Ask HN: Why are there almost no intermediate-level learning resources? - <AUTHOR> My experience with learning almost any new language / framework / library goes like this:
1. There are plenty of beginner tutorials. Often they just go through the examples from the docs or show a very simple proof of concept. Not very useful if you can read the docs.
2. Then you are left on your own reading through uncommented GitHub repos to understand how to put these things actually into production for use cases that go beyond 'add a todo to this list'.
You almost never find tutorials on how to structure your application, best practices, common mistakes etc.
That's the knowledge that is really helpful though and that I would pay $$$ to learn. Not 'how to create a simple todo app'. Why are there barely any learning resources that target the intermediate level? <comment><USER2> [https://hi.hyperskill.org/](https://hi.hyperskill.org/) ^This might be a good place to learn the intermediate stuff. Python, Java, Kotlin.

More intermediate stuff goes into the data structures and algorithms. [https://sp19.datastructur.es/](https://sp19.datastructur.es/) ^UCB's Josh Hug is a good lecturer, also provides course textbook, hw, side projects.

For best practices, try to get the Head First Design Patterns PDF.

Common mistakes? Search for "Effective <whateverLanguage>" and you should find a PDF for whatever you're looking for.

Also, goalkicker.com has compiled a lot of intermediate stuff from scraping StackOverflow question-answers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for sharing those!

After looking through your suggestions, I think I better understand what I actually meant with 'intermediate-level learning resources'.

I suppose what I am looking for are videos where people walk you through some really advanced open-source applications and explain the application structure and design decisions they have made. That could be relevant for all sorts of tech stacks and combinations.

Basically a video after which you have a good starting ground to build your own application with a similar tech stack. These videos should ideally be made for open-source applications that follow many best practices for the given tech stack.

I think that would be extremely valuable. As of right now, you are stuck reading through random projects on GitHub and often times you don't even feel confident that the way they have approached the problem, is necessarily sane and a good way to go about it.

It would also be a lot more time-efficient if someone explains the application structure and design decisions to you than if you have to figure it out by yourself.

<comment><USER2> In that case, these three people come to mind. [https://onelonecoder.com/](https://onelonecoder.com/) [https://handmadehero.org/](https://handmadehero.org/)

The last dude is TheCherno [https://www.youtube.com/user/TheChernoProject/playlists?app=...](https://www.youtube.com/user/TheChernoProject/playlists?app=desktop)

All three of these folks walk you through intermediate-level projects with commentary on their decisions.

You should also look into conference talks on the tech stack you are interested in. Then look up the speaker/topic for more specific material.

<comment><USER3> Handmade Hero is great. I'm not really into game programming, but I wish such an amazing resource would exist for other areas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One theory of mine is there is far more self promotion in the developer community now than there was when I started. In particular javascript and web development juniors writing blog posts and dev.to articles as a form of self promotion. On the other end of the spectrum are domain experts who make video courses or books on advanced topics. In the intermediate level you have a big gap with not a whole lot of information available.

<comment><USER5> As someone 2 years into a web development career. I get really frustrated by this.

I'll fire up a tutorial on something and 20 minutes into this and I'm all "yeah this does what it says, but it can't be used to do almost anything else..." and I fear the actual person doing the tutorial doesn't know.

Heck I've commented on some Medium blogs where they mention how to do a thing and I'm 100% sure in any real world that code won't do the thing. I post and ask about some aspect of it and the blog author ... doesn't know.

Like outside this one off tutorial and everything working perfectly ... the code is useless.

There's valid reasons to simply code for illustration, but at the same time, without exposing even how to handle an error... what have you really taught someone?

<comment><USER6> When trying to learn html/css and following multiple tutorials with different ways to achieve one thing, it truly feels like I'm just throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. Sometimes nothing sticks. It's incredibly frustrating. Is there someone who writes tutorials who can actually explain what they're doing and why? Maybe something will work, but I'm not sure if anyone learned anything valuable from that kind of experience.

<comment><USER5> CSS feels like such an add hoc mix of things that sometimes go together, other times don't.

I just hang onto some snippets I like and pick a framework most of the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In addition to the good points mentioned by others:

1\. Out of the total time spent in building an application, a non-significant amount of time is spent on boring tasks to make the application real world ready. In some cases at least, you use third party libraries and custom developed components to do so. Including those in a learning resource/tutorial will, at least in some cases, make the code exponentially more complex to absorb.

2\. Some of the code you use for building production-ready applications is proprietary - either proprietary to the developer or to the company.

Sidenote: I would argue that we have an abundance of resources. What we don't have is that many laser focused "here are the 35 most common gotchas you will face while moving this to production and here is exactly what you need to do" type of resources.

</comment><comment><USER8> Universities all have these kinds of intermediate courses: [https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ckaestne/17313/2018/#schedule](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ckaestne/17313/2018/#schedule) is an example of general software architecture like how to identify requirements. Notice all the books on architecture and design being referenced as well. There's startup architecture courses floating around too: [https://cmu-17-356.github.io/](https://cmu-17-356.github.io/)

For exploring some huge codebase where there is no design documentation one way is just to use a fancy ide and sabotage something to see what it breaks in your ide, then you can trace what code is relying on. Some open source projects have books written about their architecture, you could also start with those then everything you see there is often similar in undocumented projects in my experience, in terms of organization of code like where is the directory containing all the core functionality, where are the feature addons.

<comment><USER9> Do you have more information about that startups course? Looks very promising by the looks of it, but the resources they provide in the schedule section are a bit sparse :p

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a need I'm hoping to address with my latest project, Semicolon&Sons. Basically I've built and maintained a web app business for the past ten years and can share a ton of war stories about how certain architectural decisions either paid off or bit me in the ass. Because I own the copyright to the code, there's no red tape stopping me from showing it on camera or whatever.

As regards educational content, I'm at an early stage with this, but I've got a couple of videos over on YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC17mJJnvzAa_e9qQqLIfIeQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC17mJJnvzAa_e9qQqLIfIeQ)

As for your question as to why there are so few intermediate level learning resources, I think it's because the market size for intermediate stuff is much much smaller than it is for beginner resources and therefore content creators prefer to focus on the beginner stuff.

</comment><comment><USER11> True. This didn't seem to be the case 10 years ago.

Maybe this is the result of commercialization of information: much finer optimization of follower count inevitably leads to oversimplification and overselling. And experts are increasingly less motivated to share knowledge with non-experts, like in academia where clarity of explanation to outsiders is sometimes valued negatively.

Also, most of the useful beginner to intermediate level content is created in video format, and that's just grossly inefficient for a busy person: you cannot quickly scan a video, and you need sound, and good understanding of spoken English (IME much harder than reading) so the barrier to learning is actually higher.

Also, there were blogs, and now there are mostly walled gardens. In many industries (e.g. I'm familiar with professional dog training) most information is there and is poorly accessible.

I'd like to hear other opinions too.

<comment><USER12> I suspect the increasing dominance of open source and free (as in beer) software for the last decade is at play, too.

Companies selling development software/libraries can pay for teams of content developers and evangelists. They also would serve as single source of truth for the canonical way of doing things. And they would give away the content in order to get license sales

The rise of the free (as in beer) software doesn't have the same incentives, culturally or economically. The documentation of the better libraries is often great and better then the what I remember from closed source vendors in the past, but it normally stops at the boundary of the library. It's rare to see teams of evangelists/content on OSS projects directly creating integration level content (although some of the bigger projects see that).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> They are much more scattered through the web. There are more of such articles for devops and high load architecture, but some topics are well researched, for example Mozilla have published very thoughtful article about app localization: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Mozilla/Localizatio...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Mozilla/Localization/Web_Localizability/Creating_localizable_web_applications)

Unfortunately, I can't remember any source that is publishing such materials on regular basis, seems that this type of knowledge is tightly connected with exact company best practices and it takes a lot of work to make this knowledge useful for the general public.

</comment><comment><USER14> I've been pondering and working on this exact problem for over 4 months. I agree with you. The amount of time that engineers spend at work to teach themselves, test or experiment with frameworks, libraries, architectures is really high. Personally I've spent hours of unproductive work before a breakthrough and certainly there's a component of the difficulty in searching, piecing together ideas that are not basic.

You mention video walkthroughs and that you would pay for something like this. I'd love to do a video call and chat to learn more: email@example.com

<comment><USER15> Sadly the tech industry seems to encourage lots of shallow learning rather than deep mastery these days. 90% of stuff could be built using classic MVC, server side rendered with a bit of JQuery and would work just as well. Instead we have a shambles of microservices on Kubernetes and constantly changing front end frameworks.

