Ask HN: Silo, project management for software web app - What do you think?  - <AUTHOR>

I've built a team with perfectly complimentary skills. We're applied for an incubator. We're going LEAN. The marketing website (MVP) is online - http://getsilo.com - we're collecting emails and have two companies onboard for early stage customer development and feedback. We're building a V1. Things feel good.
I'm keen to get thoughts and feedback about the website, whether the problem and idea is clear, and get a guage gauge on the demand. Do you share this problem? Are Basecamp and Pivotal tracker letting you down?
Many thanks for your time, Ollie Rattue. <comment><USER2> I think all project management SaaS have let me down so far, Pivotal I think is much superior, the issue is that all of them are around tasks and timelines, a project is so much more than that. If I need to put my documentation elsewhere, and track bugs elsewhere, this is just an overhead (pivotal as example, I stopped using it for bug tracking and moved to Jira)

As a feedback, I would at least change the bootstrap default colors, it's starting to look like all startups look the same...

And in my 5 seconds attention, I didn't quite get the main basecamp killer feature, but I liked the notion of the trees. you got my email...

By the way, would be happy to hear your thoughts on <http://flashissue.com> if you send newsletters and think it's too painful and takes too long

<comment><AUTHOR> That's great to hear that there are others out there who are dissatisfied with exiting project management tools.

It's interesting that you mentioned Pivotal trackers bad bug tracking support. One of the major issues I've experienced is that project management tools are great for new features but don't work so well for handling bugs. Silo is planned to have three main features 'Fix, Build, Maintain' which all work in slightly different ways. And your're right if you have to use a second tool then the benefit of the first is radically diminished.

You're also right in that the 'basecamp killer feature' isn't clear. Why am I going to switch to Silo? The marketing website needs to work a lot harder to convey the benefit. It is somewhat abstract at the moment. We need to really hammer out the product before we can really sell the killer features and benefits.

As for <http://flashissue.com> \- I love the tagline 'Do you hate creating newsletters?', it instantly caught my attention and got me listening. However I couldn't then quickly work out what you were offering. My advice would be to move the in-app screenshot in place of the generic 'man and help' image which although catching doesn't tell me anything about Flash Issue. I'd also add more and clearer explanations to the screenshot as it's still tricky to work out what the product does.

Thanks for your time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I am not entirely a sure what i am looking at. Give me a list of defined features and/or at lest some screenshots. it's hard to evaluate something when it's only "abstract".

<comment><AUTHOR> Completely understandable. You're right, it is very abstract at the moment. My attempt was to define the problem and map out what a solution should look like. We are very early stage and work on v1 has only just started. I agree screenshots and examples need to be added. However I'm wondering features are best or whether sticking with 'benefits' is a better approach e.g. 10,000 mp3 vs Your whole music collection in your pocket. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ollie

Can you explain how this is different than (and why yours may be better) <http://www.bugherd.com/> <https://sifterapp.com/>

I've seen some others but can't remember them

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for posting those links. Those two applications are purely bug trackers. Silo is designed for all stages of software development "Fix, Build, Maintain". Basecamp and Pivotal tracker treat these three activities in the same way. Silo functions differently for each and I believe this is the USP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> <http://getsilo.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, my post didn't link. Thought it auto-linked...</comment></comment>


CoffeeScript 2.0 Beta Released - <AUTHOR> http://coffeescript.org/v2/ <comment><USER2> Although I do like the design of the website, I'm really frustrated by the fact that 1) it took a couple moments to load because it's a pretty big page, and 2) it hijacks the history and means I couldn't just press back, I had to press back 6-7 times after I finished scrolling. It seemed to load really slow and even scrolling took a while. Why can't it just be a simple page with some JS/CS to see if you've entered a specific section of the page and change the class on the title of the section in the index on the left?

</comment><comment><USER3> Sadly, this is rather underwhelming.

AFAICT, the only reason it's a point release are the breaking changes. Unfortunately, in order to stay relevant, coffeescript needs a major overhaul, though I must add that its biggest problem (the readability of tab denoted closures) is probably one that needs to be ultimately solved by the IDEs.

<comment><USER4> Does anyone still use CoffeeScript? I guess legacy projects, but new projects can use es6 + Babel or Typescript and get most (if not all?) of CoffeeScript's functionality.

<comment><USER5> from the link:

CoffeeScript's intent, however, was never to be a superset of JavaScript. One of the guiding principles of CoffeeScript has been simplicity: not just removing JavaScript's "bad parts," but providing a cleaner, terser syntax that uses less punctuation and enforces indentation, to make code easier to read and reason about. Increased clarity leads to increased quality, and fewer bugs. This benefit of CoffeeScript remains, even in an ES2015+ world.

so, it's not really about "CoffeeScript's functionality" but more it's "style".

<comment><USER6> Truth is, though, if you're going to pay the transpilation tax (and it's lower than many still seem to think), there's just better options: TypeScript, Flow, ClojureScript, PureScript. A nicer syntax was never that interesting.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Forget Tesla vs. Edison. Remember Kettering, whose hack revolutionized cars. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.selligy.com/post/74292615032/get-past-tesla-vs-edison-just-dont-forget-kettering?utm_source=hn&utm_medium=social&utm_content=tesla&utm_campaign=tesla

<comment><USER2> While true, there are many hundreds of people who "revolutionized" cars. Even with starter motors, it had to be married to Bendix's method for engaging and disengaging the starter motor automatically, in order to complete the transformation over to electric starters.

Or there's Florence Lawrence, "The First Movie Star", who created the turn indicator and a brake indicator (a 'stop' sign) activated by applying the foot brake.

(And [http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/silent-film- star-...](http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/silent-film-star-and- inventor-of-mechanical-turn-signal-dies) points out that Lawrence's mother invented the first electrical windshield wipers.)

<comment><AUTHOR> True enough, there's also the interesting question of the difference between radio/telegraph/phonograph and television . . . innovations that have "an inventor" versus a team . . . the starter definitely has a one foot on both sides of the line.

Thanks for the Lawrence link! No idea . . .

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So, separation of concerns, encapsulation, and DRY. Day one of OO programming 101.</comment>


Ask HN: Any examples of APIs in production using JWT? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I have one, but I can't share. It's for a client. Servicing major brands.</comment>


We're changing our name (back) to StackOverflow - <AUTHOR> https://blog.stackexchange.com/2015/09/were-changing-our-name-back-to-stack-overflow/ <comment><USER2> OK here goes, slightly OT. The name StackExchange is hands-down the worst name I have encountered for a Top100 website.

It is absurdly bad.

I remember them discussing it on the StackOverflow podcast. What were they thinking? It is a mainstream QA website. Call it something like Popzoozle or QuizQ or Anserr or something... but StackExchange???? Have you ever in your life heard a non-techie person say "wow I love StackExchange"??? The branding has _zero_ impact.

</comment><comment><USER3> They're changing the name, OK. But I can't figure out what this person is trying to say about what the company is now. The "diagrams" don't really help

</comment><comment><USER4> O.k. whatever.</comment>


Einstein's Granddaughter Left Out of Licensing Windfall - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/einsteins-granddaughter-left-out-of-licensing-windfall/71129/ <comment><USER2> While I can certainly understand why someone in her position would be upset, it was her grandfather's choice to leave his will and fortune to whomever he wants and rightfully so. Rather than try to fight to take whatever she can from her grandfather's success, she should figure out ways to make it on her own. To blame this on others and blatantly rely on her grandfather's image as an answer to her problems is utter bullshit.</comment>


Pesticide residues found in 70% of produce sold in US even after washing - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/20/pesticide-residues-produce-even-after-washing-us <comment><USER2> Beyond the War on Invasive Species is a great book that explores the overuse of pesticides and why it is in fact dangerous.

For those that don't want to read the book, essentially there is alot of misinformation out there. When testing for human toxicity of pesticides, they only test the active ingredient in the chemical mixture. Not the other additives which could be up to ~70% of the overall mixture. The additives are very nasty and we most definitely don't want them on our food.

The main focus of this book is on invasive species. By looking at who is defining invasive species and providing a plethora of facts, this book essentially posits that the "invasives" myth is a way to sell more pesticide to governments. And offers a different perspective stating that many native plants actually benefit from invasive species - invasives often grow in disturbed soil, not the native habitats.

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25782048-beyond-the- war-...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25782048-beyond-the-war-on- invasive-species)

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this surprising? No matter how much you wash something, trace amounts will still exist. Like when sites start running articles about "human DNA" being found in meat, implying that a worker has gone through the grinder, when in reality someone has touched the meat or some dust landed on it.

