on a branch.

The interface of `git branch` seems stable enough that I doubt it will break this. If it does, it should take me no longer than 5 minutes to fix, since that's about how long it would take me to re-write the whole thing from scratch.

Is there any particular reason that using `git symbolic-ref` is better than `git branch` in this case, given that I want human-readable output, instead an unambiguous filesystem location?

<comment><USER3> Personally, I'd argue you _do_ want to keep track of whether you are in a repo or not, since including that pipeline in your PS1 always forks three processes on every prompt. And if you're going to do that in your shell, it's good to have separate commands for each task.

For the case of not being on a branch, the output of 'git branch' is not very useful. I am currently using 'git name-rev --name-only HEAD', but the contrib script has an even fancier mechanism (via 'git describe') for coming up with something to display when HEAD isn't a symbolic ref.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> zsh does a much better job (with its right prompts and formatting) <http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2101/zsh1.png> \- this actually shows a git repository imported from svn

<http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/3738/zsh2.png> \- this shows a regular svn repo

This is what you need in your zshrc

# precmd is called just before the prompt is printed function precmd() { title "zsh" "$USER@%m" "%55<…<%~" psvar=() vcs_info [[ -n $vcs_info_msg_0_ ]] && psvar[1]="$vcs_info_msg_0_" }

vcs_info export RPS1="${YELLOW}%1v${NORM}"

</comment><comment><USER5> Isn't this also in a public github guide? [http://github.com/guides/put-your- git-branch-name-in-your-sh...](http://github.com/guides/put-your-git-branch- name-in-your-shell-prompt)

Been using it for a while now. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER6> Funny, I wrote this .bash_profile script (<http://gist.github.com/168286>) just the other day because I wanted... 1) Minimalist colors 2) Stripped down CLEAN prompt 3) For GIT folders it will display the current branch.

It was based on this which I thought was too ugly: [http://www.simplisticcomplexity.com/2008/03/13/show-your- git...](http://www.simplisticcomplexity.com/2008/03/13/show-your-git-branch- name-in-your-prompt/)

Also, if you use git+github+capistrano, I wrote a bash script where you type "tap" and it will add all new files, commit, push to github. If you type "tap /d" it will also cap deploy it to the server and reload in nginx passenger. For small projects I'll push something and then have to make a small change. Now I can just edit the file in textmate and can add-commit-push-deploy with one command.

<http://gist.github.com/168589>

</comment><comment><USER7> I use Ryan Tomayko's git-sh, a "git mode" for Bash that includes the branch in the prompt, and also adds the most common git commands as top-level commands (so you can type "checkout master" instead of "git checkout master"):

<http://github.com/rtomayko/git-sh/tree/master>

</comment><comment><USER8> I reworked this script to show your branch name in green if the branch is clean and red if the branch is dirty. Personal preference but I prefer the visual color distinction denoting branch state.

<http://gist.github.com/120804>

</comment><comment><USER9> I liked this but it really slowed things down. Perhaps because my home folder etc are all on nfs shares?

</comment><comment><USER10> Totally do this; I can't live without it.

Also, display your current branch in mercurial repos: [http://stevelosh.com/blog/entry/2009/3/17/mercurial-bash- pro...](http://stevelosh.com/blog/entry/2009/3/17/mercurial-bash-prompts/)

</comment><comment><USER11> You have not seen git-prompt yet. How about forgetting that there is git- status? See <http://volnitsky.com/project/git-prompt> And it will do svn, hg and a lot of other stuff.

</comment><comment><USER12> Leonid Volnitsky's git-prompt is _the_ best git-enabled Bash script I've found.

<http://github.com/lvv/git-prompt/tree/master>

</comment><comment><USER13> It's by default in msysgit bash.</comment>


Please recommend some data mining / big data books and resources - <AUTHOR>

I've written software which aggregates data from a bunch of different sources, and I would like to improve my knowledge and understanding of data mining techniques. Please recommend some textbooks and resources which you found useful. Thanks! <comment><USER2> We use this book for statistical models and data mining, combined with econometric models (GMM, 2LS)

[http://www.amazon.com/Data-Mining-Practical-Techniques- Manag...](http://www.amazon.com/Data-Mining-Practical-Techniques- Management/dp/0123748569/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369946131&sr=8-1&keywords=data+mining)

</comment><comment><USER3> The book "Elements of Statistical Learning" can be downloaded as a free PDF : <http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~tibs/ElemStatLearn/>

It does not discuss "big data" but offers a statistical perspective on machine learning / "data mining" techniques.

</comment><comment><USER4> There's an excellent free book - Minining Massive Datasets - <http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/mmds.html>

</comment><comment><USER5> Check this website too: <https://www.kaggle.com/> They have data mining, Machine learning competitions(possibly with prizes)

</comment><comment><USER6> Amazon is good.

Liv chat software for Website: <http://www.Live2Support.com></comment>


Ask HN: Someone trademarked the name of my product – should I be worried? - <AUTHOR> Hey fellow makers, I have the following case: I've been running SaaSHub (https://www.saashub.com) since 2014; however, I just noticed that someone had trademarked the term "SaaS Hub". Should I be worried?
I read (on the Internet :)) that if I have been using a top-level domain before a trademark had been filled, they shouldn't be able to claim the domain name. It would be nice if someone with similar experience or just knowledge in this field sheds some light.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> If you don't want to change the name / worried about that, you should talk to a lawyer.

Either way without a lawyer whatever you read on the internet won't necessarily be true if the trademark holder chooses to take action themselves. You can't count on the legal system to make the right choice outright as the the trademark holder may claim a great deal more than what we're thinking here. In short your situation may not be 1:1 with what you read, even if what you read was true.