<comment><USER14> I partly agree. I do think that the amount of choices and decision paths that an individual senior engineer needs to make are increasing, since we keep piling abstractions above abstractions.

There's only so far one can get by looking at Quickstarts and tutorials. If you do find a tutorial online, a big struggle is replicating and getting it to run. There's quite a lot of Open source software now, thanks to Github, but getting to a point where you can run the code, understand what it does and replicate parts of that are super time consuming. If companies knew how many man hours are dedicated towards this, they'd be shocked at the loss of productivity.

My main thesis is that intermediate stage learning is self-driven, and there needs to be an ecosystem of tooling that can provide & enable replication, remixing of software with sufficient walkthrough of what the code does

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think most of the intermediate to hard concepts, best practices, etc. are usually learned on the job as you run into problems and solve them. I would also guess that more of the advanced things tend to be on the backend. A todo list application front end built from a tutorial will likely scale for one user or thousands of concurrent users.

The other aspect of advanced is how to maintain an application and write it so its easier to maintain. Once something is live, how you get changes in, fix bugs, monitor, etc. is not really talked about online because it is boring. It is a combo of process, tooling and some tech.

</comment><comment><USER17> At a certain point, it's more efficient to read the primary source of educational material, which is the documentation of whatever project/language you're working with. With some exceptions for complicated domains, it's usually much more efficient to read the docs rather than some tutorial that has probably drifted out of date. If you're interested in how other projects manage things, just read their code on github.

<comment><USER18> I second this. A lot of intermediate stage knowledge comes from seeing other people's code. Code review is a precious resource I did not value enough when I started

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> If you do Django, Two Scoops of Django is an excellent resource from going to begnnner/intermediate to intermediate-with-sytle / moving-to-expert. Unfortunately I found the same problem and wish there were more things at this level, especially with CSS for people who are 80% backend.

(Judging from your comment would I be correct in guessing that you are doing mainly JavaScript stuff? If you are, then the Python world is generally a lot nicer.)

</comment><comment><USER19> Don't you think being left alone to search for intermediate knowledge teaches us a lot? I agree intermediate-level resources are rare but that has helped me in growing as a software developer. On the contrary, if straightforward information were made available, then you would never grow.

-Just my thoughts.

</comment><comment><USER20> I like textbooks for this. I can't find them anymore for new things I'm interested in. For instance, there is no decent textbook on modern machine learning. Prior to 2014 they were great. Programming books in general seem way too narrow and quickly become obsolete.

<comment><USER21> > For instance, there is no decent textbook on modern machine learning. Prior > to 2014 they were great.

Do you mean books on theory or on language-specific libraries? Either way I can think of _many_ examples. Also, the pre-2014 books are still very relevant - it's only deep learning that has seen significant developments since then.

<comment><USER20> Theory and language-agnostic algorithmic implementation generally is appropriate for 'intermediate' level to my understanding. Read PRML or MLaPP, and then please tell me that you know of a suitable modern successor. Not Goodfellow. Sorry Ian.

<comment><USER21> That's my second point though - why do you think that PRML and MLaPP need a modern successor at all?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> They're called books

</comment><comment><USER23> Sometimes you just have to draw the owl.</comment>


An Open Letter to the FCC - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@AGSchneiderman/an-open-letter-to-the-fcc-b867a763850a <comment><USER2> I'm one of the people who has had part of their identity used to submit false comments. Found out when a journalist emailed me asking me to do a survey and some additional comments months ago. I proceeded to sign up for an API key[1] to confirm what was being claimed and turns out, it was true. The API is a bit limited, but I was also able to do searches using the falsely submitted comment to find others like it as well as what looked like a lot of fake submissions.

I already contacted all of my representatives to investigate this, but with the approaching FCC vote and now this AG Open Letter, I fear that nothing will happen until it's too late. What is a citizen to do when they try to do everything in their power and play by the rules - vote, submit comments, call representatives, contact press for help, and repeat - results in nothing?

The FCC has effectively ignored the rules and stalled their way to victory. I'm not even sure how to describe our government anymore...

[1] [https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/public-api- docs.html](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/public-api-docs.html)

<comment><USER3> I believe that there are a lot of fake comments(possibly threads) appearing on Hacker News. I'm sure on Reddit and everywhere on the Internet that influences peoples' oomph to stand up for something like Net Neutrality.

I mean why in the world in 2017 are we so apathetic about something so important? We were up in arms about in 2013 and stopped SOPA then!!!

<comment><USER4> Apathetic? Have you seen Reddit today or yesterday? The top post in 90% of subreddits are pro-net-neutrality posts, even where it makes no sense. I can't think of a time when _that_ much of a stink was made, including SOPA.

The reason it's not working this time around is because you have an FCC chair whose not really interested in what the public thinks - you're not his constituents, and you're not the constituents of the people who put him in power.

Note that the constituents of Republicans are honestly mostly wealthy donors by this point - I doubt they care too much what their voters think beyond ensuring that they don't screw them over directly (e.g. via increased taxes or decreased entitlements)

<comment><USER5> I've seen reddit, but ultimately that means nothing. Posting a comment on a forum (even reddit or hn) is in itself meaningless. It's oretty much the definitio or apathetic.

<comment><USER3> How so when there's a hired army of people or bots to create fake comments that are pro Net Neutrality. There's so many such comments.. threads even that all real members of a community see the flood of pro Neutrality comments and become apathetic. They think the flood of comments are what the majority of members feel leaving them to think a) It must not be that bad & then b) do not speak up against a majority.

This effectively drowns out the opposition. Proponents of Net Neutrality already flooded the FCC with fake comments as the guy above noted they stole his identity. What makes you think they don't have an army of an army fake social media commenters to shape the conversation in their favor? Especially on influential tech sites like this!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's been really interesting to see the interplay between State Attorneys General and the federal executive branch over the past decade. I don't know enough legal history to know if this contention is new or has always happened. But the contrast between what happened with regulation of carbon and coal is fairly striking. The federal judicial brach said that it had to be regulated in order to meet the laws that the legislative branch had passed, executive branch followed through with regulations based on science and input from stakes holders. We ended up with regulations on coal plants that are _weaker_ than Chinese restrictions on their own plants. State AGs revolted, to little effect.

In the last year, regulatory decisions at the FCC, EPA, and DOE are being made by fiat, without any of the typical study and justification that typically goes into them. In particular, DOE suggestions to FERC have been denounced by nearly everybody in the energy industry, by nearly every interested outsider, and in a bipartisan fashion from lots of prior FERC commissioners. The general whims of a single person are taking precedence over having market principles, or really any other principle at all. The only parties in favor of the regulations at all are those who directly benefit by guaranteed payments, and they only justify their favor of the regulations through a massive and legally questionable expansion of regulatory power of the regulatory agency, something that these particular partisans are usually against.

With the FCC, we see something similar, an impulse to make regulations without much reasoning behind those regulations except that they favor a small group.

This type of regulation, where particular parties are favored, rather than particular principles, is madness.

<comment><USER7> Can states regulate ISP activity within their states? Could the New York state legislature pass a law stating that ISPs who offer services in New York must provide net-neutral services?

<comment><USER8> They could try but the FCC would almost certainly contest that the states do not have the right to pass such laws. Additionally there is nothing stopping the FCC from passing rules forbidding states from regulating net neutrality.

<comment><USER9> Could you explain how the FCC has superiority here? Doesn't the constitution allow states to set local laws for things that aren't expressly dictated in the constitution? Please forgive my limited legal knowledge.

<comment><USER10> The FCC is superior because it involves interstate commerce. Whether a local law can survive alongside a federal law depends on whether there's undue conflict, and conflict is determined by whether the local law intolerably intrudes on the federal law's scheme. Intolerable intrusion isn't the actual term of art but it may not matter because fed/state conflict doctrine is a big bowl of mush.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The revocation of the Net Neutrality rules became a foregone conclusion once Donald Trump was elected. The sad reality is there's not much we, Eric Schneidermann or anyone else can do about it.

There are 5 FCC commissioners but only 3 may be of the same party. Ajit Pai, Brendan Carr and Michael O'Rielly are locks to vote in favor, so it will pass, 3-2.

At this point the best thing people can do is prepare to vote in 2018 and 2020, whether that's registering voters or forming groups to get lazy liberals or independents to vote to send better people to Washington.