</comment><comment><USER2> My takeaways from this article: \- Buy Organic Kale \- Buy Organic Strawberries \- Buy Organic Spinach

This is linked to in the article and is a good guide of what to buy organic and what you can buy conventional: [https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php](https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php)

<comment><USER4> That doesn't really help though. Organic foods are not pesticide free, they just use organic certified pesticides, and in larger quantities.</comment></comment>


It's Official: Researchers Have Discovered a Second Earth - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@differentimpulse/its-official-researchers-have-discovered-a-second-earth-1ccdf9626b36 <comment><USER2> Wikipedia says it's been discovered in August of 2016 and unlikely to be habitable [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b) due to heavy winds. In any case it is too far away. I remember there is a certain distance past which you can't travel because the universe is exanding faster than your speed or something like that. I was confused about this concept and still not fully understand it. I wonder if Proxima B is too far away in this sense.</comment>


Ask HN: I made a shitty little app. Whats the best way to host it? - <AUTHOR>

So I made a really simple app that just displays a tagcloud of your last 100 tweets based on the username. I did this using Python/Django.
Now my question is, what is the easiest and cheapest way to make my application live? Given my objective is to learn how to deploy a site live, how/what should I do?
Google App Engine will probably be easiest and cheapest for this. But my problem with GAE is that it's got its own paradigm and I don't think I would be use GAE for my future 'serious' projects. So I'm not sure the I will be able to bring forward anything I've learnt by going down the GAE route.
Amazon AWS seems to be the most obvious choice but by golly, there's a lot to know and read to get something up and running. Gotta remember, I got zero sys admin experience.
Any free regular hosting services that anyone knows of?
Side question: Why isn't there a Heroku for Django out in the wild? Every service I've seen seems to be in beta? Smells like a $200m exit waiting to be unleashed. <comment><USER3> If I'm truly scaling a project I usually go with AWS. Unfortunately this does mean setting up a load with regards to sys admin items, often including some form of load balancing if you're truly attempting to scale a site. For multiple django projects when starting and for considerable time I run them on webfaction. Webfaction while shared hosting is a pretty solid choice for django, is a reasonable deploying and you could likely follow some similar model when setting it up on Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER4> Getting something up and running on Amazon EC2 is actually quite easy. Had zero sys admin experience as well, but managed to run a simple app on my free micro instance in less than a day.

Another popular option is Linode.

EDIT: There's also <http://stable.io/>, which is kind of similar to Djangy, but it's not ready yet so keep an eye out.

</comment><comment><USER5> Slicehost or Linode. You get a basic, empty box, and Slicehost has some of the best documentation out there. Everything you do will be the "normal" way - <USER2> you don't need to deal with any heroku-style weirdness. Great way to learn.

</comment><comment><USER6> For simple Django hosting, there's Djangy.com, but you have to be quick because they're discontinuing the service.

<comment><USER7> Djangy is going down in less than a month. Why recommend it?

<comment><USER6> In reference to the claimed $200M exit.</comment></comment></comment>


Recruiting programmers to your startup - <AUTHOR> http://cdixon.org/2011/12/29/recruiting-programmers-to-your-startup/ <comment><USER2> I think the tuple <startups, programmers> may be the cutting edge of a profound social trend: the end of the employer/employee relationship. It's interesting to see posts like the OP struggle with how the traditional categories ("founder" and "employee") are no longer adequate to describe what is rapidly evolving, with neologisms like "late cofounder" popping up as attempts to address it.

The catalyst is that the perceived value of good programmers is finally coming into alignment with their real value. There was a longstanding market inefficiency as people tried to apply industrial/managerial thinking to software, which doesn't work. That phase appears to be coming to an end. The collapse of the barrier to starting one's own company has helped bring this about. So has the growth of hacker culture, which holds programming in high esteem and has healthier creative values than the corporate world. Talented people no longer take for granted that their lot in life is to do boring work for employers who don't respect them. Of course, many still do - the majority, in fact - but what matters is the trend.

If this is right, then we can expect many aspects of the old model (I nominate job interviews) to become anachronistic and die off. Since these are mostly painfully awkward and dumb, bring it on.

<comment><USER2> Follow-up: my (early!) cofounder pointed out to me that "late cofounder" is an oxymoron. To "found" implies being present at the beginning, or more precisely at the bottom (as in "foundation"). The new is oxymoronic in terms of the old.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _If the candidate has enough free time try to do a trial project. There are also more procedural things that can be useful like code tests (although they need to be done in a respectful way and they are more about getting to know how each side thinks than actually testing whether the candidate knows how to program (hopefully you know that by this stage))._

I have come to the point where I respectfully decline to take tests and will generally end the interview at that point, because it tells me that the interviewer and the company has no way of knowing what constitutes a good developer. Figuring out if a developers is good is actually pretty simple, have them show you something they built and then ask them to show you the routine they are most proud of, this way you can start an organic conversation about something they know, testing only devolves into trick questions, unrealistic pressure, and testing candidates for what you think they should know, as such I start looking for the exit as soon as I see them. Not to be a jerk but, it tells me that either the company does not know how to spot talent or that they think they are elite, which tells me they will have a scalability problem in recruiting should they take off.

<comment><USER4> I'm confident you're a solid coder, which is the same benefit of the doubt I give any interviewee I meet with. However, if you dismiss any opportunity that asks you to perform a test to exhibits your skills, then your process is fraught with false positives. Has it occurred to you that perhaps you might like the company/opportunity even though you're given an exam? You took the time to research the company and show up. It's too narrow at that point to give up simply b/c the interviewer wants to make sure that you truly are capable of performing the way you represent yourself on paper.

Further, figuring out if a developers is good is actually not that simple. Again, perhaps finding out that YOU'RE a good coder is pretty simple b/c hey - you're a good coder and you can articulate your work well. But what if you weren't a good coder, and only a good talker? What about those who simply don't communicate as well due to language barriers? Coding tests are important from both perspectives.

All I'm saying is that you have the right to decline any coding test you want, but you're painting too broad a stroke to determine that they're so terrible, and further you may be limiting your own opportunities.

<comment><USER3> _then your process is fraught with false positives_

I contend that if you test me you will get a false negative. Becase you are testing me on what you think I should know which is a reflection of your strengths not mine.

 _Has it occurred to you that perhaps you might like the company/opportunity even though you're given an exam?_

Yes it has, the problem is that I now belive that they don't know how to hire and I will be working with a group of people that know trivia but may not know how to deliver. As such it will fall on me to deliver becase their hiring process has not shown an ephisis on selecting people that can deliver.

 _the interviewer wants to make sure that you truly are capable of performing the way you represent yourself on paper._

I feel that, my and others capibilities are best reflected in what I have already done. We don't ask a other professionals to take test we look at their history and accomplishments.

 _But what if you weren't a good coder, and only a good talker?_

A good talker can BS someone with no knowledge of the field. They are not going to be able to BS their way through an entire code base. A skilled technical person will catch on.

I don't think companies that do test are terrible I just think their interview process is lacking as such it can leave me holding the bag with long hours becase they cannot identify other good talent. It's from experience that I have come to the conclusion that hireing via test is a useless filter, because at one point in time I was the worst offender. I used to use elite code trick questions, abstract questions and code tests and I found not only where they ineffective but I was actually driving the best individuals away, due to what they perceived as arrogance on the part of my orginizarion. Developers have little tolarance for things that seem inefficient and pointless. It took me a while to learn that lesson.

<comment><USER5> _They are not going to be able to BS their way through an entire code base._

The problem is that a large number of coders out there simply do not have a project they can show an interviewer. This can be for a number of reasons such as only programming at work or not having much free time. The fact a coder has a project to walk someone through does not imply they are a good coder, so why would a company tailor their interview process to the minority of interview candidates out there who do have a sizable project they can demo?

<comment><USER3> When I sign up with a company I always get the stipulation that I can use the code for demonstration purposes, that the code will never leave my machine but that I can use it for demonstration purposes. Short of working on some top secret project I would not agree to anything else, not being able to show previous work in this industry is like an artist not being able to show commercial work as their portfolio.

 _The fact a coder has a project to walk someone through does not imply they are a good coder_

No but it is an indication of their work, because it is sitting right there in front of you. Just because they have a project does not mean that it is good, but that is up to the interviewer to decide. If you can look at the code base, then the interviewer should be able to determine if it is well built or not. If they cannot, then I would question whether they should be the one conducting the interview.

 _so why would a company tailor their interview process to the minority of interview candidates out there who do have a sizable project they can demo_

I personally feel that someone looking for a senior developer role should have something that they can demo, they have been in the business for 5 to 10 years, there should be something that they can run on their machine to demonstrate their abilities. Now for a junior developer, I agree they may not have something to demo, but for a junior role I assume a blank slate and look for totally different values. Specifically I look for passion and eagerness to learn, again a test is not going to tell me that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One big problem I see is the disparity between the treatment of cofounders and early engineers.

Late stage employees will almost certainly will almost certainly do (financially) better by working at Google or Facebook. I've seen th polls here where people talk about their exits and apart from a handful who essentially win the lottery, you'd predictably get more and work less at one of these two.

But why is it the last cofounder may get 30%+ with preferential shares and the first engineer gets 1% _or less_ shortly thereafter?

It seems like an anachronism from the dot-com era when startup costs were much higher.

<comment><USER7> _It seems like an anachronism from the dot-com era when startup costs were much higher._

I'm not even sure how that justified the situation then. Unless founders were to bring their own money.

Do you mean that in the sense that it's now much easier for a programmer to build their own stuff, thus they might as well work for themselves rather than getting tiny equity for someone else?

<comment><USER6> Meaning the ability to raise money was a prerequisite in the dot-com era because without money you had nothing so your ability to raise money elevated you to founder.

Now bootstrapping or a small amount of angel funding can go a long way so equity models (IMHO) need to evolve if startups want to attract top talent, especially considering a joB at Google could easily net you $200k+ in total comp (and far more than that for top talent) with far lower risk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is basically a rehash of the usual article on the topic that says the same things and is published every couple months.