<comment><USER3> Along these lines, it might just be easier for you to change your site's name and trademark it this time (should have done it the first time). That's probably cheaper than hiring a lawyer or waiting for the other party to sue you.

<comment><AUTHOR> As you can guess, changing the name of an established product would the be a means of last resort.

<comment><USER3> Depends on the number of customers and sunk cost of marketing. I have an LLC and I would rather change the name than hire an expensive lawyer, especially if the outcome is not certain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wouldn't get a lawyer until/if they contact you, and if they do I wouldn't reply until you talk to the lawyer.

I trademarked a name about 7 years ago, it was a long process, and here's a few things that I learned (from a non-lawyer perspective):

1\. Like you, I had a reasonably generic name (SaaS and Hub are two established English words, and they are both commonly used in software and IT services). That was the motivation for trademarking, as the chances are high that others will use similar names purely by chance as opposed to copying.

So I trademarked under a defensive strategy so others couldn't come for me, rather than an offensive strategy of going after others. The point is, come up with a reasonably original name (like Google) that isn't a an English word or a mash of English words, and you probably won't have to worry about trademarking.

2\. To continue on from point 1, and let's say you create an original name, like Covfefe. You're doing business with it, then 2 years later you find out that someone else is trademarking it. The originality of the name should make it a lot easier to be notified when someone enters the process of trademarking. I think there's a 3-6 month process is which anyone else can object to it being trademarked, and if you've been using it and the company attempting to trademark it hasn't, then it will be thrown out.

In a challenge it comes down to who's been using it longer.

3\. Given that somebody has already trademarked the name, and you missed the grace period to object, you could either wait for them to send a cease & decease (maybe that'll never happen if they're defensive like me), or you could change your name.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks mate. That was very helpful. In general, I can prove that I've used the name commercially long before they've trademarked it and I own the ".com" domain name. I hope I won't have to reach out to lawyers though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Aren't the USPTO people supposed to do their research before allowing the trademark? I have a similar situation, a 10+ year old game that someone trademarked last year, even though a simple google search would show not only mine, but also other more recent games using the name.

I think any legal action on behalf of the trademark holder would be dubious as we could sue to invalidate their mark provided we are willing to pay the lawyers.

</comment><comment><USER6> If it matters, you'll need a lawyer. Good luck.</comment>


Gearbox acquires Homeworld - <AUTHOR> http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/community/articles/1029/homeworld-acquisition-and-plans/

<comment><USER2> Oh no.

Looking past the recent Gearbox disaster that was Aliens: Colonial Marines, their last acquired IP was Duke Nukem Forever.

Before that they were dubiously known for creating the first Brothers in Arms game (which was excellent), and subsequently flying that straight into the ground with an endless series of ever-worsening sequels.

If you look at their previous games, they almost all fall somewhere between "mediocre" and "just bad".

The only diamond in their track record is the Borderlands series. I'm not sure how Gearbox lost its reputation for strict mediocrity via Borderlands alone, I'm still very skeptical about their game development prowess - and certainly _very_ skeptical about any claims Randy Pitchford makes about the quality of their games, after his breathless demos of both Duke Forever and Aliens.

Honestly, I'm glad they're repackaging Homeworld/2 for Steam and such, but I'd rather have no Homeworld 3 than let Gearbox helm it.

<comment><USER3> I honestly didn't enjoy Diablo II the FPS with lulz maymays very much. (I'm exaggerating, but doing so to illustrate my beefs with the Borderlands series.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting repercussions for the Teampixel Kickstarter / Indiegogo campaign for "Homeworld Touch" and "Homeworld 3." They were successfully funded but lost the rights auction, and are now legally prevented from delivering on their Kickstarter promises.

[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/teampix/homeworld- touch-...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/teampix/homeworld-touch-ios- android-and-homeworld-3-pc-mac)

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I had thought that was a done deal... clearly not.

<comment><USER6> Who on earth thought the IP could be acquired for $50,000?

<comment><USER7> I don't know how much this sort of thing is worth, but there hasn't been a homeworld game in almost a decade. Obviously THQ didn't think it was worth much (or else not enough to start a game with it or be worth selling before the bankruptcy made it necessary). I can see how someone might make the mistake.

<comment><USER8> A AAA game is an enormous investment, to the point where they could value an IP at millions of dollars and still not value it enough to make a game with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Relic is owned by Sega, which is in crappy relationship with GB because of colonial marines. So the Homeworld team cannot be brought even as consultants. Zero experience in strategy games in GB. I think I will just play Hardware when it comes out.

I love homeworld 1&2 but doubt they will get the XCOM treatment when Gearbox decide to cash on their IP.

Also - expect Ultra Mega DLC season pass and premium DLCs not included in the season pass. And 35 different preorder bonuses.

<comment><USER10> It seems that at least for the moment GB will be repackaging the existing Homeworld games (2, maybe 1) so that they can be purchased over Steam/another platform. There don't seem to be plans for another game yet.

[http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/community/articles/1029/homew...](http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/community/articles/1029/homeworld- acquisition-and-plans)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> After Aliens: Colonial Marines, I really hope they don't spread their teams too thin across too many products...

Borderlands was great, but given they've done almost exclusively first person shooters, I'm definitely concerned for the Homeworld IP.

Edit* Let me rephrase, I'm terrified for the Homeworld IP.

<comment><USER12> All genres are now sub-genres of FPS anyway...

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Anyone looking for a modern Homeworld-esque experience might want to check out StarDrive (currently in beta, available on Steam). It's a 4X RTS which shares some design elements with HW and mixes in some of Civ's colony management and sci-fi themes from EVE Online.

Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with the developers; I simply tried the beta on Steam and found it pretty intriguing.

<comment><USER14> Is it only for Win or is it avail on OSX? Website doesn't seem to indicate.

<comment><USER13> Win-only for now, as far as I know. I'm not sure if there are plans to make it cross-platform, but the dev has been pretty receptive to feedback on the forums.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Homeworld still has a chance. Gearbox are a great developer, I'm glad it was them who decided to purchase the IP not Electronic Arts who would have turned it into a micro-transaction orgy. I have fond memories of the Homeworld franchise, so I hope they don't taint those memories.

With a handful of great games under their belt, I reckon Gearbox can do it. Aside: I am really looking forward to Brothers in Arms: Furious 4 coming out sometime this year hopefully from the guys as well.

<comment> SG- I'm not sure if they're that great, they seem contempt or OK is releasing pretty poor games lately (Duke Nukem Forever and Colonial Marines).

<comment><USER15> Borderlands 2 was pretty good. Duke Nukem Forever to be fair was in development for 14 years prior to Gearboxes involvement, they finished the game, they didn't develop it from the start they merely did what 3D Realms failed to do. Colonial Marines was definitely a crappy game, horrible even. The graphics quality not to mention the number of bugs, lack of Aliens continuity and horrible AI that it had make it one of the worse games Gearbox have ever released.

We'll see what they make of the franchise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Although I think the project that builds on it has been dormant for many years, the original Homeworld's code was released as a part of the Relic Developers Network. I wonder if that license grant is still valid now that ownership has changed hands.

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

[https://github.com/timdetering/HomeworldSDL/blob/master/LICE...](https://github.com/timdetering/HomeworldSDL/blob/master/LICENSE.txt)

EDIT: It looks like there were already serious problems with the license which mean no one can distribute the code [http://homesource.nekomimicon.net/sourceforum/viewtopic.php?...](http://homesource.nekomimicon.net/sourceforum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=377)

</comment><comment> vingt-2 R.I.P Homeworld. We, as gamers, loved you.

</comment><comment><USER17> YES!!!!

I've been a fan of Gearbox since Opposing Force was released. I'm damned excited about this, I hope they handle it well.

Although what happened to Teampixel sucks, I wouldn't be surprised if you see Gearbox have a chat to them to see if they want to come on board... We'll see, anyway!

EDIT: Just as a random thought, imagine Homeworld with Occulus Rift. Floating around the universe like a god...

</comment><comment><USER18> Oh boy, I can't wait for the writing talents at Gearbox to get their hands on the subtle, understated galactic drama of the Homeworld series.

</comment><comment><USER19> I have many fond memories as a kid playing through all three Homeworld games. I'm glad Gearbox plans on revamping both one and two, so I can finally play online [0]! I'll also be looking forward to what they can do with modern graphics engines. HW was an incredibly beautiful game even back in 1999.

[0] We had dial up back then. Those were the days....

</comment><comment><USER20> I have respect for the developers at Gearbox -- I'm looking forward to see what they can make of the venerated IP that is Homeworld.

</comment><comment><USER21> Homeworld <3</comment>


Is Google overreaching by forcing me to use TLS? - <AUTHOR> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/54120/is-google-overreaching-by-forcing-me-to-use-tls

<comment><USER2> I agree with the overall point of the responses that Google isn't in fact evil to be doing this, but I want to disagree somewhat with one point - the idea that Google doesn't have any obligation to respect users wishes just because its a free service that no one is forcing you to use.

The problem with this is that Google's very existence makes it harder for similar services to exist. There are a few reasons for this, including:

1\. Google benefits from economies of scale

2\. Google benefits from having massive amounts of data to crunch through (for example, its hard to build a span filter as good as Gmail's without a training dataset as big as Gmail's)

Its kind of like the argument for the minimum wage - conservatives would say its not needed because you can just choose not to work for a company that isn't offering enough money, but sometimes you don't really have an alternative.

<comment><USER3> The argument has been made that Google's free products and services are anticompetitive dumping which makes it harder for a competing service to survive.

<comment><USER4> The same argument has been made against OSS. Google's products are free like broadcast TV. They are selling access to you via their services to marketers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A comment on the answer perfectly encapsulates this post:

 _Did you just troll security.SE and then reasonably answer your own question?_ – Stephen Touset

<comment><USER6> If you continue on reading you'll find OPs comment below it:

"@StephenTouset -- indeed. That's actually a feature; see Its OK to Ask and Answer Your Own Questions. As [it was] pointed out, the question was prompted by the computerworld article [1]."

[1] - [http://blogs.computerworld.com/privacy/23698/google- customer...](http://blogs.computerworld.com/privacy/23698/google-customers- you-will-use-https)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Best snarky answer from that thread: "Is Google overreaching by forcing you to log in with a password?"

Vaccine analogy answer from stackexchange: It's not just about you, it's about herd immunity. Having everyone have secure communications helps makes others secure as well.

</comment><comment><USER8> I suppose it's nice to have the rationale written out somewhere, but does anyone anywhere actually balk at being required to use HTTPS?

<comment><USER9> I realise I'm going to be in the 0.1% minority on this, but yep, I do. Three reasons.

First, I've been enough places where Internet connectivity is so poor that HTTPS effectively breaks the connection. I used to stay half the week somewhere where the only connectivity was a dire, over-saturated 3G link. I couldn't browse HTTPS sites unless I was very lucky.

Second, I'm uneasy with the implication that "HTTPS=secure", in that it absolves the user of taking any responsibility for their own security. A site can require a HTTPS connection and still store the password in cleartext, for example; so unless you have a unique password, this "secure" site can still screw you. Yeah, I know HN readers understand the difference, but IMX most people dimly understand a binary distinction between "secure site" and "not secure site" and that's it.