One side aspect that I think hasn't been covered: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is a former Verizon lawyer and probably plans to parley his government experience into a lucrative gig at one of the big telcos once the Republicans are inevitably thrown out of office, so he stands to personally profit from this decision.

As Donald Trump would say, SAD.

<comment><USER12> > FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is a former Verizon lawyer

He worked in their legal department for 2-3 years 15 years ago. All of his other time has been spent has a public servant. People need to stop bringing this up, because it only muddies the actual policy debate.

<comment><USER13> Let's wait and see where he ends up. If he doesn't immediately go back to telecom after his appointment is over, then I'll agree bringing up his history wasn't warranted.

<comment><USER14> I'm curious, where would you expect someone with years of experience in a specific industry to go after public office? Besides public office, of course.

<comment><USER15> If I wrote regulations that benefitted Google, I would hope I'd go work at Qualcomm or somewhere unrelated. It gives the appearance of quid pro quo.

<comment><USER14> If I started selling a product that may have benefited a future employer, should I not work for that employer in the future? Not saying these are at all equivalent situations given the amount of power Pai but curious all the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How is refusing to participate in an identity theft investigation not obstruction of justice?

Surely Ajit & co travel to NY from time to time... why isn't there an arrest warrant? Why are the states being so toothless in responding to rampant criminal behavior?

I'd like to see how I would fare if I participated in mass scale identity theft _and_ refused to participate in the subsequent investigation.

<comment><USER17> Perhaps because the behaviour in question is not actually criminal. Since Ajit is a lawyer, I suspect he knows very well where the lines are drawn.

<comment><USER18> I suspect he also knows very well how to go past the line without leaving enough evidence to be convicted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Schneiderman is doing far more for net neutrality with his Spectrum lawsuit than the FCC has done (even pre-Pai, the FCC did nothing about peering extortion for example). But this stuff about fake comments seems to be nothing more than procedural bikeshedding since the FCC ignored all the comments anyway.

<comment><USER20> Normally I'd agree, under the premise that the party who manufactured the comments had the competence to hide/obfuscate their trail enough to make it not worth following. However, the FCC's position is striking: they're not even maintaining the pretense of caring. This suggests sloppy execution and makes me revisit my priors regarding assumed competence. I think Schneidermann is right to spend resources on this angle, even if the chances of success are far below 100%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> More and more we see state agencies standing up to regime change in Washington (ex: CA and environmental regulations). Regardless of your personal politics, I wonder how this dynamic will affect democracy in the US.

<comment><USER22> Well up until election 2016, Democrats were vehemently opposed to states authority, and concentrated far more power in Washington during the Obama administration.

It's nice to see them coming around.

<comment><USER23> (not) surprisingly, republicans have all but disappeared from that chat.

at the federal level, both parties only care about state rights when it suits them.

<comment><USER22> Gun laws, abortion, the trans bathroom thing in NC...all recent issues that the GOP sided on states rights vs. federal regs

On healthcare policy in particular the state specific policies continue to be enforced by the GOP. These aren't positions I agree with btw I'm just pointing out recent examples.

I think it's fair to say Democrats would rather have centralized healthcare, gun laws, lgbt policies, and abortion access, rather than leaving it to the states to decide.

<comment><USER24> > Gun laws, abortion, the trans bathroom thing in NC...all recent issues that > the GOP sided on states rights vs. federal regs

Nope, they aren't. They are all areas where the GOP has pushed at both the federal and state level in the same direction, caring about policy (excluding transgendered persons from general society, blocking abortion, and protecting individual firearms rights) not the relative balance of state/federal power.

* Republicans vigorously oppose gun control and the state level, even suing state governments in federal court to overturn regulations.

* Republicans fight for LGBT discrimination in law and regulation at all levels, not for freedom of states to set inclusive or exclusive policies.

* And, abortion, well:

[https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/353...](https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/353709-house- passes-20-week-abortion-ban%3famp)

<comment><USER22> They aren't mutually exclusive of course.

Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they strategically favor states rights. My original point is still that they haven't shifted away from that strategic view of states rights since the election because they still hold those advantages.

When Democrats dominate at state level I'd expect the poles to shift but that has not happened yet.

<comment><USER24> > Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent > history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they > strategically favor states rights.

No, they tactically see success on certain issues operating at the state level; they don't, strategically or otherwise support states _rights_ (that is, any consistent protected domains where states are free to act as they will without federal interference.)

They do like, since the adoption of the Southern Strategy, to use the _phrase_ "States Rights", but that's a 150+-year-old American political code for "we support and demand systematic oppression of blacks", not a position on the relative distribution of power between the federal and state government.

<comment><USER15> Whenever I see one of these "parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it" I wonder if it would be a good keystone for a new moderate party, built on consensus.

The idea being, taking a principled stance on the aspects of those issues on which there is consensus, while not taking a stance on the part which does not have agreement, would expose the other parties as frauds and give you a rhetorical advantage over them.

I wonder if states rights is one of those issues.

<comment><USER24> > Whenever I see one of these "parties purport to disagree on this issue, but > neither is actually for it"

The parties don't purport to disagree on the issue; _one_ party paints it as a point of disagreement, but even that is just using the term as a coded reference to a real disagreement on race policy, not a reference to a disagreement on the policy suggested by what the words otherwise seem to mean.

> I wonder if states rights is one of those issues.

"States rights" isn't, because it's not an actual _issue_ , it's a slogan for an issue people don't like to directly describe.

Now, you could come up with a model of a coherent set of protected zones of state authority and try to organize a movement around them, but that's not an existing ideology that is getting lip service but no actual support, it would be a whole new issue.

<comment><USER15> Yes, agreed on all points. I'm just saying that "whole new issue" would take the wind out of the fake talking points version of the "states rights" debate, and draw some of those voters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What I'm most worried - as an EU citizen - is that shit happening on the western shore of the Atlantic eventually blows over this side.

Thankfully TTIP was thrown under the bus - for now, tomorrow who can tell? - so it won't be easy but I'm not feeling that safe. The same greedy multinational corporations sponsoring this public spoliation in the USA are massively present in EU and I don't think Chinese Walls are a meaningful property of their structures...

</comment><comment> user-on1 Seems like america is going to loose its freedom until next president

ALREADY LOST - to pick a internet plan of their choice which is affordable and reliable to them.

ALREADY LOST - to have privacy.

LOOSING - what people will watch in their internet, so basically you will be target fed specific info and some info you will never come across leading to people will be kept in dark like the sugar news forever.

if we were celebrating July 4th for the freedom over internet then we can stop celebrating it from 2018 but luckily its not that. May be american citizens will stop being submissive and not take whatever is thrown at them and start to make their power and presence felt and be an example to other country citizens.

<comment><USER26> I don't think it matters much who occupies the oval office. I fear the U.S. is in a systematic regression due to deeper economic issues that so far are being totally unaddressed and unidentified in public.

I hope other nations can begin exerting pressure on this country so that we are forced to begin considering substantial reforms (apparently a long-lived fiscal crisis isn't enough); otherwise these issues may worsen and spread elsewhere as they have already begun doing.

(Divest away from U.S. securities, for example. Challenge the status of U.S. dollar.)

<comment><USER27> "I don't think it matters much who occupies the oval office."

That sort of ignores the fact that Trump is undoing work done under the Obama administration. Clearly it matters who is in office.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The New York AG just needs to have a judge issue bench warrants for the head of the FCC and its general counsel. That is normally what happens when you refuse to provide evidence for a criminal case.

</comment><comment><USER29> Do others read this as an indication AG Schneidermann is getting ready to sue the FCC to get info on the fake comments?

<comment><USER30> I hope he does. It seems really shady. Impersonating citizens is probably a criminal offense, and the agency/person responsible for doing so could be charged with that crime.

Now, if it was foreign actors though, I don't think much can be done. Maybe Congress could enact more sanctions. But if it was a domestic operation, carried out by one of the big telecos... wow this will be huge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Can Congress pass legislation to make net-neutrality something that the FCC cannot touch? If that's the case, it might be possible to pass such a law when(if) dems take over the House/Senate next year right?

<comment><USER24> > Can Congress pass legislation to make net-neutrality something that the FCC > cannot touch?

Yes, if they have support of the President or a veto-proof supermajority in both houses.

> If that's the case, it might be possible to pass such a law when(if) dems > take over the House/Senate next year right?

