Rent control is back. And that's bad - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rent-control-is-back-and-thats-bad/2019/09/21/31abb05c-dbdb-11e9-a688-303693fb4b0b_story.html <comment><USER3> Rent control is inevitable. The cited paper ([https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/gsb-cmis/gsb-cmis-download- auth...](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/gsb-cmis/gsb-cmis-download-auth/457786)) synthesized a cost of a 5.1% increase in rental prices for San Francisco, but that's for the period 1995 to 2012. 5.1% for that period is miniscule, dwarfed by demand and non-rental control supply pressures. The political cost of an army of voters worried about housing insecurity is incomparably higher.

The researchers suggest transfer payments instead of rent control, minimizing negative effects on supply. But Americans, and I'd bet most people around the world, dislike transfer payments. Nobody wants to be "on the dole", and in any event signing up for those payments comes with its own form of social cost and insecurity. Rent control is a silent tax that is relatively optimal from a political-economic perspective (not just an economic one).

The same dynamics are at play with free trade. Academics said dislocation costs of free trade could be ameliorated with transfer payments. But those payments never came, and voters would never accept them as a substitute for lost jobs. And for similar reasons--people don't want to feel forced to move, they want to feel like their pursuing better opportunities. But when a factory shuts down or a landlord effectively evicts you, it's not a choice. And even if it only happens to a small fraction of people, many more feel insecure even if they have no rational reason to feel insecure.

The question isn't whether rent control is good or bad, it's whether and to what extent it's possible to extract in exchange zoning and development concessions that promote supply increases. Unfortunately, the outlook doesn't seem so good. The only other alternative is Federal pressure, which doesn't seem too likely, either, unless it comes in the form of a Supreme Court decision that constrains zoning practices.

<comment><USER4> > _The political cost of an army of voters worried about housing insecurity is > incomparably higher._

Can't you make them stop worrying by building enough housing that they believe the free market will give them affordable rents even without rent control?

This is different from a factory shutdown because there's much less of a natural cap on housing supply than on job supply. You can build four-story apartment buildings basically everywhere, modulo government interference (zoning, permits, etc.), and they'll work, so you can just build enough to pull down the supply/demand intersection to where people want it, that is, in a free market you can just build residential buildings and expect them to turn into housing. You can't just build a physical factory and expect it to turn into jobs.

<comment><USER3> There's a time asymmetry at play. I think it's inevitable specifically in those cities where costs are rising quickly and feelings of housing insecurity are acute--the same cities we normally discuss in the context of rent control. In that case you couldn't possibly build quickly enough to address the issue. And let's not ignore one of the primary reasons communities often find themselves in that situation--zoning and regulatory hurdles that limit supply, demanded by the very same electorate suffering from lack of supply, yet which isn't nearly as keen, if at all, at removing those hurdles.

Rent control is even on the table in cities like Chicago, which _relatively_ speaking has been pro development. But for a state law prohibiting it, Chicago would now have rent control; and it seems likely that exceptions to that prohibition will pass the legislature. That goes to show that time asymmetry is problematic even without the scourge of single-family home NIMBYs.

Regarding the free trade analogy, the alternative I had in mind wasn't building factories, but moving to new locales and finding new jobs. Which is the de facto _existing_ alternative for housing supply-constrained cities, which have been free all along to promote greater densification, but simply incapable of doing so to the extent necessary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Rent control is the most effective way to destroy a city, other than bombing".

Rent control disincentivizes renovation of existing apartments and building new ones. It also encourages people to stay in apartments that are too big for them, because rent control typically locks price for existing, long term tenants on lower level than paid by new tenants. All this makes housing crisis worse.

</comment><comment><USER6> The true solution is Zoning Reform. Property owners would build many more units themselves, with their own capital, if allowed to build enough units to make it worthwhile. This doesn't happen because many current property owners (skewing older and wealthier) enjoy the current density and property values based on the current scarcity of units. Rent control is a weak solution to affordability, and has almost no or negative impact on gentrification, and no or negative impact on housing stock growth. Rent control seems like it's for the renter, but it's actually just the only political solution allowed by owner-occupied current property owners. Zoning Reform is the free market solution, allowing an owner of a property to build what they want on their own land. (Solve the homeless problem too...). Time will tell if the democratic scales tip from the NIMBY homeowners to those currently priced out of unit ownership.