One twist was notable. Rather than try to compete on basic hygenic issues and market realities, the advice is to just give up:

"[Y]ou will never beat, say, Google on perks or job security so don't even bother to pitch those. You'll never beat Wall Street banks or rich big companies on cash salary so don't pitch that either"

First, this assumes you are hiring people who are choosing between your company, Google and top Wall Street jobs. That seems unlikely. Very few people want to work on Wall Street and not that many are applying simultaneously to Google and some random company that you or I are running.

Second, you absolutely can't hire top talent by not being competitive with salary, by which I mean 75th percentile or higher. The competent people are like 1% of the job pool out there and have plenty of choices.

You also can't attract top talent by not offering standard benefits. You just can't.

Advocating that you shouldn't bother with competitive pay or benefits is obviously poor advice. So one must ask what is going on here, why is this being advocated? We can't really know. Perhaps the author is trying to justify the low pay and poor benefits his company offers.

<comment><USER9> The point is not that you shouldn't have them, the point is that you should not use them as the main arguments for choosing your company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The problem is that big companies (Google, Oracle, Facebook, and others) are doing the same tricks: good engineers can work on very interesting projects, equity potential is great (10% of stock price increase will get you significant chunk of money), the best people in the field will be your co- workers, etc.

On the other hand, startups will not train on job (or allow you to explore new things), will not allow working remote, etc. Plus, as per suggestion, you need to ask candidates to do 'trial projects' (which probably tells candidate that you are hiring low-level CRUD programers), you will not be able to match salary, etc.

I guess the only way to recruit top-talent is present that your company is doing something important and novel - and for engineers that bar is quite high.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is great advice from Chris, and it's very much field tested.

On top of this, I would add honesty -- as in direct, upfront honesty. Don't sugarcoat anything. Over-selling a company can quickly be translated as bait- and-switch once somebody joins an organization.

I've used the honesty element as a recruiting tool, though. I explain where we have holes, and why persuading the candidate to join addresses those holes and moves us forward.

That approach doesn't always fit with every candidate, but I view that as a positive. I save them time from considering a situation for which they're potentially not a good fit. And I save myself time in finding the right candidate that fits our profile.

</comment><comment><USER12> "[convince them] your company is doing something important and impactful"

I would also add "not be a clone of the hot new thing run by some naive fast- talking 'business person'". There are unfortunately a lot of these being funded and working at one is usually an uninspired rat race to nowhere. Just my personal experience.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is a great post and I agree with everything he's said.

However, I know plenty of folks that are doing all these things but are still struggling to hire for the following reasons:

1) Not enough experienced local talent to attempt recruiting.

2) Not willing to train the available talent on their stack.

3) Not willing to hire remote developers to solve problems 1 and 2.

<comment><USER14> Most businesses won't/can't effectively use remote developers.

<comment><USER15> Explain? I've worked remotely for 20 years, and its working great. For startups, established companies, as a consulatant.

<comment><USER14> That's fantastic! It is great to work remotely, but it takes a certain kind of attitude and culture to effectively leverage remote workers. My anecdotes suggest that there is a nearness bias -- "out of sight, out of mind" -- which often leads to the colocated team members to lapse in keeping remote team members abreast of decisions and changes. Purely virtual teams don't have this problem and can be extremely successful. I've also seen it work where the remote team members are given an isolated component to own.

<comment><USER15> We currently use a collaboration tool that lets us talk spontaneously, share docs, and call out to legacy conf lines. Solves most of the nearness bias.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Business people who don't understand this make the mistake of emphasizing > mechanistic metrics like the number of hours in the office and the number of > bugs fixed per week.

And yet a good 30-50% of all employed programmers I've met aggressively waste time, and given the opportunity to be lazy will be super super lazy. I don't think this is a trait you can pick up in an interview.

So how do you deal with that if you give your programmers ultimate freedom? I guess in the US you can just fire them...

<comment><USER17> People tend to expand out the work to match the time. If you have people working 10 hour days expect them to move really, really slowly. I've only seen 7 hour days once or twice but I didn't see any people "taking it easy" there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This reference is golden:

"Post-traction companies can use the old numbers – you can't. Your first two engineers? They're just late founders. Treat them as such. Expect as much."

Another point he addresses that rings true to me: programmer's motivation. I've made the mistake of throwing money at people when all they wanted was some more leeway to hack.

<comment><USER7> Regarding the equity, it's interesting to see how prevalent "ideas are worthless, execution is everything" is, while, when a company hires their first engineers, they're typically not far off from being just an idea. Still, the typical equity compensation is far from reflecting that.

<comment><USER19> Isn't equity just payment in advance for execution, though? It makes perfect sense to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I will also reference PG's essay on Great Hackers. He explains pretty clearly what great developers want: <http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html>

Also, as PG mentions in the essay, it is hard to recognize great developers unless you have worked with them. Which makes Chris Dixon's point about going to meetups all the more important. Making inroads with the developer community is crucial, at the very least to get references from other talented developers.</comment>


Boost Your WiFi Signal Using Only a Beer Can - <AUTHOR> http://dsc.discovery.com/gear-gadgets/boost-your-wifi-signal-using-only-a-beer-can.html

<comment><USER2> How does that work on MIMO routers? ;)</comment>


Saudi Arabia's wealth fund sold nearly all its Tesla shares before the 112% rise - <AUTHOR> https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tesla-stock-saudi-arabia-sells-shares-wealth-fund-before-surge-2020-2-1028877618 <comment><USER2> I guess these sovereign wealth funds are the real whales on the markets. I wonder if China could have a sovereign wealth fund invest in us companies... or the us can literally just buy the stock market of a country as economic warfare.</comment>


Ask HN: A while back I lost a couple of BC when Mt. Gox went down, am I SOL? - <AUTHOR> Yes I'm an idiot, I kept a couple of coin with MtGox rather than moving it to a wallet. When the site was hacked a few years ago it seemed it was lost, then I got some email instructions through the bankruptcy proceedings and submitted my claim, but they came back and said they could find no record.<p>I have evidence of my original cash transfer (a confirmation email from MtGox) and my username. Does anyone with experience of this know how I should proceed or am I out of options to follow up on this at this point? <comment><USER2> You could have filed a claim in their bankruptcy but the deadline was years ago. [https://www.mtgox.com/](https://www.mtgox.com/) (scroll down)

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe I did file a claim then but it came back empty. At the time it was only a few hundred dollars and not worth putting too much time into pursuing (or so I naively thought). Been having sleepless nights recently wondering what if so thought I'd ask here in case anyone knew of other ideas.

Edit: I found an old response and yes, it was rejected as the amount I put in wasn't found. It's tough as I don't recall the exact amount of BTC I had in the account.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You're fucked, obviously.

<comment><USER4> Would you mind commenting civilly and substantively?

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


Patent trolls are shaking us down for $35k for selling rubies in Clicker Heroes - <AUTHOR> https://www.clickerheroes2.com/patent_trolls.php <comment><USER2> Oh man, talk about the devil and the deep blue sea. I _despise_ patent trolls, but I'm pretty disgusted at this point, with Fee2Pay Skinner Boxes. The first stifles innovation and abuses the legal system callously for personal gain, the latter rips people off and callously preys on the young, the dumb, and people with an addictive personality,

Very Freddy vs Jason.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm the developer. I know how you feel, and I recently complained about it myself here: [https://www.clickerheroes2.com/paytowin.php](https://www.clickerheroes2.com/paytowin.php)

We never tried to abuse people with F2P.

The irony is not lost on me.

<comment><USER2> You know, I believe you. I wish the industry had more like you too. Good luck!</comment></comment></comment>


Say Good-Bye to Picasso's Women of Algiers, Disappearing for $140M - <AUTHOR> http://www.vulture.com/2015/05/good-bye-forever-to-picassos-women-of-algiers.html <comment><USER2> I'm going to assume that just taking a high-res scan of the thing and making prints would actually miss something of the original. Maybe there's artistic merit in how the thickened wodges of paint in each brush-stroke glisten as you move around the room; perhaps educational value in the particular refractive indices of the paint in demonstrating how to paint that way.

My question is, then: if not a flat 2D scan, what _would_ be enough to capture everything relevant to the structural identity of the work? Could we, say, take a 3D scan of the surface, combine it with a spectrographic analysis of all the relevant oils, mix up some of the same oils in their old styles, and then 3D-print those oils onto canvas to create an exact replica? Would that be enough to alleviate the author's ennui?

<comment><USER3> For me, personally, I'd be delighted to have some really good Rembrandt and Goldie forgeries (that is, copies executed in oils), and maybe a few impressionists. The texture of the works is a big part of the experience. But I'd also like the originals to be available as part of our shared cultural history and heritage, rather than locked in a vault to gloat over.

That said, the shared culture/history is undermined by the way many galleries and museums behave - my wife is a painter and is moved to fury by the way that sketching and painting is now forbidden by many institutions; the artists being exhibited may well have learned their own trade sitting in a museum copying the revered masters of their own era; that options is denied to modern students.

<comment><USER2> Indeed, one of the interesting things about a world with "forgery museums" is how much less protected they would need to be.

Imagine if the public were actually allowed to _touch_ the (replica) painting. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? If a reproduction was a $30K capital cost for scanning and oil synthesis, followed by a $2K marginal cost for reproduction, though, why _not_ let the public touch it? Just print another one each year. Heck, destroy the reproductions when you would normally rotate them out of display, and then print them again when you want to install them anew.