Unlikely, for the reasons stated above, though tying it to something the President isn't willing to veto might work. Or, I guess, if _after_ taking both houses of Congress (and, critically, electing a new Speaker) they also impeach, convict, and remove the Vice President and President, and the Democratic Speaker succeeds to the Presidency, then it would be doable.

<comment><USER30> Dammit, I had no idea Congress needs 2/3 majority in both houses to override a veto. That seems to make it impossible, even if the Democrats do take control of both Houses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Stop appealing to Chairman Pai's humanity. He has none. You stop him the same way you stop corporations: legislation, and lawsuits.

</comment><comment><USER32> To play devil's advocate, are we really ready for Internet to be regulated like a public utility? Like water, we will need to pay more the more we consume. You and I can pay but what about poor people? Will this discourage Internet usage?

<comment><USER24> > To play devil's advocate, are we really ready for Internet to be regulated > like a public utility?

Yes.

> Like water, we will need to pay more the more we consume.

We already do, though it's more noticeable for mobile broadband. Also, not all public utilities are metered—I've lived in places with unmetered public water, for instance, so the connection you draw between metering and public utilities is false.

> You and I can pay but what about poor people?

Public utilities are often subsidized for the poor (that's actually one way that broadband is _already_ treated like a public utility).

<comment><USER32> Not where I live. Public utilities like water and electricity are run by private companies and no subsidies are offered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Does anyone know if the server logs and other info the New York AG requested would fall under the Freedom of Information Act?

</comment><comment><USER34> I wonder what it would take to really create ISP competition in the US?

I thought I remembered seeing somewhere that the big ISP's use the legal system to essentially drive up entrance costs for smaller players. Would the EFF be able to help with something like that?

The only real long term solution to stuff like this is more competition, because without it you never have the option to "vote with your wallet."

<comment><USER35> We've had it before, and the way forward is very simple: Internet Service resale at cost.

The major internet providers would be forced to resell to other internet providers access at the costs to the company, including labor, maintenance, etc. Resellers then compete with the company to produce the lowest overhead.

<comment><USER36> That would get you very cheap ISP with terrible speeds and a lot of downtime.

There is no incentive for investment if they have to resell at (or near) cost.

And we've seen this in action. DSL service was covered by Title II originally, which meant it had to be unbundled and resold. But cable internet had no requirement. Investment flooded to cable rather than telecom. Why would Verizon invest billions in a network that benefits third parties? Well they didn't.

It was only after Title II repeal that Verizon went forward with Fios. Because it didn't have to resell.

It's possible to do this sort of thing, but you have to build in a fat profit margin. But even then, the companies wouldn't have any incentive to provide good service.

<comment><USER35> And that situation would push us towards internet as public utility, or at least internet infrastructure as public utility. Also, investment into additional infrastructure could be baked into the resale cost. In my opinion, internet as public utility is not a bad thing, although I'm sure there will be many detractors to the idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Are there any legitimate arguments for anti-net neutrality proponents? Or is it just more "republicans prefer less regulations"?

<comment><USER38> You can hear Pai defend his position here:

[http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality- po...](http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-podcast)

He claims that 80% of smaller ISPs have said that they delayed investment in infrastructure due to the costs associated with the net neutrality regs, and also that there was a reduction in overall broadband investment in the last two years and that has never happened before, outside of a recession. He thinks that this has hurt efforts to bring connectivity to rural and underserved areas.

Personally, I think the argument for net neutrality is strong in the present situation where we have less competition, but he believes that the FTC governance previous to title 2 puting ISPs under the purview of th FCC was already protecting consumers adequately. The new proposal also enforces a transparency requirement on any traffic shaping, or filtering.

<comment><USER39> I don't really understand how net neutrality can hurt smaller ISPs. Net neutrality just prevents ISPs from using certain monetization schemes. It's not like you have to buy special equipment for net neutrality reasons, or maintain records to prove you're compliant, right?

<comment><USER40> I think a portion of their argument is that it allows smaller ISPs to gain footholds in niche markets. By allowing them to prioritize and shape traffic, they can gain advantages and offer services that the larger telcos won't.

I imagine an ISP that focuses on serving low-latency gaming traffic at the expense of other application's bandwidth. Or perhaps an ISP that rents bandwidth from a larger one and provides its customers with better bandwidth guarantees on weekends and nights (or balanced out with better business-day bandwidth for commercial customers). And in some ways it makes sense from a market perspective (that's generally how smaller companies can innovate and create advantages).

What all that ignores is the immense locality of ISPs in general. Unless things fundamentally change in regards to how the internet is delivered in the US, most people are never going to have meaningful consumer choice in the one place they live. Giving ISPs more control over bandwidth just gives them more control over consumers.

It's like gerrymandering. The most negative consequences aren't that it gives partisan advantage, it's that it gives representatives the power to choose their constituents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> If you are ready to steal identities at large scale, don't you think you are capable of faking logs, bribing judges and do whatever you want as well?

It's funny to see how trustful we are in America that the rules will save us all from people not playing by the same rules. Changing the referee is the real solution right? Impeachment should be the focus.

<comment><USER42> No, I don't. Do you? If so, you might need to read up on the slippery slope fallacy.

<comment><USER41> I never heard of slippery slope fallacy before, but I read the wikipedia page about it. Thanks for the info! But I miss where it applies to the reasoning I shared. Maybe you can help me.

Do we really believe key people at FCC are persuaded to support the people with this decision? That is just a matter of showing the truth about those comments? I think it is just a farce and we are wasting our time and energy opposing the FCC. The bigger problem is the constant attack against our democratic process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> You all need to convince Trump supporters to call too.

They hate 330 page document.

Ive gotten alot of feedback saying they'd support a 2 page version that promised dumb pipes and not the other 328 pages of nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER44> So, if I as a private individual ignore and refuse to provide information to an active investigation by a State Attorney General, I am liable to be charged with something (obstruction of justice perhaps)?

Are there no additional avenues to escalate to compel compliance from FCC, other than writing this type of public letter?

</comment><comment><USER45> Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER46> Meh. The sons of bitches will do whatever they want. Bend over, America!

</comment><comment><USER47> So... what did the fake comments say? I'm suspicious that in his open letter he never addresses the content of the fake comments.

</comment><comment><USER48> Do we have any idea what position on net neutrality these fake comments were taking?

<comment><USER49> They were allegedly against Net Neutrality according to the journalist investigation done [1].

Also, an analysis done by the Knight Foundation for the 2014 proceeding showed that the highest number of unique comment where pro Net Neutrality while the only comments against NN where from templated answers [2]

[1] [http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-bot-is-flooding-the-fccs- webs...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-bot-is-flooding-the-fccs-website-with- fake-anti-net-neutrality-comments/)

[2] [https://knightfoundation.org/features/netneutrality/](https://knightfoundation.org/features/netneutrality/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Why the title change? It's less descriptive now than it was before.

</comment><comment><USER51> He is basically asking for more surveillance and less anonymity ...

</comment><comment><USER52> His last name is misspelled in the title, only one training n.

</comment><comment><USER53> This letter has nothing to do with the substance of the regulations. It amounts to finger pointing about "illegal conduct". Probably the next thing, we will hear the Russians are behind all of this...

Why can't the FTC regulate or prosecute monoplies, which is its job, instead a bunch arbitrary rules by the FCC?

<comment><USER54> >Why can't the FTC regulate or prosecute monoplies, which is its job, instead a bunch arbitrary rules by the FCC?

Basically the FTC doesn't have regulation authority over telcos because they are common carriers and thus statutorily exempted from regulation by the FTC.

</comment></comment><comment> user-on1 May be God's plans goes like...

2020 should be the most awesome year of humanity ever.

And he was piling up many good things for 2020.

But then he felt like there can be more good things for 2020.

So some angel suggested he will create some bad thing in few years before it and then solve those bad things in 2020 that way the awesomeness of 2020 will increase.

And God was like great idea, lets go for it.</comment>


Rejecting industry dogma, Costco backs calls to lift minimum wage - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-costco-wages-20130306,0,7790766.story <comment><USER2> I like Costco, I think we should raise the minimum wage, and I am a reliable Democratic voter, which is one of the reasons I know that Costco is a key corporate supporter of the Democratic party, and that the minimum wage is a Democratic party identity issue.

Agree also with the other comment here that the minimum wage is a structural advantage for Costco against Walmart.

<comment><USER3> I'm surprised we haven't heard more arguments for raising the minimum wage over the last few years. The main argument _against_ it is that it leads to inflation, but inflation has been the least of our worries recently.