Third and related, the corollary of "HTTPS=secure" is that "sites that only use HTTP = insecure". This is leading to a requirement that any guy who builds a website with login functionality needs to implement HTTPS, and that saddens me. The web becomes less democratic, less meritocratic, the more technical hurdles we require.

But, like I say, I realise 99.9% of people disagree with me.

<comment><USER10> > Third and related, the corollary of "HTTPS=secure" is that "sites that only > use HTTP = insecure". This is leading to a requirement that any guy who > builds a website with login functionality needs to implement HTTPS, and that > saddens me.

HTTPS may not be secure, but HTTP (over the public internet, at least) is definitely insecure. If you have login functionality that matters, rather than serving as a very basic deterrent to _accidentally_ getting somewhere you shouldn't be, yes, you need to use HTTPS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Can anyone explain this line from commenter Darren Cook: "Once this enforcement is in place, browsers will simply refuse to connect to Google over an insecure or compromised connection. By shipping this setting in the browser itself, circumvention will become effectively impossible."

Some browsers are open source, and it seems to me that developers can never definitely rely on their behavior. Surely the enforcement depends ultimately not on the browsers but rather on the server refusing non-TLS connection attempts?

<comment><USER12> You can patch the browser to disable HSTS, but if you allow patching the browser to break the security intentionally, then all bets are off I'd say?

 _Surely the enforcement depends ultimately not on the browsers but rather on the server refusing non-TLS connection attempts?_

No, HSTS capable browsers (Firefox and Chrome) will flatly refuse to connect if HSTS is in action. That's the whole idea and the defense against SSLstrip.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Uh, did this guy answer his own post?

<comment><USER14> You're encouraged to do that. I wonder why it seems to upset so many people? (I'm honestly curious, I'm not trying to be snarky)

<comment><USER15> My main objection to it is that since the OP is almost certainly going to accept their own answer before other people can post, there may be other, better answers that arrive late and don't get as much attention.

<comment><USER16> The moderation system largely mitigates that problem.

Also, the SO/SE people have long maintained that Google is their homepage, and from this view it's easy to see why they would encourage people to answer their own questions: so that SO gets the googlejuice instead of some blog.

On the other hand, to the degree that we believe that individual blogs are good, we absolutely should worry about auto-answering.

<comment><USER17> "Google is their homepage"

That's an interesting concept that I'd never even considered. I then realized that I couldn't even remember what the stackoverflow homepage looked like, yet I utilize that website daily.

It doesn't seem to be harming the stackoverflow and associated sites, so I guess it's not a bad thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Google and others[Telecoms] are in positions to collect rents on your PI from third parties and G.O.'s. When they[Google] recently learned that the NSA had tapped their unencrypted fiber lines between data centers, they were pissed.

Not because they give a fraction of a shit about you, but because the NSA was stealing their product.

Now they encrypt everything with [very strong] SSL to force everyone to ask/pay for their info.

<comment><USER19> I don't think we know what the relationship between Google and the NSA actually is. I will say that I operate under the assumption that Google gives the NSA whatever they ask for up to and including access to raw streams of information.

I agree with the decision to require TLS, but I don't know that it does a lot with regard to the NSA, and moreover, I don't trust them anymore not to turn over information in bulk.</comment></comment>


Clojure-Scheme - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/takeoutweight/clojure-scheme <comment><USER2> Interesting, this means you can theoretically run Clojure code on the iPhone:

<http://jlongster.com/legacy/scheme-iphone-apps.html>

<comment><USER3> This is awesome, but what gives me pause is the part where you have to write a foreign function interface for every single Carbon API call. Also, I would assume that Cocoa is completely unavailable when going to C. Is that correct?

I'm very happy to see the multi-platform vision of Clojure becoming closer to reality. I'm not in the "write once, run everywhere" camp. That goal is a bit ridiculous, but the choice of VM and the choice of language should be independent decisions. I like Erlang's VM a lot, but the language itself is not very nice. When writing iPhone code, I don't want to be forced to use Objective C.

<comment><USER4> Every new language/environment has the problem of needing interfaces into the lower-level system. If this takes off, you can expect the people to build the FFIs and share them.

If not, usually it's not too difficult to only wrap the calls that you need. There are also methods for automatically generating FFIs, although that only works with certain APIs.

Cocoa is definitely accessible from C. Objective-C is just a superset of C, so if you compile all the generated C files as Obj-C you can write any Cocoa code you want.

<comment><USER5> I think you have it backwards what subsets and supersede are. The subset (C) by definition does not have everything in the superset (Objective-C), and one of the crucial features missing is Objective-C's object model and message passing. This is not intractable (BridgeSupport and the runtime API should be sufficient), but it will definitely be more work than writing Objective-C directly.

<comment><USER4> That's what I said, Objective-C is a superset of C. C is a subset of Obj-C.

You can simply do this (the actual FFI call might be wrong, it's been a while):

(c-lambda (ptr) void "[___arg1 sendThisMessage:1];")

You can literally code Obj-C straight into it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is my first exposure to gambit scheme. I just compiled this hello world (in scheme, not clojure):

      (define hello-world (lambda () (display "Hello world!") (newline)))

      (hello-world)

And it compiles to 5mb. Is this the standard library? Can I expect to more complicated applications to not balloon up in size?

<comment><USER4> Yes, I assume that's the standard library. It's been a while since I've worked with Gambit but it's typically very fast, small, and portable. I wouldn't expect it to balloon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice idea. I have used Gambit-C over the years when I wanted to use a high level language and be able to produce small and reasonable fast executables.