<comment><USER7> Rent control is for the renter, but the currently occupying renter, and not those who would like to move to the neighbourhood in the future. It is also a short-term solution, that provides the currently occupying renter with a current advantage, but at the cost of making rent region-wide more expensive for new lease agreements, which greatly constrains their options in the future should they decide they want to move, or should the unit they are occupying need to be vacated due to a need for reconstruction or repairs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> A lot of people argue for the ideal rather than the proposed solution, and conflate the two.

In this case, the ideal is stable, affordable rent prices. The proposed solution is rent control.

Rent control, from a policy standpoint, does not create affordable rent prices by itself. It needs to be paired with a lot of other policies - <USER2> control, great city planning, landlord incentive adjustments via taxes, fines / punishments, enforcement of it, etc.

So, people espousing rent control as the solution are inaccurate semantically. Rent control is part of the solution, but what's more important is how rent control is paired with other policies.

Rent control is not an independent solution, but (as most policies are) its complementary and needs to fit with the rest of the policy package. For instance, if you had a policy to force housing to double every year (and somehow it actually happened), rent control is not needed because supply would reduce pricing naturally. And in a supply blocked economy, the issue is that demand is high - rent control would do nothing to reduce demand.

If you're going to create a policy that creates stable, affordable rent prices, you'll need to look holistically at the each sub-part of the issue. Saying that we need stable, affordable rent prices is natural - it's a human need, a moralistic ideal, and also great for many people. But it doesn't add much to the conversation, and it makes it difficult to have dialogue with actual proposed solutions over the loud, muddled public debate.

<comment><USER4> I mostly agree with you, except that rent control _can_ reduce demand by disincentivizing people from moving to your city. I suspect this is one of the reasons SF's rent control is popular.

But then, yeah, the real goal is "keep housing prices low, and keep newcomers out," not "rent control."

<comment><USER8> "Rent control, no other changes" doesn't just disincentivize people from moving to your city, it disincentivizes movement altogether.

I see rent control as a fix for a symptom. Answering the question about the ideal living condition for a city and how to grow successful, long lasting sustainable, healthy cities is the real issue. Rent control is a bandage, and the collection of rent adjustment policies is not as elegant as just a strong set of policies to promote healthy cities.

Admittedly this is really, really idealistic, it ignores the fact that we have a lot of cities that need help right now, and it assumes that there is a standardized way to build great cities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Too bad that housing-as-an-investment was allowed to spiral out of control. It converted a moderated tradition into a gambling-den.

A prospective landlord might have been required to live in their building for a minimum of a year first. That dampener would slowed down the fission reaction. But oh no, regulation is bad. Trickle-down is good.

We've already experienced the result ... tens of thousands of homeless. Who -should- pay?

</comment><comment><USER10> I am not a fan of rent control but when housing construction solutions can't be implemented due to home owner's needs to preserve home values and other economic factors that vote down any solution then rent control is a solution at least a short term one. Additionally there also needs to be added policies that increase housing.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's only bad if you're privileged enough to own property. Otherwise it's great!

<comment><USER12> The usual argument is that by imposing an artificial ceiling on price, you cause the quality of the good/service to drop (in this case, you make rental properties worse) and you prevent people from selling it (in this case, you prevent owners from offering up rental properties, causing rental property to become scarce).

To claim that something is great, you should at least address the standard arguments that it's bad!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's much ballyhoo made about the ignorance of the conservative base and the misconceptions they hold due to the fake news and conspiracy theories that circulates within their social circles.

But I see the ignorance of the left-wing base as just as dangerous. The idea that there's a capitalist conspiracy to trick the populace into believing that free markets are better for public welfare, and that price controls like minimum wage and rent control harm the public, is extremely widely accepted.

Left-wing misconceptions about economics are even more consequential than right-wing populist ideas about vaccines. They have the critical mass of support needed to turn into policy in the most economically important housing markets in the US.

<comment><USER13> You are strawmanning.

1) Does Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" advocate a conspiracy? Quoting it Wikipedia entry:

"The book's central thesis is that when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability."