For that matter, imagine if one could study (excellent forgeries of) old masters in their _local_ museum/gallery, instead of having to fly to Europe. In fact, imagine if you could "run off" a replica for group study in art school from the room beside the offset printer!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> >Technically speaking, not factoring time on loan to exhibitions, Women of Algiers has only been on public view for the last ten days.

What is that supposed to mean? That's essentially saying that, except for a very common method of having art viewable by the public in museums, it wasn't viewable by the public. That seems like a completely pointless observation.

<comment><USER5> The point is that works of art by great artists are world heritage artefacts, and shouldn't be held in private hands. Who knows if the new buyer will even loan the painting out?

<comment><USER6> How would they have ever ended up with that designation unless there was a private market to determine 'proper value,' thereby conferring notability on the artists?

<comment><USER7> Market value is not the only means of determining aesthetic value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > there's no doubt in my mind that the prices for all art, masterpieces > included but especially contemporary, recent, and new art, are completely > out of whack and ridiculously overpriced. I am sorry, but it seems sick to > me to see new artists selling art out of their first shows for between > $30,000 and $40,000. Something's gotta give.

I give this person the benefit of the doubt as having thought about this a lot more than I have, but this surprises me. Why is it bad if new artists are able to make a living?

<comment><USER9> Of course artists should be able to make a living, but spending that much money on unknown and inexperienced artists suggests that the relationship between the monetary value of art and the quality/importance of it is completely out of whack. But it's not as if that's news to anybody.

<comment><USER10> >spending that much money on unknown and inexperienced artists

it is called VC investing in high-tech

<comment><USER11> Well, maybe this _suggests that the relationship between the monetary value of_ startups _and the quality /importance of_ them _is completely out of whack_ as well.

<comment><USER12> Which is exactly why that's a great post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "My stomach turned at the sight of a woman carrying a yapping Yorkshire terrier while heading out of this overcrowded gallery."

Does anyone else not view this entire essay as the definition of a first world problem? (and even then, the term doesn't do it justice?)

Surely there's a witty comment to be made about THAT turning the author's stomach, while someone in a third world nation starves...however for me it'd just suffice to point out the struggles of the overworked single mother of two to three in the US of A, the NYTimes' piece today about the disappearance of the middle class [1], and then juxtapose that with this article.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/us/politics/as-middle- clas...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/us/politics/as-middle-class-fades- so-does-use-of-term-on-campaign-trail.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> and it sold for $179M

[http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/05/11/Picasso- painting-s...](http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/05/11/Picasso-painting- smashes-record-with-179-million-bid/8841431387160/)

</comment><comment><USER14> The penultimate line of the article negates the headline.

> When I carped about all this art disappearing forever after auction, she > said, in a tone that was distinctly silly boy, "A lot of it will be back > here next season."

Where 'she' is an art expert and employee of the auction house handling the sale.

<comment><USER15> Right, but that comment was in jest about the state of Art buying. That's the point of the piece, Art buying is bullshit. Who's buying these pieces? They aren't buying them to add to the greater art narrative but as an investment. Art Critics love to hate the fact that their world couldn't exist without the wealthy supporting as investment. No one buys a 140mm Picasso because that's what it's worth. They buy it because they think they can sell it for more. Hence his tone about it being gone forever and her joking that he knows it will be back.

<comment><USER14> OK, I didn't get the joke I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I am torn back and forth whether to approve or disapprove art collecting. On the one hand I think you should never buy trash, but save for the very best of something that makes you really happy and buy the minimal amount of it. On the other hand I hate buying things just for the sake of status, especially when it has only idealistic utility.

When I am ever in the position to buy a Picasso, I hope nobody reads this comment, because I am going to casually put it on a wall in the hallway along with some prints. The troll fun you would have by your own would totally outweigh the status points you could gain by telling others.

</comment><comment><USER17> Way too attached to a bit of paint on paper. It was painted after all, to be sold.

<comment><USER18> _Way too attached to a bit of paint on paper._

Is there a name for the rhetorical device where one tries to devalue something by referring to it in this technically-correct-debasing kind of way? I feel like I'm seeing it more and more often on HN and elsewhere. It's some kind of anti-intellectualism but I feel like it must be more specific.

<comment><USER19> I've gone s far as to call it the "yellow metal" fallacy. (ie gold)

Its all just matter in the end, but sometimes there's value in how its arranged. Ignoring that is stupid.

<comment><USER17> No, its called intellectual honesty, or integrity. To subscribe to someone else's value system and order your life according to their views is stupid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The discussion of the valuation of art here reminds me of this Planet Money episode

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/10/09/230950901/episode-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/10/09/230950901/episode-189-why- a-dead-shark-costs-12-million)

</comment><comment><USER21> [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilIsCool](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilIsCool)</comment>


Show HN: Get scores and stats for baseball games on Twitter and App.net - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/mlbscorebot <comment><AUTHOR> App.net version: [https://alpha.app.net/mlbscorebot](https://alpha.app.net/mlbscorebot)

French versions:

        Twitter: https://twitter.com/mlbscorebotfr

        App.net: https://alpha.app.net/mlbscorebotfr</comment>


HTTP Post Files Here - <AUTHOR> https://0x0.st/ <comment><USER2> I like the way you calculate your file retention on a curve.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not mine, but indeed, it is an interesting method.</comment></comment>


Japanese Education: Amae, Stress, and Perseverence - <AUTHOR> http://www.tofugu.com/japan/japanese-education/ <comment><USER2> The part about amae is a bit off. I would go a step further than translating it just as "to wish to be loved." That's still normal even in western culture. Amae is closer to "nagging to be pet over the head while doing a cute face" or "whining" and "talking in a high pitch voice on purpose to sound cute so that you can get what you want".

"Amaeruna!" is heard often and for good reason. It means stop acting like a child and grow the F up. There is also "Amaesugi" (too much) and "Amaenbou" (someone who does too much) which are not positive terms. Then there is "Mazakon" which is short for mother complex. It's an insult, not a compliment, and it's directed towards male adults.

So you see, Japanese are both aware and critical of their amae tendencies.

> this amae… it's what keeps Japanese society together. It's the root cause of > the successes you see in the Japanese education system.

Nah. I would stop at discipline, order, and obedience. Amae is still very personal, and is not any glue that builds businesses or communities, let alone the culture. Where it is seen exported the most is in Anime culture, not Sony or Toyota or Uniqlo or Rakuten.

Also, the part about "rat babies with a strong attachment to their mothers" can also be interpreted as "rat mothers with a strong attachment to their babies". Amae is not the opposite of neglect, nor a cure for it. The word for a parent's apparent over-attachment is "Oyabaka". You don't want to be too much of that either.

I was raised by a single mother. I had a lot of alone time, which I enjoyed very much. But I was never neglected. When I was little, I was an amaenbou. But I did well in school because I had good studying habits, and my mother paid attention to how I did and how I did it. I had a stress free childhood, did well in school, and did not need amae to counteract my stress. None of my friends were stressed out either. Being a kid in Japan is fun. I'd say junior high that's the worst with Ijime at it's peak.

<comment><USER3> Reminds me of,

[https://medium.com/@patricksherriff/how-to-write-about- japan...](https://medium.com/@patricksherriff/how-to-write-about- japan-593c77b85f38)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This resonates a bit with me. The relationship with my mother defined who I am, things like my work ethic, perseverance and so on came from her. She sacrificed her career giving up being printer to work a as a janitor, delivering mail, a security guard just to make sure she was home when I came back from school. Saved money for quite a while out of the little we had to buy me a computer I've been wanted. If it wasn't for that I would been where I am now. Most of all it was just about knowing no matter how hard things got I knew I could always come home and she'd be there. She cared about my grades, asked questions about school. She rarely yelled or forced me to learn, but I could see she was disappointed a bit if she saw I didn't try hard enough. A bit of that desire to see me succeed came from her experience of being force to abandon school after 7 grades and having to look after her siblings. Then having to watch them get advanced degrees and good jobs while she was left mopping floors and washing toilets.

<comment><USER3> That should've taken quite a bit of courage. Where did you grow up, if you don't mind me asking ?

<comment><USER4> In the Soviet Union as it was falling apart.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _> These are things like persistence, self-control, curiosity, conscientiousness, grit, and self-confidence (there are a lot more, too)._

Side note... The author repeatedly mentioning "grit" and "self-control" seems to be citing (maybe subconsciously) Angela Duckworth's research[1]. As an fyi, there has been criticism of her study:

[http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/05/25/479172868/angela-d...](http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/05/25/479172868/angela- duckworth-responds-to-a-new-critique-of-grit)

If Duckworth's research is flawed (e.g. IQ is still the #1 statistical correlation we have of a measured trait and economic outcomes), it means the blog author's paragraph is wrong:

 _> Most people think that IQ, the ability to memorize, etc., are the key metrics for determining the future of a child. These are what economists call "cognitive skills" and it turns out they are not very good predictors of future success. What are good predictors are what's known as "non-cognitive skills." These are things like persistence, self-control, curiosity, conscientiousness, grit, and self-confidence (there are a lot more, too)._

[1] book: [https://www.amazon.com/Grit-Passion-Perseverance-Angela- Duck...](https://www.amazon.com/Grit-Passion-Perseverance-Angela- Duckworth/dp/1501111108)

other writings: [https://www.macfound.org/fellows/889/](https://www.macfound.org/fellows/889/)

<comment><USER6> IQ is a proxy for lots of other things. There have been twin studies where reading skills, including early childhood reading skills accounted for a lot of perceived IQ differences.