One thing not mentioned was the memory use: I bet that the compiled to Gambit-c and then to a native executable code uses a tiny fraction of the memory of Clojure running in the JVM. That can be important for some applications.

<comment><USER6> Especially if it gets dead-code elimination like the closure compiler gives ClojureScript for the Clojure->JS target.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is very cool. I like the idea of compiling to scheme.

Although: 1.1 seconds for clojure repl, 0.8 seconds for gsc-compiled version. That's actually less of a difference in speed than I'd expected. Not being very familiar with ClojureScript, is this clojure repl running in the JVM or in V8?

Edit: on that note, it'd be interesting to compare timing after compiling with Stalin.

<comment><USER9> It's not clear if the 1.1 seconds figure is from the Clojure repl or the ClojureScript repl. They're very different.

It says "Clojure" Repl, and in that case it would be running directly on the JVM.

<comment><USER10> I wondered, too, so I ran the benchmark on a clojure repl on the JVM on my desktop, it timed at 1028ms.

<comment><USER11> Unfortunately that doesn't tell us a lot, unless you also do each of the other timings.

<comment><USER10> You're right, that was my plan actually, but I got sidetracked by the cygwin beast, sorry.

I timed the fib(36) function from within a clojurescript repl inside a clojure jvm repl, and it returned in 86 seconds.

Then I timed the generated js function in a Chrome console with a not-so-minor modification so it would compile, it returned in 13 seconds. The modification in question was inlining the generated cljs.core.truth_(predicate) javascript function.

The orders of magnitude don't lie though - for what it's worth, a recursive fibonacci implementation in plain java returns in about 125ms (and depending on jvm warm-up, an array-backed computation is a merry jog of 50 to 300µs, but that's completely off-topic)

I have yet to setup gambit and clone the clojure-scheme project. I'm really curious though, I like these 800ms that the author advertises.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> really cool, but it would be good to see some real benchmarks (ie warm-up time for jvm + correct clojure coding with "recur" etc).

also, i wonder how much of clojure is lost through not being able to call down to java?

<comment><USER5> This is based on ClojureScript, which already doesn't have Java as a runtime dependency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> related (last June)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2713463>

</comment><comment><USER6> Do you lose anything by doing this?

<comment><USER14> ClojureScript doesn't have all of Clojure's reference types (just atom, I think) nor STM (yet?) so yes, you do lose something. I would also guess that while (fib 36) might be faster, you would see different results for more realistic programs. Gambit Scheme's garbage collector might not be as strong as HotSpot, which I gather is quite good for long running apps. ClojureScript also doesn't have runtime eval, so you lose that too.

For command-line programs, this could be pretty rad, as is ClojureScript on V8. It's also just cool :)

<comment><USER15> Also ClojureScript only recently got PersistentVectors; IIUC maps are still copy-on-write.

<comment><USER16> The above comments are accurate: clojure-scheme lacks everything that ClojureScript lacks. And clojure-scheme is a month or two behind ClojureScript, so the new structure sharing persistent vectors haven't been ported over yet.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: babble.ly, revokable URL's for phone numbers - <AUTHOR> http://babble.ly

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://babble.ly/> allows users to generate links for their phone numbers. When the link is clicked, babble.ly connects both parties.

Share the link anywhere, and when you're done with a link, revoke it.</comment>


Ask HN: How to chose a price for your digital product? - <AUTHOR> Hello HN, So the question I want to ask is: If you are selling a product, how do you know how much you'll price it?<p>Thank you :) <comment><USER2> You can't just pluck a price out of thin air. I mean, you could, but it probably wouldn't provide the results you want.

You have to examine a number of things like the type of customer you're going after, the market environment, your name recognition, your runway and many others. Here's a simple framework that might be helpful. [0]

There is no law that you have to (or even should) price similarly to substantially similar products. There are many market inefficiencies that may allow you to charge much more than your supposed competitors. I'm writing a book on that very subject right now. [1]

In the meantime, here's an example of a pricing page teardown that I performed on Safari Books.[2] Looking at the mistakes they made may provide you with some insight into the types of problems that you will want to avoid.

* [0] [https://taprun.com/framework/](https://taprun.com/framework/)

* [1] [http://taprun.com/premium/](http://taprun.com/premium/)

* [2] [https://taprun.com/examples/safari/](https://taprun.com/examples/safari/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your advice and the links, good stuff +1

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Figure out how much your competitors are charging, then decide if you're comparable to them, a value-oriented version of them, or a premium version of them. If you're comparable, you're priced the same as them. If you're value, you're their price minus 10% or so. Premium is +10% or so.

That being said, you need to at least cover the cost of running your servers. Hopefully your competitor's pricing will do that. If not, you either need to charge more or cut the cost of running your servers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The pain your product is solving must have a cost associated, either time or money saved.

Anchor your price based on the value you bring, not 'what it costs to run the service' \+ 20%

Speak to your ideal customers and learn what your service is worth.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, but customers try to reduce the price, you know, pay the minimum always :D</comment></comment>


Project Euler in Nim - <AUTHOR> http://benjam.info/blog/posts/2015-02-15-nim-euler/

<comment><USER2> This is cool! Nim has been catching my interest lately, especially for writing compiled, imperative code, so I'm keen on seeing people trying it out.</comment>


Getting Groovy with It: Get Started with ElectricFlow DSL in 1 Hour - <AUTHOR> http://electric-cloud.com/blog/2016/03/getting-groovy-with-it-get-started-with-electricflow-dsl-in-1-hour/ <comment><USER2> _A day ago, I put this comment on their website but it hasn 't passed moderation, so I'm posting it here:_

"Groovy" is actually known as "Apache Groovy". As a condition of joining the Apache Software Foundation via its incubator 12 months ago, its 5 Project Managers agreed to use the brand "Apache" with "Groovy" in its first mention on any page.