<comment><USER4> One of the biggest arguments against it is that raises unemployment by making more people unemployable. Some people do not generate $10 + overhead cost per hour.

Raising the minimum wage hurts the young the most since they need low skill, low value jobs to learn and gain experience. By removing that rung of the ladder we hurt them greatly throughout their life.

<comment><USER5> That sure has happened in Australia.

These assessments of minimum wage that end at 'it raises unemployment' are intellectually stunted; it belies a simplistic understanding of economics and either an oversight or refusal to see that rising minimum wage makes for more _spenders_ , which in turn drives demand. The higher-wage:higher-unemployment argument is a go-to in the wheelhouse of supply-side economists.

<comment><USER6> Then let's raise it to $1000 an hour. We'll all be rich.

To respond to the above comment, yes, it does lead to higher unemployment for those with lower skills, particularly in an environment when unemployment is already high.

Who would _you_ hire for $12 an hour? A teenager with no experience or someone who was laid off but has 5-10 years of experience? We already see (at least in the United States) that teen unemployment is the highest of all age groups at 23%, when average unemployment amongst all age groups is 7.9%. [1]

For comparison, Germany has no statutory minimum wage (except for a few specific employment groups). Not exactly a bastion of poverty and destitution. [2]

[1]: <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm> [2]: <http://www.economist.com/node/21536648>

<comment><USER3> _Then let's raise it to $1000 an hour. We'll all be rich_

Ridiculous arguments are ridiculous. The rest of your point is more than strong enough to stand on its own without that kind of nonsense.

<comment><USER7> I don't think it's nonsense. The things that are wrong with a $1000 minimum wage are the _same_ things that are wrong with a $10 minimum wage. They're just happening to different people.

Setting a $1000 minimum wage would destroy essentially all jobs. There's nothing I or most people could do that's worth that much. Nothing at all. With my job gone, my income is zero and the products and services I contributed to society don't exist. Such a law would make me permanently poor, and would make society incrementally poorer.

This is _what I think happens_ to people whose natural output is below the minimum wage. Because their skills and education justify $6/hr but not $9, they aren't allowed to make that $6. They _and society_ are $6/hr poorer for it.

I believe firmly that people should be allowed to work if they want to, on whatever terms they find agreeable and can get. If you want to help them beyond that, I'm sure they'll think that's swell. But it shouldn't come in the form of destroying their job.

<comment><USER8> You're ignoring the fact that if you made $1000/hr, you could afford (and thus would be charged) higher prices for everything else, and so would everyone. Thus you _would_ be producing $1000/hr, it's just that a thousand then would mean less than it does now. That's inflation. So long as people spend and the economy grows faster than that, we're better off than we were.

<comment><USER7> Inflation doesn't work that way. You can't legislate it into existence, and you can't legislate it away. If you could, it would be an easy problem to solve.

Inflation occurs when you add to the money supply more than you add to the economy. The California gold rush caused inflation. Countries with hyperinflation have governments that are printing money at incredible rates.

That's completely orthogonal to minimum wage. If you say I must have a $1000/hr job, it's in current dollars. Even if my employer wanted to pay me more, he can't -- he doesn't have the money to! Even if _everyone_ wanted to switch over to doing that, they couldn't; there isn't enough money in the system! If everyone woke up tomorrow and agreed that a dollar was worth 1000x less, they'd all be 1000x poorer and nobody could afford anything.

No, the minimum wage doesn't change the value of a dollar. It just changes who's allowed to earn one.

<comment><USER9> It's not the money supply. It's the money flow, which you can model as a product of money supply and money circulation speed. A $1000USD minimum wage will increase circulation speed and from there induce inflation.

<comment><USER7> Let me get this straight.

You think a minimum wage increase will increase the velocity of money, which will cause inflation, which is a good thing.

That's the argument? Is that argument . . . original?

<comment><USER8> No, it's not original. It's called the "multiplier effect" and it's a pretty standard economic principle. See Forbes:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/02/25/overestim...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/02/25/overestimating- the-effect-of-a-minimum-wage-rise/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This doesn't surprise me at all. Since they already pay their workers a lot more than minimum wage, the increase would mainly be a hit to their primary competitor that relies on low wages: Walmart/Sam's Club.

<comment><USER11> It wouldn't hit Walmart at all, they don't pay minimum wage.

Nationally the average full time Walmart associate earns $12.57 / hour. That has increased by roughly 30% in seven years.

<comment><USER12> You are citing the full-time age for Walmart who is famous for not having people as full-time so they don't have to pay benefits?

<comment><USER11> How many of Walmart's employees are full time?

I live in a relatively poor part of the country, and starting part-time associates here make about $9.50 / hour. 30% above minimum wage already.

A minimum wage increase will not hit Walmart.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Whenever I hear people talking about the minimum wage I want to know why they don't talk about the earned income tax credit instead.

EITC: Money is given to the poor people that need it most. The money that goes to them comes out of progressive taxation. Very little dis-employment effect.

Minimum wage: Money mostly comes from higher prices, which fall disproportionately on poor people. Fairly substantial dis-employment effect.

The only reason to favor the later is that politicians can rely on the public not noticing that they're paying for it.

<comment><USER14> Two reasons, from two different political ideologies.

Right: because it's giving money to moochers. Period. Makers and takers, man. (This is what the Republican Party _actually ran their campaign on_ this past November.)

Left: because it's an effective subsidy for sub-living-wage employers.

<comment><USER15> Nice political talking points, but the EITC has been expanded consistently by both parties. See the growth of EITC benefits:

[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key- elements/fa...](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key- elements/family/images/Taxation-Family-Graphs-Real-Fed-Spending- graph5-8-6-11_1.gif)

<comment><USER14> "Both parties"? The Democratic Party is not the Left. They're the center to center-right corporatists. There is no Left in the United States at the governmental level.

<comment><USER15> I was just offering that while the EITC can be rejected by both politcal dogmas, both parties have embraced the concept. e.g.

Left: EITC provides relief for the poor.

Right: EITC is workfare, not welfare.

Since both parties have expanded the program over the last 30 years, my version aligns with the facts better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The most utterly evil profit maximizing business would always prefer that the government mandated minimum wage is somewhere near what they pay their lowest paid employees.

Sad state of journalism that a group of businesses lobbying for their self interest is swallowed so frequently as selfless action for the public good.

<comment><USER17> _The most utterly evil profit maximizing business would always prefer that the government mandated minimum wage is somewhere near what they pay their lowest paid employees._

How so? Costco in this case has always benefited from a happier, more loyal, consistent workforce because they have a job that many other service workers actually strive for. I fail to understand how reducing the advantage of their position helps maximize their profit.

<comment><USER18> This is the same company that was for the higher taxes for the rich and then made sure to get a huge loan to pay bonuses ahead of schedule so the Costco execs and board members could avoid the tax hike. Hypocrites.

<comment><USER17> _Hypocrites_

I don't beleive that makes them hypocrites. I can simultaneous believe in higher taxes, while optimizing my own situation based upon the current tax code. The notion that the only people who can argue for higher taxes have to maximize their own exposure is not robust.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Costco is free to pay their employees as high of wages as they'd like, no legislation required. This lobbying isn't out of their good will but a strategic play to hurt competitors that rely on lower wages. Such is politics.

<comment><USER20> That Costco isn't doing this purely out of goodwill needs to be mentioned further.

If Costco already starts all employees at $11.50, increasing the minimum wage to any point less than $11.50 doesn't initially impact their own bottom line, but just serves to increase their competitor's costs.

<comment><USER21> The other side is that if people see an increase in their pay, they'll have more money to spend (hopefully at Costco).

<comment><USER22> Not at Costco. The average wage of a person who shops at Costco is 74k. Sams Club perhaps; the customers they attract are at a lower income.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costc...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The more time goes on, the more I think maybe a minimum guaranteed income is the solution that makes the most sense. Maybe we should just accept that there isn't going to be enough work for everyone, and that that's going to become _more_ true in the future, not less. And furthermore, maybe we should accept that that's a _good_ thing, as long as we shape our economy accordingly.

<comment><USER24> > _The more time goes on, the more I think maybe a minimum guaranteed income > is the solution that makes the most sense._

Why? Someone has to pay for it.

<comment><USER23> >Why?

See the rest of my comment.

>Someone has to pay for it.

Of course, and those would be the people who choose to work in order to earn more than the guaranteed minimum. The result would be more available jobs with more relaxing hours, giving people more time to spend with their families, on side projects, or on creative pursuits that enrich our culture.