Early childhood engagement is incredibly important. We attribute many things to genetics that are outgrowths of a child's home environment. Parents stuck in cycles of inattentive or abusive family situations, over-reliance on shitty daycare vs. early childhood education, etc make a huge impact.

<comment><USER5> _> IQ is a proxy for lots of other things. [...] Early childhood engagement is incredibly important._

Yes I agree that's very true but it's not relevant to the author's specific paragraph I was highlighting. Your particular statement can be true _while simultaneously_ , Koichi's paragraph is false.

This doesn't have to be some larger debate about nature-vs-nurture. Instead, I'm pointing out an example of reading a paragraph with a critical eye.

<comment><USER2> It's not that simple.

> Most people think that IQ, the ability to memorize, etc., are the key > metrics for determining the future of a child.

In Japan this is definitely true. It's what most people think, as dictated by what is common sense.

All the while, the mother with the tensai (genius) child will have instilled good studying habits, focus, prep, etc, and still believe her child is just smart for having good grades.

So Koichi's paragraph is not false. Or rather, there is truth there. If you wish to highlight the falseness then that is possible too, but taking an entire paragraph and trying to equate it as true or false is not that simple.

<comment><USER5> _> In Japan this is definitely true. _

To be clear, I included that 1st sentence there for _context_ so the subsequent sentences make sense. Same contextual reason for sentence #4. Yes, Japanese people may think that and yes, non-cognitive skill includes persistence, etc.

 _> , but taking an entire paragraph_

When I'm saying "paragraph" may be false, I'm talking about sentences #2 and #3 and not #1 and #4.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Compare that to boys who are supposed to be raised as more independent and tough. Is it possible that the way we raise boys versus girls is what 's causing more boys to have trouble paying attention?_

I don't know if "independence" and "toughness" capture what the author wants to talk about. There are cultures built around machismo in which male children are coddled and doted on by their mothers, where it is normal to be a "momma's boy" at home and a swaggering macho in the street. It's also possible to believe in the ideals of equality and interdependence in society at large while having zero emotional intimacy in the home.

That said, it's interesting that Japan has language for talking about this aspect of relationships. To me, it suggests a higher degree of uniformity in attachment styles compared to the United States, where talking about these kinds of relationships feels like a new social development associated with a progressive mentality. I think that historically in the United States, actual behavior at home has been all over the map. Different kids in the same classroom, with the same skin color, accent, and social class, are raised with dramatically different family relationships, often without realizing it until they are much older.

<comment><USER8> > It's also possible to believe in the ideals of equality and interdependence > in society at large while having zero emotional intimacy in the home.

It's possible but may be harder. Home is like your base camp; you can have a crappy time in the outside world but home is the ultimate fallback and sanctuary. At least that's the ideal scenario. There's no doubt that growing up in a home that is broken or lacking warmth will affect you, and many studies have shown that. Take one: apparently if your parents are divorced, then the chance of your own divorcing will be higher [1], not to mention the other psychological impacts. Now imagine that divorce is normal - actually it is now - what impact does this have on society overall? It will be harder to measure, but it is real, just like those Japanese parents who raise their kids with love ultimately cultivates them into caring (amae context) people.

[1] [https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/11/09/is-my- marr...](https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/11/09/is-my-marriage- doomed-if-my-parents-got-divorced-when-i-was-a-kid/)

<comment><USER7> Sorry, my original statement wasn't clear. What I meant to say is that it's possible to grow up in a household where equality and interdependence are embraced as social ideals, but there is no emotional intimacy between members of the family, and children are discouraged from relying on others emotionally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Compare that to boys who are supposed to be raised as more independent and > tough. Is it possible that the way we raise boys versus girls is what's > causing more boys to have trouble paying attention? Self control, willpower, > and the ability to pay attention are all non-cognitive skills. If > "attachment" and "dependency" are the things that develop a child's non- > cognitive skills… could this be why more boys have ADHD than girls?

No, please read some research, please, for the love of god please stop, no. This conjecture is thoroughly questionable, there is copious research to show these traits developing essentially from birth. The same behavioural differences exist in effectively the same way cross-culturally (including in Japan).

There's more to it, schools in japan place a lot of responsibility on the kids. They are responsible for maintenance of the school (the non-dangerous kind), and later somewhat responsible for governing aspects of the school, among other things.

I can't remember a time in a Canadian public school where I was asked to do something useful for somebody. I think more of that would have helped a lot in terms of motivation.

<comment><USER10> > I can't remember a time in a Canadian public school where I was asked to do > something useful for somebody. I think more of that would have helped a lot > in terms of motivation.

I mean we had mandatory volunteer hours? But in general, yes, school is just a day-care and nothing more.

<comment><USER11> >mandatory volunteer

Is it volunteering if it's mandatory?

<comment><USER9> Yeah, it's oxymoronic. They should just call it duty or something, a euphemism is better than an oxymoron.

<comment><USER10> [http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/124a.html](http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/124a.html)

It is in fact called community involvement! It was my mistake.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The main argument made by this article appears to be following:

* Japanese students students score higher because of the high-stakes college entrance exam system. However, this creates more stress. Japanese students are able to deal with this stress because of closeness with their mothers.

The article mentions studies on young children, but this does not seem particularly relevant because children would not yet be experiencing the stress created by the entrance exam system at this point, unless the argument is that the way children are raised in early childhood leaves them better able to deal with stress for the rest of their life, but I'm not sure there is evidence that Japanese people are better able to deal with stress than Americans in general.

Even if we assume that there is a difference parental involvement that makes them better able to handle stress than children in the US, it seems like a surprising leap to attribute this to this notional Japanese principle of "amae" without even mentioning the fact that the percentage of working mothers in the US is almost double what it is in Japan.

</comment><comment><USER8> Really good article.

It's interesting that right now, we're trying to make learning _easier_. Gamification, bite-sized lengths, multi-sensory ... they all have merits but no one in edtech is talking about instilling a habit of _grit_. Not all knowledge is presented in a silver dish !

And not to be Luddite but technology has made us more detached [1], so emulating the Japanese _amae_ will also not be easy.

[1] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39666863](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39666863)

</comment><comment><USER13> >how attachment reduces stress

Although I'm in the process of reading the article, the title was quite striking to me - the Buddha said almost exactly the opposite - that it is attachment which is the cause of stress, clinging to changing phenomena, hoping they were permanent, or even without realising at the emotional level that they will fade.

<comment><USER14> Reading this article now, but this is about attachment to another person through relationships. I haven't studied Buddhism (or Stoicism from my sibling comment) in great detail. My question is, how does the detachment taught or encouraged by these philosophies deal with relationships? My understanding of it (very, very superficial, I know) was more about detachment from things, not from people. I'd like to be corrected on this if I'm wrong.

<comment><USER13> It's less about detachment than it is about non-attachment; it's the same for physical objects and even mental phenomena as it is for people - attachment to these things causes suffering in the same way, when the inevitable time comes that they pass and fade, their qualities change, your life moves on.

>"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."

Dukkha is the word used by the Buddha to describe stressfulness, unsatisfactoriness, suffering, anguish etc., i.e that pain which is emotional; his position is that these arise from our desire to be stable, and from that desire acting upon it, to try and slow the tides of change. At least, that is my understanding.

But non-attachment to people need not mean that one stops feeling compassion for them, nor does it mean that one has to break up with one's friends. It's more about being mindful of the kind of relationships you have, and how they affect you. For example, one of the Buddha's prescribed techniques is to meditate on the theme of death, that one's body will eventually die, to visualise each process of birth, aging, sickness, death, one's decomposing body, the bones left over, those bones themselves yellowing and decomposing.

But here we have even the most important of all - detachment from one's own body. I don't mean this in a kind of "outer body experience" way. It's not that one stops caring, it's that one understands on an emotional level that things pass; it's not enough to understand this on an intellectual level. This kind of base understanding within us, acheived through meditation, is referred to as nibbana/awakening/enlightenment.

>"Just as if a great mass of fire of ten... twenty... thirty or forty cartloads of timber were burning, and into it a man would time & again throw dried grass, dried cow dung, & dried timber, so that the great mass of fire — thus nourished, thus sustained — would burn for a long, long time. In the same way, in one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena, craving develops. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

<comment><USER14> > It's less about detachment than it is about non-attachment

Thanks for saying this, those aren't synonymous and at one point I did read/study (cursory, survey level) about both Buddhism and Stoicism and came to understand the distinction but failed to use the correct terms in my comment.

Thanks also for the thoughtful reply. I have some reading to do now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> 'The word amae comes from the word amaeru, which, according to Japanese psychoanalyst Takeo Doi (he's the guy who basically made this term a thing), can be defined as "to wish to be loved." On top of this, it has connotations of a need for dependency and a request for indulgence of one's perceived needs. This amae type of relationship is the ideal for all close relationships in Japan. It starts with child and mother, but expands out to student and teacher, student and upperclassmen, salaryman and boss, husband and wife, etc. It's the senpai-kohai relationship in a nutshell. If everyone is able to indulge their needs into everyone else then everything will work out, or so Japanese society has been saying for quite a while now."