I notice you included a graphic of the Groovy logo, and wonder if you'd been in touch with one of their Project Managers about using Groovy. If so, and they didn't make it clear to you that you should mention "Apache" with "Groovy", then they are breaking their agreement with the Apache Software Foundation.

One of Groovy's Project Managers seems to be regularly doing this behind the scenes, using others such as yourself as proxies in their agenda.</comment>


Berlin startup Blacklane serves more cities and airports worldwide than Uber - <AUTHOR> http://tech.eu/features/4507/blacklane-jens-wohltorf-interview/

<comment><USER2> Which is crazy because the sheer number of viable options in the USA is certainty stacked in Uber's favor. And it's not like they have the issue most companies do when addressing urban sprawl: there is no "not big enough to merit our time" barrier to entry for even the least-trafficked U.S. Airports or cities.

<comment><USER3> Targeting a number of airports is a significantly different problem than targeting an entire city. You certainly have a problem with reaching a critical mass of users/drivers in a less traveled U.S. Airport or City. Fewer drivers in fewer locations means longer wait times and worse service.

<comment><USER4> Blacklane allows any address for pick up and drop-off. It's just the nature of their rides (pre-arranged at least two hours ahead, must commit to exact pick up time) that makes them fit for anything time-critical - airport rides, proms, i.e. anything you would normally use a car service for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > We partner with local, established chauffeur services in each city where we > operate. Thus we don't have any of the conflicts, regulatory mess or slashed > tires which have come to symbolize Uber."

Why can't Uber do this? Don't they, with their black car service? UberX is the "problem child" of Uber, isn't it?

<comment><USER6> Because Uber doesn't believe it has to follow local laws/regulations regarding transportation services.

Have fun blowing that VC money chaps!

<comment><USER4> Before UberX launch they used to be big believers into licensing, etc. But Lyft's growth spooked them into launching UberX [http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/01/uber-opens-up-platform- to-n...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/01/uber-opens-up-platform-to-non-limo- vehicles-with-uber-x-service-will-be-35-less-expensive/) which kinda dragged the entire company into this antagonistic realm.</comment></comment></comment>


(ABCL) - Common Lisp on the JVM - <AUTHOR> http://common-lisp.net/project/armedbear/ <comment><AUTHOR> A bit off topic, check out JScheme <http://norvig.com/jscheme.html> a Scheme implementation for the JVM.

Peter Norving wrote it initially as a way to learn Java in 1998. So he decided he'd write Scheme implementation in Java in couple of hours.(I swear, his Java code still looks better than mine today and he wrote it 11 years ago. :))

I see loads of code in JScheme that could have influenced Clojure to some degree.

</comment><comment><USER2> How is it different from Clojure?

<comment><USER3> It's different in that, being common lisp, it's actually useless. Might be fun to tinker, tho, with its CLOS and stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> Useless how?

It has all the relevant constructs you'd need and more. And it runs on a JVM with access to Java lower level libraries.

Far from useless I'd say.

<comment><USER3> Clojure is two years old and already has more useful software being written in than CL.

CL is a failure, admit it.

<comment><USER4> > already has more useful software being written in than CL.

Like what? Those crippled Java wrappers?

> CL is a failure, admit it.

You are a failure, admit it. Since you are not popular (I don't know who you are), you are useless. (Your broken logic in practice.)

<comment><USER3> Nope it isn't.

I've heard about CL, know a few things about it, and it's a failure nontheless.

Its problem isn't the unpopularity between Blub programmers; its problem is its unpopularity even between geeks. Even language geeks!

<comment><USER4> So, you have "heard", really, I am amazed. You must really know a lot about it.

Repeating your broken popularity based measurement applied to different group of people does not make it any more correct, sorry.

<comment><USER3> Sorry, but for programming language, popularity is everything. It's a social phenomenon, it grows superlinearly with number of users.

And languages become popular and unpopular for a reason.

For common lisp, those reasons are:

It's ancient.

Parties interested in it can't agree on anything so its development is stalled.

It claims to have a huge library which is tiny by 2009 standards, and doesn't have vital things like network i/o or unicode. Yes, implementations support those proprietarely, yet noone cares, because it's not in _standard_ libs.

It has problems with reflection, which is doubly awful for _a lisp_.

CLOS is interesting, but for most uses smalltalkingly simple OO would be much more desirable.

Tool support is neliglible.

<comment><USER4> You clearly haven't used the language on real world project. In CL world, there is enough people interested to develop actively several implementations.

Also, you (as others making opinion on language from blog posts) are for some reason fixated on the idea of stuff in standard library. When it's not in standard, it doesn't exist. Wrong.

You forgot that in CL, library developer has the same freedom as CL implementer. You are welcome to roll your own continuations, embedded compiler or transaction layer in your chosen popular blub for example.

All your reasons are superficial.

The "ancient" argument is not worth commenting.

Unicode has just about every CL already implemented.

Explain your reflection reservations. Heard about <http://common- lisp.net/project/closer> ?

You can emulate single-dispatch of Smalltalk OO in exactly 0% of wrapper code.

And tools, I hardly miss something when tracing, profiling, code completion, live upgrades, image snapshots are either solved by standard, implementation or SLIME.

Also you forgot to write that "LISP is interpreted and slow" once again.

<comment><USER3> "Also you forgot to write that" Okay. You want to argue with yourself not with me, to the point when you start rewriting my claims. So, you go and argue with yourself.

<comment><USER4> We can hardly argue about CL when you know nothing about it.