The idea that automation and technological advancement can cause people to go hungry is frankly crazy. Instead of celebrating the fact that humans don't have to waste their time on menial crap, we are forced by our economic system to wring our hands over the fact that that menial crap can no longer be used as an arbitrary metric for distributing resources.

<comment><USER24> > _Of course, and those would be the people who choose to work in order to > earn more than the guaranteed minimum. The result would be more available > jobs with more relaxing hours, giving people more time to spend with their > families, on side projects, or on creative pursuits that enrich our > culture._

I don't follow this logic. The easier it is for people to skate through life without working or working effectively, the less incentive they have to contribute. The people that pay for this life will decrease and quality of life will decrease for everyone.

<comment><USER23> >The easier it is for people to skate through life without working or working effectively, the less incentive they have to contribute.

We do not currently have a problem with people not wanting to work. We currently have a problem with people being unable to _find_ work.

>The people that pay for this life will decrease and quality of life will decrease for everyone.

That's why the system has to be dynamic. If you have a surplus of jobs, you reduce the GMI so that people have to work more. If you have a deficit of jobs, you increase the GMI accordingly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> _> And why Costco, a public company that has investors watching every penny and questioning every management decision?_

I guess the author doesn't know that Costco is one of the few companies out there who famously give the middle finger to Wall Street analysts (who want them to reduce wages and benefits, and increase the price of goods sold)

<comment><USER26> Costco is still subject to economic reality. They make money by reducing overhead as much as possible and exercising monopsony power over brands (Walmart does this also for certain vendors).

I haven't looked enough into the issue to answer decisively, but I suspect they probably can't cut much more than they already have, unless their food is a cost center.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is a dangerous statement; but I know that raising the minimum wage doesn't really hurt people making six figures; but, doesn't it hurt people making only a small multiplier of minimum wage? Like people making 1.25x minimum, and 1.5x minimum, because they'll now be making 1.05x and 1.15x minimum wage, reducing their own personal buying power once the prices settle again..?

I'm all for people earning more functional income. I've said before that I hate the corporate-level, money-hungry models of wages; but I had been taught that increasing the minimum wage, though it helps for a short while, ends up hurting in the end

<comment><USER28> This is the wrong approach - simply ask what level of wage is needed to prevent a worker _having_ to claim state benefits. Anything else is subsidising the employer

<comment><USER29> not true and way too simplistic. If they can't get employed at all because the minimum wage is too high, the entire burden falls on those same state benefits.

<comment><USER30> That assumes that a business would be willing to rage quit. It either needs employees, or it doesn't. How many businesses do you think are carrying an excess of employees at the moment just because the wages are cheap? How many are supplying customers who woulld no longer decide they want the product/service because _a small percentage of the total cost of delivery_ has increased my a relatively small amount, increasing prices very slightly? It is only those jobs that can be offshored at little or no (overall) cost that would be affected, barring ideology-over-sense zealots out to prove a point.

<comment><USER29> No, it assumes that in a flexible labor environment in the medium term, a business will adjust to the value of the worker. If the minimum wage goes up to $20 tomorrow, I may not let go of a lot of my temp employees today, but I will certainly do so in time. This isn't rocket science - this is economics 101. And I say this as someone who supports a gradual rise in the minimum wage (ie, a legislative solution that would link it to the CPI seems like the best way to take it out out of the hands of future legislators who want to play politics) - but the idea that there is no cost to increasing the minimum wage is silly.

Also, the "small percent of the total cost of delivery" is is a red herring; labor cost as a portion of total delivery cost varies greatly according to industry. To use a silly example, if the minimum wage was increased to $30 tomorrow, you don't think McDonald's starts firing employees?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The labor market is governed by the law of supply and demand, just like any other. If you arbitrarily increase the price of something, in this case low- skilled labor, surpluses are the result.

If you want to help people, find a way that doesn't destroy the incentives to hire them and the incentives to become a more valuable employee.

</comment><comment><USER32> This makes complete sense:

1) Costco already pays much more than the minimum wage, so they would not be affected directly from a cost perspective.

2) Competitors do not necessarily pay more than minimum wage, so this can only increase the costs of competitors.

3) Increasing minimum wage gives income to the lowest income people who will spend all of this money and are likely value shoppers of the kind attracted to big box stores like Costco.

There is nothing for Costco to lose here.

While I admire Costcos ethics all around, I can't say this is an entirely selfless gesture. Costco behaves rationally good with a long term view rather than irrationally bad with a short term view.

<comment><USER33> Not selfless at all, although the world is still a much better place for companies behaving this way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> They want a wage of $10.10 per hour? I bet a Costco employee starts around $10.20 per hour.

<comment><USER35> You're on the right track. From the article:

"Costco pays a starting wage of $11.50 an hour, gives most employees healthcare and other benefits, and has not switched to the model adopted by many big-box retailers of using temporary firms in warehouses to keep costs low."

A higher minimum wage costs Costco nothing and hurts their competitors.

<comment><USER36> I wouldn't say it costs them _nothing_. If competitors are forced to raise their wages near Costco's, Costco either needs to up the ante or lose some of the luster they've created in treating their employees so well compared to the average retailer.

I'm not saying they don't have good business reasons for this, they do, but it isn't _all_ pure business upside for them.

<comment><USER37> Some of the costs from vendors may also increase as a result.

<comment><USER38> In theory, that is a shared cost amongst all their competitors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Blogspam. Original is here: [http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo- costco-wages-...](http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-costco- wages-20130306,0,7790766.story)

<comment><AUTHOR> Not blogspam. Circa is a pretty cool tool that tells a news story by pulling in all the sources talking about it, and then updates the story as new information comes in. Take a look at them; it's really useful.

<comment><USER39> Never heard of Circa, but I don't think it's allowed anyways. From the guidelines (<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>)

 _Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter._

<comment><AUTHOR> I see the point of this guideline, but will still argue that Circa provides more value to the readers here since it links out to multiple sources (also linked to SFgate: [http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2013/03/04/george- mille...](http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2013/03/04/george-miller-to- introduce-minimum-wage-bill/)), therefore giving readers a more holistic view of the story.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm pretty sure that increasing the cost of labor will drive the prices of labor dependent goods and services up, while also probably flattening growth or decreasing employment numbers when employers try to maximize the margins on the labor they already employ.

<comment><USER41> I'm pretty sure that giving lots of people more disposable income will increase demand. Which will in turn increase revenues and allow successful businesses to expand, increasing employment numbers, creating a positive feedback loop.

In reality however things are a little more complicated.

<comment><USER42> Part of the argument is that this isn't disposable income, that it's in fact needed as a baseline against poverty.

<comment><USER43> Define "poverty".

The lack of a meaningful definition shared by both law and society is the root of much of the consternation over the topic.

<comment><USER44> There are many, but one would be the lack of opportunity to improve ones situation by self-improvement. For example, you might be working two jobs to pay rent and other necessary expenses, so you have no time to learn new skills. Another would be that you cannot afford to send your kids to school (i mean K-12 public school) because you need them to work in the fields, so you can't create inter-generational opportunities.

People working at minimum wage can find themselves in such situations.

At this time, you _can_ get ahead on MW, if you team up with other MW workers to live together and one person can get enough "family" support to get to the next level. However, our society, being very individualistic, doesn't really recognize this.

<comment><USER43> _one would be the lack of opportunity to improve ones situation by self- improvement._

It's not a matter of opportunity, it's a matter of choice.

Time and again I've watched those with opportunity squander it, while others lacking opportunity fight to get it (and got it). I've had a 4AM bus driver take my evening C++ class, passing despite often dozing off therein, finding funding despite not having the steep tuition. I've known a chronically bedridden invalid who managed to run a profitable, um, pharmaceutical service from his gurney. I've worked multiple jobs and still learned new skills, even getting hired despite _not_ having the core skill and learning it sink-or- swim. I've watched kids destroy windows while I was fixing their couch. I've seen eminently capable students with amazing affinity to programming fail a beginning C++ course for lack of effort, not understanding. Opportunity IS there; taking it or making it is up to the individual.

Instances of true "poor for lack of opportunity" are exceedingly rare. They have my sympathy and aid; I'm frustrated by the vast numbers who insist they are and in truth aren't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Large, established retailers, in general, will favour a higher minimum wage if it's enforced on themselves and all their competitors. It's actually good for them, since they operate at a scale that can do more with less people. Unfortunately it reduces the market to a combination of large retailers, and small family run operations which can effectively get members of their family to work for less than the minimum wage, and very little in between.