I've seen a number of Japanophiles quite taken with this idea of amae, popularized by psychoanalyst Takeo Doi in 1971. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anatomy_of_Dependence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anatomy_of_Dependence)

To me it sounds like a bunch of Freudian psychobabble or pseudoscience.

The author doesn't even really attempt to empiricially link Japanese amae and non-cognitive skills (persistence, self-control, curiosity, conscientiousness, grit, and self-confidence) in the specific case of Japan—where children should do better on the the Marshmallow Test, if this is accurate.

Tofugu has some great essays on learning Japanese, but this is not one.

<comment><USER8> It might not be just psychobabble though. _Amae_ may seem loosely connected to those non-cognitive skills, but if the author's right about it being widespread and so deeply embedded in society that it's applied everywhere, then I think it's a reasonable assumption that it does contribute to certain cultural traits, like grit. The author does need to cite studies showing the relationship between empathy/happy childhood and IQ/EQ though. Still, I thought that his opinion and what-ifs interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm rather wary of culturally based strengths. They DO exist. For example, being a good students is like being a star quarterback in the US. There simply isn't a way for US culture to have better academic performance with just this one cultural difference.

I'm wary because I think culture as a whole exists only to stabilize social stratification. Under normal circumstances layers will naturally mix, but if the mobility channels are clearly specified, you have order. In the US this is the mythos if hard work, in many Asian cultures there are establish systems based around tests. Indian and European systems had no mobility, being caste and nobility based.

Hard layers eventually lead to revolt, but soft layers didn't cordone wealth. Soft layers with prescribed channels are more stable.

So the existing channels are actually purposely inefficient and mostly stupid.

Entrepreneuship for example used to be forced. It was what you must do when given too much freedom. It was freedom in the sense of far too much, being ostracized in the desert.

Technology though provides the tools to survive in excess freedom. The desert can become a plain, once you have your endless water supply and teleporter that is.

The side effect is that these tools eat culture. It doesn't destroy the bike, but invents the car. Culture becomes a weekend thing.

Cultural praising often reminds me of hipster-ish praising of things like traditional razors and single gear fixies. People going backwards while claiming to be going forwards.

</comment><comment><USER17> Great article!

Important nitpick: Dr. Mary Ainsworth (the professor who wrote about attachment theory) is female. The article incorrectly assumes the professor was a "he."

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm still not sure these Asian students make "better" engineers and such. They end up in more prestigious positions due to hiring practices that make it so. But then we see things like the critique of the Toyota software in the sudden acceleration investigation... While over in America with it's "inferior" education system we dominate tech. We want to be more like them, while they want to be more like us.

<comment><USER14> I wouldn't look at quality of tech from one (hardware) company and use that as a judgement on an entire continent.

My personal view on the Toyota software problem is that Toyota has the same problem as every American _hardware_ company I've interacted with that went into software. Software was a necessary evil and outside their wheelhouse. Many of them succeed at software despite themselves until something comes up that forces them to reexamine what they're doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hard to reconcile this with the existence of the kyouiku mama, the education mother. I also wonder if this also isn't ignoring all the students who don't do cram schools and who aren't salarymen capable, which is a lot of japan. Sometimes there's too much focus on the elite.

</comment><comment><USER20> Does it really succeed though ? There is a hilariously cynical account of Japan here,

[http://japaneseruleof7.com/are-japanese-people- retarded/](http://japaneseruleof7.com/are-japanese-people-retarded/)</comment>


YMMV, but I switched from Head JS to LABjs and reduced data transfer by ~ 30% - <AUTHOR>

Prompted by the recent posting of "On Script Loaders", I decided to see what would happen if I replaced head.js with lab.js. In Chrome, using LABjs caused 442KB to be spent on scripts.
Using Head JS causes 596KB of data to be transfered for scripts.
I'm not sure, but I think the cause is related to how Head JS double requests each script. See the original posting / article for more depth:
http://blog.getify.com/2010/12/on-script-loaders/ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2239371
LABjs homepage: http://labjs.com/ Head JS homepage: http://headjs.com/ <comment><USER2> You could do better than that and read the documentation on headjs.com. I just double-checked and I do see it mentioned that you need to set long expire headers and cache your scripts as much as possible.

As a side-note and tip: \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----- The way we're doing that right now is by generating unique URLs for JS assets if they change and setting long expiration times, so the files are cached in the browser for as long as possible. If the resource changes, so does the URL. This is done only _once_ at build time.

This URL includes the first 8 characters of the sha1 hash of this file:

        http://example.com/js/004aa641/index.js

Using URL rewriting rules at your server end you can strip the hash out and use this:

        http://example.com/js/index.js

We initially tried setting the hash as a query string parameter, but many proxy servers don't cache static resources the URLs of which have query strings appended to them. Therefore, we moved to including the hash into the URL itself and rewriting it at the server end.

What it looked like with the hash for a query string parameter:

        http://example.com/js/index.js?004aa641

If you deploy your Website in this manner, it lets head.js do its job, gives you maximum resource freshness, keeps resources cached for the longest duration, and because the hash changes for only those resources that have changed, only those resources are downloaded again. Keep your scripts sizes smaller than 25k for mobile phone browsers to be able to cache them permanently.

This should hopefully cut down the amount of bandwidth consumed for your Website by a _very_ large margin and improve the "speed" of rendering of your Website than by only using labjs or headjs.

Cheers, Yesudeep.</comment>


A Beginners' Guide to Big O Notation - <AUTHOR> http://rob-bell.net/2009/06/a-beginners-guide-to-big-o-notation/ <comment><USER3> Pretty flawed, unfortunately. I left this as a comment, but it has yet to be moderated through.

\----

You're doing a good thing by trying to elucidate basic concepts, but I'm afraid your article has a bunch of errors that means it's not as helpful as it could be.

"Big O specifically describes the worst-case scenario" - this isn't true. g(n) = O(f(n)) simply means that f(n) asymptotically bounds g(n) as n->inf - <USER2> the functions involved could be anything and don't necessarily refer to the worst case. For example, they could be the average case running times of an algorithm, or something completely different. Also remember that for any n, g(n) could be > f(n), so f(n) is not worst case in that respect either.

"O(1) describes an algorithm that will always execute in the same time (or space) regardless of the size of the input data set." - curiously, also not true. It just means that there's eventually an upper limit on how much space an algorithm will use, or that eventually as n gets larger the resource consumption of the algorithm becomes constant.

"The example below also demonstrates how Big O favours the worst-case performance scenario; a matching string could be found during any iteration of the for loop and the function would return early" - same point about g(n) = O(f(n)) not being worst case necessarily - you've set the problem up so that N is the worst (and average) case running time. However we can say that the best case running time of linear search is O(1).

"O(2^N) denotes an algorithm whose growth will double with each additional element in the input data set." - also you need to remember that these are upper bounds, and aren't necessarily tight. That linear search example, which you wrote as O(N), is also O(2^N). If we replace O by \Theta then we begin to get to the behaviour you're describing, but remember that these things only are true as N gets sufficiently large.

<comment><USER4> The article is really badly flawed. It does not even touch the reason why we use Big-O notation in the first place. That is to avoid clutter like constant factors or the basis of logratihms.

If it would than such mistakes as in the example for binary search "a data set containing 10 items takes one second to complete, a data set containing 100 items takes two seconds, and a data set containing 1000 items will take three seconds."

would not occur.

Also a logarithm does NOT have a "curve that PEAKS [my emphasis] at the beginning and slowly flattens out as the size".

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Don't listen to what this article has to say - it's not worth it.

Read the chapter on growth of functions in CLRS instead (a preview at [http://books.google.com/books?id=NLngYyWFl_YC&lpg=PP1...](http://books.google.com/books?id=NLngYyWFl_YC&lpg=PP1&dq=introduction%20to%20algorithms&pg=PA41) \- gives the general idea, although it's missing a couple of pages).

<comment><USER6> imho that algorithms book one of the best algorithms books in existence. It was incredibly useful while I was doing my CS degree and is still useful now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Leaving aside actual errors pointed out in other comments, is this article even understandable to a beginner? Having learned and absorbed this stuff years ago, it's hard for me to be sure, but my impression was that it assumed the reader knew lots of things few beginners would.

One example: "O(1) describes an algorithm that will always execute in the same time (or space) regardless of the size of the input data set." What does always executing in the same time (or space) really mean? I know, but I doubt a beginner would.

(As an aside, the use of "complexity" here is unfortunate. It's a wretched term for what it describes. Computer science is full of lousy terminology, but "complexity" is surely among the worst.)

Aside from undefined vocabulary, the common O values are introduced out of order. O(n) is by far the easiest to understand; it should therefore go first, with both a contrived example and a real one. The rest of the document should follow on from there, comparing to O(n).