Your "arguments" seemed like common set of misconceptions about CL, the "LISP is slow" is such a folklore that I thought you forgot to write it, that's all.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


College students spend less and less time studying, leisure time on the rise - <AUTHOR> http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~babcock/LeisureCollege2.pdf

<comment><USER2> I'm currently back in school summer and there is no space left in the library, even on weekends in the summer. This isn't universally true of course, but neither is what is asserted in this paper. It seems part of a larger trend of baby-boomers discovering the joy of complaining about kids these days.

<comment><USER3> Library might be bit more convenient for study, but its not a requirement.

Of course fullness of libraries might discourage some students from studying, which in turn affects the statistics.

<comment><USER2> Definitely true, there is probably studying going on outside. That said, people being in the library still represents a positive indicator of studying, rather than the opposite. My school has a lot of libraries, many of which close early or altogether in the summer. With a small sample you could postulate that the main library is merely absorbing the displaced. Yet during the regular semester it is quite difficult to find seats in every one of them. The best conclusion would be that the libraries heavy use represents years of experience by the administration at providing slightly too few seats for the given student population.

Also, "school summer" in my original comment indicates that my prospects are dim.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find this study rather disturbing. It never even attempts to actually define "study time". There are about 40 instances of the term's use just within the paper and not a single attempt to provide a definition. I'm _guessing_ that it means time studying and work for classes outside of class, but I don't know for sure. A sentence or two to define it would be welcome.

I'm also disappointed that the only statistics presented are averages. Averages are really not useful enough to stand on their own, and it'd be very helpful to know the standard deviation at least. From my own experience (at a selective 4-year liberal arts college, for reference), the amount of work people put in varies immensely depending on the person.

I would have liked to see statistics broken down by class year as well. I spent a lot less time on work my first year here (there was less of it) than I have the past two.

<comment><USER5> An extended version of the same paper: <http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~babcock/College_time_use_NBER.pdf>

While it doesn't have all the information you'd like to see, it does contain a much greater amount of detail and raw statistical information, broken down much further.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The author has a more recent version on his website, with more data: <http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~babcock/LeisureCollege_4.pdf>

I wouldn't jump to conclusions, though. As far as I can see, this isn't peer- reviewed research, and it looks heavily based on few sources.

Some more discussion: [http://permut.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/declining- standards-i...](http://permut.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/declining-standards-in- higher-education/)

(The formatting is also very unprofessional... not that it changes the analysis, but I tend to take it as a lack of attention to detail.)

<comment><USER7> > (The formatting is also very unprofessional.

No, this is what academic papers usually look like when prepared for submission to journals. After review, if the article is accepted and modifications done, the journal staff takes the text and images and prepares a typeset article.

This is all unfortunate since the reviewers and editors have to read the damn stuff looking like this.

Edit: the point of this comment is to say that this is what high-quality work looks like on submission. This work may be good or bad, but you can't tell by the lack of typesetting.

<comment><USER6> It probably depends on your research field. In my main field (part of optics), articles must usually be sent in a specified format. If accepted, the final version is prepared by the authors and published as-is. Journals provide templates, usually for Word and/or LaTeX. Examples: <http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/submit/templates/> <http://spie.org/x5258.xml>

I would at least expect the text to be justified, and no 3D graphs (I'm talking about the general format, not strictly typesetting). Also, an IP address with a long query string isn't a very good reference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A full-time salary with benefits, a 20-hour work week, 12 weeks vacation every summer, a state pension, an office with staff and secretaries outfitted with equipment you didn't pay for, TA's doing the heavy lifting, Santa Barbara's weather, coastline and restaurants, and of course, tenure.

Let me be the first to speak on behalf of all the students and families out there struggling to pay the equivalent purchase price of a brand new BMW 760Li in tuition for a four-year degree while you were actually taking the time to think about, write and publish this tripe:

F __k you and the horse you rode in on.

<comment><USER9> Wow, are we just a tad bitter?

<comment><USER8> This article is disrespectful of what students have to do to get a college education today.

The students they criticize are the same ones pulling the outmoded college cart by paying their tuition with ever increasing amounts of debt. Without those students there would be no salary or study.

Plus, the authors students seem to be doing what they are asked and giving back generally positive ratings. Babcock: <http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=956122> Marks: <http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=493516>

So why do they deserve to have such an ungrateful and cynical article written about them?

If pointing that out makes me bitter then so be it.

<comment><USER9> > This article is disrespectful of what students have to do to get a college > education today.

I completely agree with you on this point. I am quite annoyed with the article.

> So why do they deserve to have such an ungrateful and cynical article > written about them?

No they don't. But, do you really need to reply "fuck you and the horse you rode in on?"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I haven't read the linked paper, but if it's conclusion is correct and students are spending less time studying, then all I can say is "good for them"!

Honestly, it seems like kids are expected to work flat out in school these days, killing themselves to get top grades and doing as much extra curricular stuff as they can schedule. It's as if taking a larger course load and burning out is a badge of honour.

If I went back to school now I would take a light course load in order to better spend my time on my own projects. I wouldn't worry too much about my grades as long as they were "good enough" and I would just try to enjoy myself and keep it fun.

<comment><USER11> I'd probably do the same. Between trying to keep up at 18cr/semester, minimum wage work-study, and part-time jobs either my health or my grades were suffering at any moment. Part of it was my overly eager major (yes aerospace majors normally take 18credits of mindbreaking classes), and naivete as a freshman.

On the other hand, as a family and career man I find I have even less free time than I did in university.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I study %80 less than other students in my university. But does the study they do is really worth it?