That is, there's no need for a conspiracy to get the results we see, and leftists like me don't need to appeal to conspiracy theories.

2) You mention "believing that free markets are better for public". But what's pushed isn't a "free market" \- what's pushed is a lack of constraints on those who control capital. Few who push for a free market also push for loosening constraints _on labor_.

Taft-Hartley should be seen as offensive to a real free market. So-called "free market" advocates protest minimum wage laws, but omit mentioning that labor power, when not hobbled by restrictive US laws, would be the free market solution.

As an example, the Nordic countries don't have minimum wage laws. Instead, minimum wages for a field are set by collective bargaining, which is possible because of stronger labor unions in those countries.

As you can see, I _don 't_ believe that "price controls like minimum wage" are the right solution to that problem.

<comment><USER7> 1\. Ironically, you just strawmanned me. I never said all left-wing economic theories are "conspiracy theories" or fallacies, or that all left-leaning people are susceptible to such theories.

But to your strawman, Piketty's observation turns out to be entirely explainable by real estate:

[https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit- gra...](https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-graduate-is- turning-heads-over-his-theory-that-income-inequality-is- actually-2a3b423e0c#.cdpw0fizt)

2\. I wasn't contradicting your assertion at all. I was just claiming that it's a very common belief within left-leaning circles that economists' claims of the social benefits of free markets are propaganda formulated by and pushed for the benefit of a capitalist elite.

This conspiratorial view of the economic science is similar to anti-vaxxer theories about Big Pharma and Big Gov being behind the scientific opions on the efficacy of vaccines.

>>As you can see, I don't believe that "price controls like minimum wage" are the right solution to that problem.

Going back to 1, I wasn't generalizing all left-leaning people. Just as all right-leaning people don't believe in anti-vaxxer theories, not all left- leaning people believe in price controls like rent control and minimum wage.

<comment><USER13> If you aren't strawmanning then your characterizations like "the ignorance of the left-wing base" and "Left-wing misconceptions" are not informative as you don't give a guideline how influential or proportional they are.

The specific validity of Piketty's observation is irrelevant. I mention it as an example of an argument which is not based on the "idea that there's a capitalist conspiracy".

Focusing on the weaker conspiratorial argument and leaving out any more substantive arguments = strawmanning.

Criticizing sweeping language for its imprecision is not strawmanning.

You switched from "The idea that there's a capitalist conspiracy to trick the populace into believing that free markets are better for public welfare" to "a very common belief within left-leaning circles that economists' claims of the social benefits of free markets are propaganda formulated by and pushed for the benefit of a capitalist elite".

What makes something a "conspiracy"? Because your latter formulation doesn't sound like a conspiracy to me.

My position is that people who advocate for a "free market" but don't advocate removing the existing severe restrictions on labor power aren't really promoting a free market, but rather want to give more power to capital owners.

<comment><USER7> >>are not informative as you don't give a guideline how influential or proportional they are.

My point was only that it exists in high enough proportions to be impactful, and juxtapositioned it with the ignorance seen in the conservative base.

My broader point is that the widespread ignorance seen in the left-wing base is largely ignored, in contrast to the ignorance seen in the right-wing base, which is rightly ridiculed.

>>What makes something a "conspiracy"? Because your latter formulation doesn't sound like a conspiracy to me.

The latter formulation is a conspiracy theory, and one that is completely baseless and borne from ignorance of the economic science.

Economists, free from any undue influence, have almost universally come to the conclusion that markets free of government intervention beyond enforcing criminal and contract law, are more efficient, and effective at advancing the public welfare, in almost all domains other than those subject to market failure (e.g. natural monopolies, and markets subject to positive or negative externalities best addressed by government provisioned public goods, etc).

<comment><USER13> "Impactful" is such a wishy-washy term.

When done poorly - which I think you have done - another term for your juxtaposition is "false equivalence".

I asked "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'". You have not answered but only asserted.

To your last paragraph, I again point out that "markets free of government intervention" must necessarily include being free of government intervention with respect to labor power. Eg, the law must not prevent a company and a union from signing a contract to make the company a closed shop.

Anyone not supporting a repeal of Taft-Hartley and related labor laws cannot be in support of a free market, _by your definition_.