</comment><comment><USER8> Good quick read and refresher. I look forward to future articles in this style. :)</comment>


This Stanford Professor Has a Theory on Why 2017 Is Filled with Jerks - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/robert-sutton-asshole-survival-guide.html <comment><USER2> "Most of politics is everybody calling everybody else assholes." \- Robert Sutton

Greatest line ever about politics.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the best options to switch from Mandrill? - <AUTHOR> For some reasons Mailchimp decided to merge his Mandrill service under is main Mailchimp business.
They sent out an email yesterday for all Mandrill users to merge their accounts. Which I have done.
However, I'm not happy at all how things are right now: - The merger was buggy and painful - The pricing is ridiculous. I have to pay a $10 fee just to be allowed to use their service - I now have to use 2 separates websites instead of one
- mailchimp.com is hard to use
So, I'm not happy with how things are going and I'm thinking of leaving mailchimp for another service. What do you guys recommend? <comment><USER2> See the various threads about the change, tons of alternatives are discussed/advertised: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Mandrill&sort=byPopularity&pre...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Mandrill&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story) / [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Mandrill&sort=byDate&prefix&pa...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Mandrill&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

</comment><comment><USER3> Take a look at SparkPost which is very developer friendly and a 100k free tier [https://www.sparkpost.com/mandrill-migration- guide](https://www.sparkpost.com/mandrill-migration-guide)</comment>


EFF Opposes McCaul-Warner Encryption Commission - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/eff-opposes-mccaul-warner-encryption-commission <comment><USER2> > The makeup of the commission is also an issue. The law enforcement and > intelligence community is overrepresented with 6 out of 16 seats. Because 12 > of the 16 commission's members are required to issue subpoenas or approve > any conclusions, those 6 members have tremendous influence over the > commission's investigations and the content of any report.

Seat stuffing to control the direction of the committee is how you know they bias to control the "commission" in a given direction.

The original commission members [both of whom are intelligence/LE biased] + 6 LE officers = 50% control, so it is actually worse than the EFF is saying.

> The Warner-McCaul proposal ignores what technical experts, computer > scientists, and others have repeatedly told Congress for more than 20 years: > weakening encryption standards and mandating backdoors (or key escrow) for > government access will make people and their devices less safe. Indeed, the > very existence of the Warner-McCaul bill will be used to prolong an > unnecessary conversation.

Honestly, I think EFF is understating the risk. Its quite possible this Commission won't get vetoed like the EFF believes, particularly given they can try under Obama [who might veto it] and in 2017 under the next president. Its basically veto shopping since it looks like Clinton will win [who won't veto it].

[http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/19/10628208/hillary- clinton-...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/19/10628208/hillary-clinton-back- door-debate)

> "It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted > communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or > after," Clinton said. "There must be some way. I don't know enough about the > technology to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in > our tech experts."

<comment><USER3> Ugh. I hate that sentiment at the end. My boss thinks I'm a wizard. I am not a wizard. It's hard to live up to expectations. Especially when it's provably impossible to do what I've been asked and I'm expected to try anyway. How do I know if I haven't tried?

Because I'm a wizard and that's not how magic works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm always reading articles about how we need more 'programming' classes in high schools. I think what we really need is more education centered around encryption. We can't expect to have intelligent discussions on the importance of internet privacy if the general public can't understand what's at stake.

<comment><USER5> We need more computer scientists in congress. I expect we'll see a lot more technically competent politicians in the coming decades. Voters like smart people, and those who were once seen as "nerds" can now garner the respect of everyday Americans. People who "know about computers" are seen as smart. A smooth talking, highly technical, successful startup founder will have a good chance of winning a state-level election.

Within 20 years, when all these ignorant fossils in congress finally die, hopefully some smart and technically informed people will replace them.

<comment><USER6> We need more {insert professional specialty} in Congress.

Putting lawyers in charge of everything is like using MBAs to directly manage technical projects.

<comment><USER7> Those damn lawyers! It's almost as if Congress' job involves laws, or something!

<comment><USER8> The only real job for Congress us fund raising, since that's what they do with the plurality of their time.

Essentially their job is prostitution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Do they try to get this message out to people in congress?

<comment><USER10> A large percentage of what they do is lobbying against things like this, so yes. I don't know if they've sent anything out to congress members about this quite yet but if they haven't they will.</comment></comment>


The New Science of Sentencing: Basing criminal sentences on risk assessment - <AUTHOR> https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/08/04/the-new-science-of-sentencing <comment><USER2> I am having a hard time seeing how this will end well without full transparency. That means open source, open data, pretty much open everything. I think it can be accomplished without necessarily breaching privacy of those who are "data points" within the data set.

EDIT: Although I am having trouble figuring out how to reconcile the in-depth research that would need to be done on a case-by-case basis, with the privacy concerns, to ensure the system is audited properly.</comment>


Artificial Intelligence Swarms Silicon Valley on Wings and Wheels - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/technology/on-wheels-and-wings-artificial-intelligence-swarms-silicon-valley.html?contentCollection=weekendreads&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=c-column-middle-span-region&region=c-column-middle-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-middle-span-region <comment><USER2> That inventory-checking robot may be the most useful AI startup product I've seen. It's a valuable and large problem, challenging yet tractable with today's technology.

Curious if anyone knows other valuable and unique markets being addressed by new startups.

<comment><USER3> I'm thinking, isn't the robot somewhat unnecessary? Can't it be done by software instead? Maybe connecting into the inventory management system / POS if the grocery store and do the AI processing in it.

<comment><USER4> I thought that, but the inventory management gets out of sync when stock is removed without going through the POS (stealing)

Even for a warehouse (restricted access), there is a need for stock counting as mistakes can be made

<comment><USER5> Eventually, an AI that accounted for shrink would be more accurate than any number of cycle counts. Actually, it would not take long, most major retailers have shrink predictions down to two or three decimals, you would just need to train the AI to account for shrink. The most important role of inventory is knowing how much to re-order, which can be done by the AI more easily than any human analysts once you have enough training data. Source: worked in retail management, then inventory software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For many readers of HN, this article is obviously true. But so obvious that you might wonder if it's newsworthy, a rehashing of what we hear so often:

* AI will take jobs

> a prototype inventory checker developed by Bossa Nova Robotics silently > glided through the aisles using computer vision to automatically perform a > task that humans have done manually for centuries.

* VCs move in packs

> "We saw a slow trickle in investments in robotics, and suddenly, boom — > there seem to be a dozen companies ..."

* The rush for talent

> "The number of people trying to get the students to drop out of the class > halfway through because now they know a little bit of this stuff is crazy."

* The strawman of superintelligence

> For some technologists, today's technical advances are laying the groundwork > for truly brilliant machines that will soon have human-level intelligence.

* The evocation of AI winter, just to be safe

> ...so the commercial enthusiasm ended in disappointment, leading to a period > now referred to as the "A.I. Winter."

Add a potted history of Silicon Valley as a "place that reinvents itself" and the Canadian mafia's origin story about deep learning, and you have a recipe for almost any news article about AI, ever.

Not much new here.

<comment><USER7> Take that framework, put it into a program, and pretty soon you could have an AI that churns out articles for the NYT!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Are drones and robots really about AI or are they more about processors that can handle intensive image processing and control systems on a cheap, low- power silicon die?

Don't get me wrong, I think robotics is gonna be yuuuuuge, but I see AI as more of a software play in the near term (consumer/biz, not embedded.)

Oh, and robots don't have a minimum wage. Something to think about as we push up labor costs at the low end (unnecessarily IMO.) Is it a coincidence that I see touch-screens in SF McDonalds the year following the min-wage increase? The technology has been there for a long time.

<comment><USER8> The tricky part is understanding consumer behavior. McDonald's has been rolling out touchscreens in San Francisco where they are still operating, but they also tried this in Colorado and in under a month they removed most because they were losing customers. Operational efficiencies are always wonderful on the backend, but when you put them in front of your customers it's important to understand their reactions as they may have negative reactions. There are lots of people who are not happy about robots taking jobs, and if they can see these robots it will influence their loyalty to that store.

<comment><USER7> Good point. I did walk out of a McDonalds w/ touch screens by Union Square a few months ago. It wasn't a statement on robots. I just didn't find the experience very good. I remember being a bit confused by the process.

Funny, but now I remember ordering at touch screens at McDonalds in France last year. Even though it was in French (I speak no French) I found the process simple. Simpler than face to face ordering, to be sure, since I could order by picture.

Maybe, like the self-checkout lines at the grocery store, which I hated at first but usually choose now because the line is quicker, there's a learning curve. In fact, maybe McDonalds in Colorado should have waited before pulling those touchscreens?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I there is more success than 1980s A.I. A whole lot hoopla then. Fear Japan would whomp us. And then never went anywhere. In the 1980s it was LISP machines, expert systems, and logical programming languages. Now it is deep learning and self driving cars.

</comment><comment><USER10> The inventory robot reminds me of an idea I had 11 years ago to use roomba tech + rfid readers to track inventory in stores like walmart. Curious to see how their use of computer vision can account for things like depth of shelves etc.</comment>


A New Way to Make Rational Resolutions - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303453004579290510733740616 <comment><USER2> Listening to your emotions is important, as the article states.

But there is something more even more important - the schedule.

Why make new year resolutions? It is known to be inefficient and fail-prone.

My personal method : make "whatever month it is" resolutions, with a timeframe - and don't do that on the first day of the month only.

For ex, in february I may make some february resolutions, which will have a different timeframe (ex: some will be evaluated at t+1 in march, some at t+4 in june, etc). I may add another batch of resolutions in any given day of the month - I just file them under a month since it's easy to remember.

This also enables many cycles of resolutions in a given year, which is useful in case some of them haven't been held - it won't be too late in april to set new resolutions.

Track them using metrics, and have clear "next steps", then it's not really complicated.