They memorize courses by heart to just pass the exams and then forget all about it. They don't even understand the core phenomenas and their aim is to get grades and not to build knowledge.

As a result, I had lot of free time to start a small freelancing business that benefited both me and the society. I also had more time for leisure activities, that I think they really worth it.

-Third-World Citizen, may be things are different in the developed world-

</comment><comment><USER13> I go to a Big 10 school and I can honestly say that I need to spend less than 10 hours a week outside of regular class to make 3.0 or better. Maybe I am just a fast learner and granted my major is Information Sciences and Technology (I should have done Computer Science, or even English and learned web development on the side, but I digress) and isn't at all challenging but college, for me at least, feels like a slightly harder version of high school. I shouldn't be able to to work 20 hours a week at an internship, pledge a fraternity, and do freelance work with a fulltime course load, however I did last semester. I am not looking for a pat on the back because I learn far more on my own anyway I just wanted to say how little challenge these new "IT" majors are. If you are about to enter college and want to do "computer stuff" pick computer science, or even a liberal arts degree and teach yourself because you will have to anyway.

<comment><USER14> The classes make a big difference in study time required. Also, in my experience going for a 4.0 is much more difficult than a 3.0. Last semester I had individual courses take as much outside class time as your entire workload (Mathematics/CS double major). Maybe this is more a failing on my part and I'm inefficient, etc. I will note if my goal in my more time consuming courses was a B instead of an A I'd have been able to probably cut the work-time in half.

<comment><USER13> "The classes make a big difference in study time required"

I personally just take whatever depending on whether or not the class is interesting to me or not, but a lot of students will take courses based on the easiness rating on sites like Rate My Professor. It is entirely possible today with sites such as that to cherry pick an absurdly easy course load.

"Also, in my experience going for a 4.0 is much more difficult than a 3.0"

I completely agree. To get a 3.0 for most majors you simply have to show up to class and tests and complete all of the assignments. Thats it. The problem is that 3.0 is the new average. This isn't how grades should work. Average students should get 2.0 GPAs. I think the average GPA at my school is about 2.9. Obviously, this is from GPA inflation. I agree though that getting a 4.0 is still very difficult and impressive. I just can't motivate myself to try and get one because I don't find my major terribly useful, nor do I think GPA really matters for me. Besides I would have to soak at 5x as many hours into studying...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The author mentions HERI schools which he used as a subset of universities to represent all universities. Furthurmore, the HERI schools were chosen based on which schools allowed him to collect data, or had publicly available data.

This automatically biases his scale towards public universities and colleges. Private universities would be less likely to allow the author to conduct a study on their campus or provide data.

Additionally, schools range in difficulty and "study time." The reason some schools are known as "party schools" and others are known as hard schools are because some require more work than others. I'm sure MIT, CMU, Berkeley and Stanford are much more time consuming that schools like Cal Poly, Penn State, Michigan State, and Texas A&M. With a biased sample, you can't make broad scale assumptions. This paper is just poorly conducted research.

</comment><comment><USER16> They didn't have Google back in the 60's, did they? Maybe those ten hours used to be spent just looking for the damn book you need to study, whereas now you can get it with a quick search. I think that's worth considering.

<comment><USER17> They mention this factor in the article as well as other IT technologies that may be helping students to make a better use of their time.

The authors grant that this may be a factor in the last decade or so, but since the biggest decline observed happened between 1961 and 1981 (in the order or 20 less minutes of study per year), they assume that the bigger trend remains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> _Surveys were administered to 4 large classes of students at a major public university in California._

Hmm... This is out of UCSB. Given it's location [1] I'd sure hope their students were taking ample time for leisure.

[1] <http://is.gd/cZ6WR> (gmap)

<comment><USER17> Don't you people know how to read!!!

The original data for the article is taken from 4 independent surveys, applied nationwide at different times between 1961 to 2003.

Since the _wording_ of the survey may have elicited students in 1961 to over report studying time, compared with their peers in later years, an additional experiment was conducted. A sample of University of California students were taken and each applied one of the 4 surveys at random.

Results show that the wording of the surveys partially (20%) account for the differences in reporting time, but the general trend remains. 20 minutes less study each year, on average.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's somewhat depressing to see this in action as well - but I don't really mind. It's easier for the nerds to stand out from the rest.</comment>


Ask HN: How to learn the art of web design? - <AUTHOR>

	Learning html, css, and programming languages are straight forward. I am asking how to get started on learning how to draw beautiful layouts, shapes, and user interfaces. Thanks in advance. <comment><USER2> Get Photoshop and spend time learning how to use the tools before you try to become an artist. Get your skill set down first.

While you are learning to use the application spend some time surfing the net and looking at the myriad of plugins available for special effects to get some ideas on what you can do with Photoshop.

Use something like SnagIt to grab images of web pages or parts of pics you think look attractive. Import these new pics into Photoshop as a layer and work on recreating a duplicate of the image on a new layer. Basically learn by tracing, then you can delete the SnagIt pic and modify the traced pic to improve it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a fan of Steve Krug's Don't Make Me Think and Ginny Radish's book on web copy. Both are great for web design

</comment><comment><USER4> read a book on design and pay attention to popular design sites like smashing magazine.

Most good designers I know usually have an artistic background. Maybe taking an art class would help too.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tips!</comment>


Ask HN: I'm Being Recruited as a Deployment Strategist by Palantir - <AUTHOR>

I am being recruited to work as a deployment strategist in Palantir (outside of US) - what can I expect in the interview? I'm looking to hear from people who have interviewed/are currently working at palantir<p>Also, what is the typical salary around this position, I have a few references but I'm always looking for more information. <comment><USER2> www.glassdoor.com is your friend here!</comment>