<comment><USER46> That's a good thing. Efficient businesses with happy employees prosper. Inefficient sweatshops shut down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> just another story of a business getting involved in public policy in order to hurt competitors. costco can (and already does) pay workers more than minimum wage as is in line with their operating philosophy. government shouldn't be in the business of regulating wages, that's an agreement between an employer and employee.

</comment><comment><USER28> Here is a plan - set the minimum wage at a level where one person working full time will not have to collect any state benefits in order to raise their family.

Any other level, is an indirect but tangible subsidy to companies who employ minimum wage staff

<comment><USER7> Teenagers don't need to support a family. Without much in the way of valuable skills, they may still want a job for spending money and experience. Your proposed minimum wage would make this illegal.

College students don't need to support a family. They may want to take a low- paying internship to build experience in their chosen field. Your proposed minimum wage could make this illegal.

Mothers of school-age children who are supported by their husbands don't need to support a family. They may wish to do part-time, low-skilled work to build expertise in preparation for a future career after their children leave. Your proposed minimum wage would make this illegal.

Retirees with pensions don't need to support a family. They may wish to do work, possibly even very low-skilled work, as a way to combine a hobby with a sense of being useful. Or possibly as a launching-pad for more of a "fun" career than the "serious" career they've already finished. Your proposed minimum wage could make this illegal.

Low-skilled immigrants _do_ sometimes need to support a family. When one member can't do it alone, sometimes mom, dad, and the oldest kid hold down four full-time jobs between them to make it work. The arrangement isn't permanent; it lasts until they can do better. But in the mean time, they _can_ support themselves. Your proposed minimum wage law could make it impossible for them to support themselves this way, and force them to rely on charity. This in turn could make it impossible for them to immigrate at all.

Some people have very low expenses. A paid-off house, a renter, a garden in the backyard, and a low-paying job can be enough to make ends meet. Setting the minimum wage at a level such that someone with a mortgage and unproductive hobbies can raise a family would force this person, who could otherwise support themselves, to rely on charity.

I could go on. My point is that the world is a complicated place. Not every worker is a single-head-of-household-with-three-children sort of worker. Not every job is a permanent career. They can be educational, transitional, temporary. They can be held by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons.

Provide assistance to the poor if you like, but don't make work illegal. Don't ever do that. There's a huge potential to hurt a lot of people, just because they're living lifestyles you aren't familiar with.

<comment><USER28> The "wages good enough to send your kids to college" proposal is really a thought experiment - let's imagine we are going to see an doubling of productivity in the economy as Software Eats The World. But no increase in the number of jobs.

There will be a dramatic decline in employment as all those journalists and factory operators and researchers get laid off.

So what do we do? Corporations are going gang busters, the share of a vastly increased wealth is not going to the majority of the people.

So let's whack up the minimum wage - make it 60k. (remember we just doubled GDP). All other wages have to rise as well to maintain parity. And so the share of GDP to wages gets rebalanced - but there are less jobs? That's ok we have gone back to the sngle worker family, and the world has nice picket fences again.

This is a poor solution to a good scenario - obviously the 50s solution is socially sub optimal, obviously the above scenario carries massive inflation risk.

But the essence is the same - the jobs are gone. How do we fix it? Minimum wage is one lever that if pulled hard in one direction will lift the veil on the oncoming storm.

We need all the warning we can get

<comment><USER7> _let's imagine we are going to see an doubling of productivity in the economy as Software Eats The World. But no increase in the number of jobs._

I'm not comfortable with that assumption. All that software isn't going to write itself...

But leave that aside. What do people whose jobs have been made obsolete by technology do? What they've always done -- something else!

And a high minimum wage won't help them. People learning new skills need to be able to make _low_ wages. That's how they get enough experience to get good enough at something new to eventually be able to make _high_ wages.

<comment><USER38> Making an assumption that there will always be 'something else' that they can to to earn a living is just an assumption too. Attempting to find an optimal social solution before the unemployed riot and burn the factories is a good idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> A bit of statistics about minimum wage workers <http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm>

</comment><comment><USER49> I support a minimum wage increase (trickle-down economics is moronic and makes much less sense than a bottom-up approach, but I digress), but let's not forget that a minimum wage increase helps Costco's bottom line, since their biggest competitor's business model is completely tied to low wages. Just saying let's not pretend this is as righteous of a move as it would be if it were coming from Wal-Mart (who stands to lose). :P

</comment><comment><USER50> It makes sense for Costco, because they pay above minimum wage anyway, and any increase in the minimum wage will hurt their competitors more than them.

</comment><comment><USER51> Costco employees start higher than minimum wage already, so this won't affect them. But it's in Costco's interest for their competitors to have higher labor costs. So, Costco supports minimum wage increases.

Labor unions do the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER18> Costco is supporting the rise in minimum wage only because it helps them. They have lower labor cost then their competitors. I can hardly see any employees in Costco warehouses. This is the same type of hypocrisy as them supporting higher taxes for the rich and then getting a huge loan to pay ahead of schedule bonuses for the execs and board members to avoid new tax rates.

</comment><comment><USER52> It probably hurt small independent shops much more than it would hurt Costco, due to economies of scale - if you have 100 workers and you had to raise wages 10%, you probably could do the same with 90 workers or cut a little service here and there without too much effect, but if you have just one worker and you don't have enough money for 10% raise, you're toast.

<comment><USER53> ..and that is what it would be about. If Costco can hurt their competition by forcing up their labour force costs, plus at the same time give a good aura, and advertise their hiring policies to potential employees, it's a win-win- win.

This type of thing isn't done off the cuff, there would be very careful analysis behind it.

Most people would think this is against Wal-Mart or other large retailers, but where it would really bit is the very small corner-store operations, which not only collectively sell a lot of stuff, they prevent customers from going into bigger stores for small items like milk and bread.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment. Additionally, having any minimum wage at all increases unemployment. On top of the unemployment problem, a minimum wage is an intrusion into the rights of the individual to voluntarily enter into business with others.

<comment><USER55> Proof?

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I'd much preferred if they removed minimum wage and almost all of the welfare programs and replaced it with basic income guarantee (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee>)

<comment><USER57> I can't imagine you'd find much public support for giving millionaires a weekly wage. What does this offer over the minimum wage? Is it that the universality makes it cheaper to administer or is the universality a principle rather than a pragmatic concession?

In the UK, there is a movement for a living wage which seems to be more about a higher, regionally-calibrated minimum wage.

<comment><USER56> Theres probably lots of well thought arguments for basic income guarantee but here's the things I could come up with:

\- much cheaper than welfare because you don't need to hire people who decide if you deserve it

\- less corruption than welfare because you can't bribe people who decide whether you deserve it.

\- you don't have to hide that you are working in order not to loose the benefit, so possibly more money from taxes and healthier, more honest social climate. Also no need for minimum wage.

\- no need for government sponsored pension or formalized retirement age

\- you no longer have to care so much about unemployment. From political issue it becomes only yet another indicator of the state of economy. Hence the government can safely shed off large quantities of its employees.

\- no need for minimum wage, wages can safely drop below any currently conceivable minimums.

\- more worker mobility since you don't have your whole income at stake when you decide to look for new job.

\- strong incentive for having kids since they add to family income, also parents have sense of security that they will be able to support a child and have time to raise it as well.

\- more money in hands of more careful consumers. Poor people tend to spend money more wisely as they choose products more carefully with regards to ratio between price and quality. More purchasing power in hands of dedicated consumers, results in more efficient market.

<comment><USER57> >> \- you no longer have to care so much about unemployment. From political issue it becomes only yet another indicator of the state of economy. Hence the government can safely shed off large quantities of its employees.

i.e. the slide to a welfare-dependent state where people don't feel the need to work for their luxuries and economic stagnation

>> \- strong incentive for having kids since they add to family income, also parents have sense of security that they will be able to support a child and have time to raise it as well.

At 7bn, I'm not sure more kids is the answer.

<comment><USER56> > i.e. the slide to a welfare-dependent state where people don't feel the need > to work for their luxuries and economic stagnation

That's the main counterpoint to the basic income guarantee. If people are no longer afraid that they starve or die of cold or heat on the street they won't work. Funny thing is that same people that voice this concern usually think that working is usual way how the people fulfill their higher needs (belonging, esteem, self-actualization).

> At 7bn, I'm not sure more kids is the answer.

There is a strong fear in many rich countries that their original populations that are currently growing old will eventually die out and be replaced by immigrants.