Using last year as an example, I have had a failure rate of ~25%, which I consider very acceptable.

Think "release early, release often", or compare waterfall/iterative/agile methods, figure out which is better, and apply it to your life.

<comment><USER3> Well said. This is the biggest change I've made to my resolutions this year. I'm implementing them on a fixed timeframe -- and deliberately adding deadlines to my calendar, to check my progress and reassess the resolutions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Attendees [...] learned a technique called "pre-hindsight" that uses emotional cues to create more foolproof plans. It works like this: Imagine that six months have passed, and you haven't achieved the body of your dreams. How surprised are you? The less surprised you are, the less likely it is you will succeed at your goal. Then think in detail about each reason you wouldn't be surprised if June comes and the number on the scale hadn't budged. Each reason—whether "I don't have time" or "I don't like running in the mornings"—is a possible cause of failure. Using the surprise level to anticipate these is crucial to creating a plan to address each weak point."

I like this technique a lot. Thinking about how surprised you'd be if you do not achieve your objective.

I think the technique has similarities with the exercise that Steven Covey writes about in "The Seven Habits" where you must think about what you want other people to say about you at your funeral. It engages you in a special kind of way, perhaps helping you to uncover knowledge that you did not know you held.

</comment><comment><USER5> Example schedule here, with brief descriptions of what the curriculum was in May 2013:

[http://rationality.org/schedule/](http://rationality.org/schedule/)

It's changed some since then; they do regular follow-ups on each participant for six weeks afterward, which lets them measure what works and what doesn't, and iterate based on that.

</comment><comment><USER6> Minimum Viable New Year's Resolutions (MVNYR)?</comment>


A genetic algorithm Twitter art bot in Clojure - <AUTHOR> https://matthewbilyeu.com/blog/2019-12-31/a-genetic-algorithm-twitter-art-bot-in-clojure <comment><USER2> The problem with this is that starting off, it's getting no likes, and to a human eye, the output all looks the same.

If one day it does get some attention, that doesn't mean the people who like it will differentiate between the images.

The dimension of variation and the fitness function just aren't matched up.</comment>


A Universal Basic Income Is My Generation's Moonshot - <AUTHOR> https://www.usv.com/post/55c811f33a13190003ad2b30/a-universal-basic-income-is-my-generations-moonshot <comment><USER2> I think a lot of innovation will spring from this too, and many others have said that once basic provisions like shelter, food, clean drinking water and telecoms are being met; all that's left to do is create art and innovate. Bigger budgets does not necessarily mean more innovation happens, it more often than not enfeebles somebody because they can't allocate the time to create anything. 9-5 culture is a bane for many artists who after work, have one solid hour of making art before they burn out and have to attend to other duties.

<comment><USER3> > I think a lot of innovation will spring from this too

Me too. Like new ways to spy on, enslave and control those cursed with ability and forced to create the "shelter, food, clean drinking water and telecoms" that your utopia requires.

<comment><USER4> The idea of basic income is to provide enough to not die or be a burden on society, but not enough to really enjoy life. As well we already are providing shelter, food, water, telecoms. The problem is that the bureaucracy eats up so much money in the process that it becomes even more expensive than just paying everyone in the US $720 a month and saying "youre on your own".

Kinda Warren Buffetts's inheritance ideas: "a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing." (quoting cnbc article here: [http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/boomers-mimic-warren- buffett-...](http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/boomers-mimic-warren-buffett-when- it-comes-to-inheritances.html) )

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've read all the comments and the main argument is that people will not want to work with Basic Income being provided. This comes from a basic lack of understanding how basic incomes work. They are intentionally very low. Imagine making in the bottom quartile. You have enough to eat something each day, you have something that shelters you from the environment, you can afford to shop a thrift stores and craigslist. However, you would want for more. New Apple stuff, disneyland tickets, a vacation.

There are 2 main veins of basic income that I've heard: 1\. Basic income that distributes goods from automation (ie, robot economy) . Not really what's being discussed here.

2\. A basic income that is enough to not die and not enough such that most people would be satiated. Those that are not satiated would be encouraged to work on something, both that others want and that they want to do. Jobs that people would love to do would pay very little, jobs that suck (something to do with poop, surely) would pay more, the market forces are still at play.

If #1 ever becomes real such that all human want is satiated (I do not believe in infinite demand for consumption) or #2 pays too much, then yes it sounds like a scene from that movie WALL-E

<comment><USER5> One of my concerns is that modern peoples are already very out of touch with what matters for the creation of things of real value. We already have bizarre ideas that money = value. We already have people who fail to understand the real world underpinnings of the creation of value -- of how you need certain resources and preconditions to have any hope of creating value. We already have too many people who think you fix financial problems, like depression, by manipulating the market economy. We already have a great many people who are intelligent, educated and well-paid who are very out of touch with reality in terms of where food and other important resources come from.

The reason it matters to me to have people get money by participating in the economy and not just for existing is because that participation shapes their ideas about what matters. There is no upper limit to what humans can spend or consume. We see this again and again and again. And about 2/3 of lottery winners are bankrupt within 5 years. People who have no education in dealing with wealth just run through it. Their lottery winnings seem "limitless" to them and they just run through it all and end up bankrupt.

You are talking about doing that as a universal thing. You are talking about spreading the belief that we have so much wealth right now that every last person can just consume and not produce and it will somehow be okay.

I very strongly disagree with this notion. It is not that it simply disincentives work. It is that it further poisons the minds of people who already are out of touch with where real value comes from. I find this incredibly scary stuff.

You have to deal with the mental space of humans, not just their bodily needs. You talk about distributing enough money to keep people fed and what not at some basic level and you ignore what that does to their minds and self concept. I think this is extremely dangerous territory and will be disastrous.

<comment><USER4> If only people's income had a direct correlation with how much value they produce[1] and how hard they work. Sadly its mostly about power and scarcity. Why should the secretary make so much less than their boss? Why should a person who assembles cars make less than the CEO? Scarcity (lots of people could be a secretary) and power (The CEO has ascended ranks and built up power within a cohort) .

Re: Lotteries. Many lottery winners are bankrupt in a short time because they become a feeding ground for wolves too. Its not just the winner, but their friends, family, charities and the other sales targets they become. Thinking you have unlimited money and having a specific income ($1000 a month) are two very different things. Yes they may "Run through" the $1000. But there will be another $1000 next month.

When the money is dilute and universal there will be no reason to "feed" on any individual. so really you're comparing apples and oranges.

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the- highes...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid- ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/)

<comment><USER5> I agree there are things we should do differently. But arguing that a secretary or factory worker deserve a better compensation package seems pretty unrelated to basic income.

There are plenty of rich people that others would like to take advantage of. People who inherited wealth or grew up middle class and earned their money tend to have develoed defense mechanisms. They know how to make themselves less of a target and to say _no_ to most people. Lottery winners tend to lack those cultural or psychological assets.

I have no reason to believe universal basic income will cure mankind of avarice. Even very rich people often want moire, more, more. If this were not try, we likely wouldn't have the current set of problems we are wrestling with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Guaranteed income?

What happens as more and more people decide to live on the dole? Are you going to force them to work? What happens when the last wealthy people you could tax into paying for it flee your country with their money?

Utopia fails because, "HUMAN."

<comment><USER7> > What happens as more and more people decide to live on the dole? Are you > going to force them to work?

 _Ceteris paribus_ , prices go up, and living exclusively on the unconditional basic income becomes less attractive. With a UBI, there's no reason _not_ to work if you are unsatisfied with what you get from the UBI, since you don't lose subsidy for working. So, there's a natural negative feedback control system.

> What happens when the last wealthy people you could tax into paying for it > flee your country with their money?

If people making profits in the country that could be taxed leave, then profit making opportunities open up that others could, and someone _will_ , take advantage of.

<comment><USER6> That's fine if you can stop them from tearing you apart for not increasing their basic stipend as the cost of living increased.

You aren't going to defeat human nature.

Those theories have been around for hundreds (thousands) of years, but oddly, it never happens. There's a reason for that.

People are not automatons and they usually think for themselves (with varying degrees of success) and won't fall into line with the rules necessary to sustain a utopian society.

You'll be left with nothing but a gun in your hand trying to force your well upon them. Forced utopia begs for revolution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am homeless and I think basic income is nightmare fuel: [http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/09/nightmare- fu...](http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/09/nightmare-fuel-world- of-nothing-but.html)</comment>


Requesting feedback on landing page of an idea I'm doing for Startup Weekend.. - <AUTHOR>

I'm preparing for Startup Weekend Pasdadena. I figure this launchpage is my first MVP. I would appriciate any type of feedback or suggestions. http://signup.laborhoods.com <comment><USER2> Ok, im viewing your site from an 11 inch macbook air. Things to consider: the email input should be above the fold. I should see it as soon as I land on your page. Instead of saying "Enter Your E-Mail to Request an Invite" you could put "Claim Our Early Adopter Badge", something of the sort. The logo is too big and should be higher, in order for everything else to fit. I would rearrange the copy of the main message, making it say Hire a Neighbor before the other part. That text could be smaller and with a cooler font. The image of the map on the phone should be clear and have the proper dimensions of an iphone app.

All of that said, your landing page should not be your MVP. You'd do well to make a mobile site that looks and feels exactly like your app would feel. Then the demo for the startup weekend could be a video showing you navigating through the mobile site.</comment>