Personally I'm not against population growth. Having more educated kids in rich countries might be beneficial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> This is terrible. Costco can get away with a higher minimum wage because they sell at a higher end. All this is doing is forcing Walmart to stop competing at the lower end of the spectrum of goods. The only people harmed by that are the poor.

</comment><comment><USER59> The minimum wage is as perfect a litmus test as we have for separating those who think they understand basic economics from those who actually do.

</comment><comment><USER24> Higher labour costs just push business overseas. Is this not true?

<comment><USER32> To China, where there is a rapidly increasing minimum wage. The Chinese understand income distribution will naturally fall extremely toward the powerful, and the powerless will make too little money to create a middle class. Raising the minimum wage distributes income to low income people who spend all their money and contribute to the consumer economy.

<comment><USER60> Are you really saying there is not a middle class in china?

<comment><USER32> I did not say that at all. There is a rapidly growing middle class in China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> "especially at a time when finances are stable at best"

Sloppy reporting. Here's what the author should have written:

> Just four years after the worst shock to the economy since the Great > Depression, U.S. corporate profits are stronger than ever.

> In the third quarter, corporate earnings were $1.75 trillion, up 18.6% from > a year ago, according to last week'si gross domestic product report. That > took after-tax profits to their greatest percentage of GDP in history.

> But the record profits come at the same time that workers' wages have fallen > to their lowest-ever share of GDP.

[http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/03/news/economy/record- corporat...](http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/03/news/economy/record-corporate- profits/index.html)

Whoever gets the mouthpiece gets to frame the debate.

The debate is wrong.

What's happening is this: Corporations have people on the hook, because the people are poor & desperate, meanwhile the corporations are more flush with cash than ever before. They know that everyone is running around, pretending we're in a terrible financial crisis… because we are, if you're an individual. The profit-taking is immense and ordinary people are suffering.

This is not a debate about "Well gee can Joe-Bob really produce $8 of value an hour?" because the profits say yes, Joe-Bob is definitely producing much more value than he costs. Even more so, given that this is a time when CEO compensation (a cost that reduces profit) has skyrocketed, compared to the average worker's wage.

Good for Costco. They have always behaved well towards workers, with regards to pay and benefits, even when things really _were_ bad.</comment>


Technique streamlines fabrication of 2-D circuits - <AUTHOR> http://news.mit.edu/2019/fabrication-2-d-circuits-0304 <comment><USER2> Excerpt: "In their work, the researchers fabricated arbitrary patterns and a working transistor made from MoS2, which is one of the thinnest known semiconductors. In their study, the researchers recycled the same patterned substrate four times without seeing signs of wear."</comment>


The HTML Tic-Tac-Toe Game - <AUTHOR> http://noveltheory.com/tictac/ <comment><USER3> His underlying engine that generated the pages isn't very good because it's easy to beat. Unless that was deliberate, but he doesn't say so.

<comment><USER4> Yes, interesting. Optimal play should end in a tie every game. He says there are 2 ways for X to win (mirror images of each other). In those cases, O's second move was not optimal.

<comment><USER5> Spoiler alert! :)

To beat it: X in a corner, O in the centre, X in the opposite corner. O's move of course must not be in the centre or any of the corners; that way the second O can be placed such that the third X is forced to be in a bad spot.

<comment><USER6> Yes. <http://noveltheory.com/tictac/ObXbOXXOX.htm>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would have hoped that it uses CSS logic. Should be doable? I am not a CSS wizard (still look up things on the fly), but I think there are rules for "if class x is below class y in the hierarchy then..." and for selected and unselected links. Perhaps that is sufficient to create a much more compressed CSS only Tic Tac Toe?

<comment><USER5> I suspect this to be between difficult and impossible to do as CSS doesn't have any way of knowing the past; I don't think there's a way to remember moves as such. All I can think of is to somehow have an #anchor for each possible configuration and to select the visible links for the next move depending on which anchor is active. This isn't really any more elegant than having a separate page for each configuration; you're not encoding any actual logic in the CSS, just the graph of possible outcomes.

<comment><USER7> Not really encoding logic, true - but perhaps a more compressed representation would be possible. I am not sure one would have to list every possible configuration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great thing. It reminded me of the time when I used heuristics for developing tic-tac-toe in C. And realized that to make computer play a simple logical game it takes hundreds of lines of code. So I really appreciate the amount of thinking gone in developing such AI entirely from discrete states of HTML pages.

</comment><comment><USER9> 293 separate HTML pages! This is a relic.

<comment><USER7> Almost like a minimalist Searle's Chinese Room :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." - <USER2>

(Incidentally, that movie sparked my interest in both artificial intelligence and telephony programming.)

</comment><comment><USER10> "On a Pentium 133, it requires about 20 seconds to play every game and generate every HTML page!"

</comment><comment><USER11> I want the same with chess. Please.

<comment><USER12> There are more possible games of chess than there are atoms in the universe

<comment><USER13> I think he was being facetious.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you keep your mathematical knowledge sharp over time? - <AUTHOR> I am working on machine learning from the basics. I want to do it the right way and I am learning probability and statistics.  At school and college, mathematics was my favorite subject and I loved treating every problem as a new challenge leading to a fresh perspective.  Then life intervened. Now, after a few years, I realize, much to my chagrin, that most of the higher level math I had learned, has evaporated.  So there is much I have to relearn.  Also, unfortunately, unlike college, it is not possible for me to sit x hours everyday to learn.  Currently, I am learning in bursts, sometimes followed by long passive time.  So I often have to revise and reorient myself when I sit to study again. I would like to avoid this.  Has anyone faced this? How do you tackle it?
One solution seems to be using Spaced Repetition cards, like Anki.  But it to seems to have it's limitations. http://lesswrong.com/lw/juq/a_vote_against_spaced_repetition/
Obviously, whatever I learn in math, I try to apply it to a lots of problems.  But inevitably, there is some fading of knowledge as time passes, and I might not be able to keep redoing the problems.
Please share your experiences. Thank you. <comment><USER2> I have not been into the same problem as you are having but yeah I have been into a similar one. I also used to get forgotten what I studied few days back in Maths,while studying Physics and doing a derivation. So, I used to go back to the same chapter and used to skim through it.

Later I made a rule that I will be revisiting whatever I have read after one week and then after 10 days and the like.

I used to go to my college by bus that used to take 1.15 hrs. So I utilized that time to revisit the lessons that I studied few days back.

Now I dont know how you travel but if you use public transport and gets a seat to sit then, you can also apply this method. This will keep the concept fresh in your mind and you won't be spending any extra time to do that.

Nowadays, I use to read Quora while traveling to the office.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the input Nitin. My main issue is I'm out of college. So, unfortunately, education cannot be my highest priority anymore and predictability in my study time has become a luxury. It is managing my lessons and remembering them in my erratic schedule that bothers me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I have been trying to answer this question for myself, and one measure I've taken towards this goal is to record all of my mathematical reading, work, and random thoughts in a journal. I highly recommend the practice as it has been very illuminating to me since I started a few months ago. Reviewing my previous readings allows me to ascertain how much math I actually end up retaining from my study sessions, and keeping all of my work in one place (as opposed to throwaway scrap paper) allows me to spot any particularly common mistakes.

So far, I've found that my memory is far more tenuous than I had previously assumed. I'd look at last month's entries and realize that I'd only retained 20% of what I had learned; fine details being especially prone to slippage. Yet from analyzing my mistakes, I've also found that those very details are much more crucial than I had thought.

The result of all of this is that I've started to shift my focus from "learning new math rapidly" to "winning the uphill battle against memory loss." From this new perspective, the old adage: "the only way to learn mathematics is through doing" begins to make a lot more sense. While active learning is far from any cure to forgetfulness, given my own mnemonic capabilities I have come to see that it would probably be a better long-term investment to spend a month on fully working and understanding a chapter, than to spend the same time blazing through several chapters but skipping the exercises (having done both.)

I emphasize again that this is my own conclusion based on my own characteristics, and that is precisely why I recommend everyone to find their own answer to this question by keeping their own math notebook.</comment>


If You Just Changed Your Company's Name, Don't Forget This One Crucial Step - <AUTHOR> http://cli.re/6aX7rv <comment><USER2> Why the redirect?

<comment><USER3> They are tracking the clicks on the link. You can see it here: [http://www.capsulink.com/6aX7rv+](http://www.capsulink.com/6aX7rv+)</comment></comment>