But many of the people I hear who advocate for a 'free market' _support those anti-labor laws_. Indeed, there is an almost complete lack of discussion on the topic.

Ergo, they aren't actually supporting a free market.

You tell me - why aren't more free market economists calling for the repeal of Taft-Hartley?

<comment><USER7> Supporting rent control and believing that the widely held view among economists that free markets improve public welfare is a lie promulgated by a capitalist elite is equivalent to believing all foreigners are evil and that vaccines are a conspiracy pushed by Big Pharma.

It's not a false equivalence, and for me to explain to you how your theories constitute baseless conspiracy theories is outside the scope of this discussion.

If you'd like to have an indepth discussion about economics, please create a post in another forum, and link me to it, and I'd be happy to carry it on there.

>>Eg, the law must not prevent a company and a union from signing a contract to make the company a closed shop

Prohibiting companies from discriminating against unionized workers is an infringement on the freedom of contract, as are several other legal prohibitions relating to how companies are permitted to deal with workers attempting to unionize, and unionized workers striking.

Laws relating to collective bargaining, which prohibit a company from negotiating with any party other than the union, in the event that a work unit votes to unionize, are blatant violations of the freedom of contract.

Unions would have no market power without said laws. If you support the upholding of the free market, and the principle of contract liberty that underpins it, then you are acquiesing to the total disempowerment of unions.

<comment><USER13> "Unions would have no market power without said laws"

Well, that's a-historical.

Unions existed before laws were in place to support unions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt) .

The union power in the late 1800s was not built on laws which supported them. Often the government stepped in to fight the unions. And the unions sometimes won power, and were able to get the laws changed to prevent, eg, bloodshed in the future.

Your other comments still do not address the questions I asked, like, "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'?".

Your "freedom of contract", if you really believed it, should apply to any situation which restricts trade.

If my contract with you says that disputes are exclusively to be settled by mediation with company X, then that prohibits other companies from being involved in the mediation.

"Freedom of contract" lovers think that sort of exclusive agreement is fine.

Similarly, a company A might contract with company B so that B is the exclusive supplier of temp workers.

"Freedom of contract" lovers think that sort of exclusive agreement is fine.

But somehow "organizations A and B enter into a contract such that A will only hire members of B" when B is a _union_ is not fine?

Balderdash.

<comment><USER7> Unions were very weak pre-labor-laws. Unionization rates were very low consequently.

Whatever power they did have emanated from the threat of their illegal activity, ranging from blockading company premises (e.g. stopping trains) to setting up picket lines that involved violence against 'scabs'.

>>Your other comments still do not address the questions I asked, like, "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'?".

I'm happy to carry that line on in another forum.

>>If my contract with you says that disputes are exclusively to be settled by mediation with company X, then that prohibits other companies from being involved in the mediation.

Of course, but labor laws, as they stand, prohibit companies from negotiating with any party but the union in the event that one of their work units unionizes and demands collective bargaining. This is regardless of what the company agreed to.

<comment><USER13> So, "no power" = "very weak"? You sure you haven't moved the goalposts?

The Boston Journeymen Bootmaker's Society won the labor action, and the lawsuit. Why should I believe the Society was weak?

Wait employed five or six Society members, and only one not willing to be in the Society. That sounds like the boot industry, at least, had a high unionization rate.

Of course, that was a craft union. I think you are talking about industrial unions. Which didn't, you know, really exist until after there were big industries in the late 1800s.

"Whatever power they did have emanated from the threat of their illegal activity"

I don't think you read the Wikipedia page on Commonwealth v. Hunt that I linked you to.

It was clear that the Society's power emanated from the threat of a walkout, and _not_ from any sort of illegal activity. Indeed, the court decision was that "labor combinations were legal provided that they were organized for a legal purpose and used legal means to achieve their goals." (quoting Wikipedia).

A walkout _must be legal_ in a free market. Otherwise it's forced labor to say that someone can't quit if they no longer want to work a given job.

You write "as they stand". Which is _entirely my point_. We are not in a free market. If people really want a free market, they need to advocate for removing restriction on _both labor and capital_.

Those who only want to remove restrictions on the control of capital, and not labor, are using "free market" hypocritically.

Edit: And remember, the union powers prohibited by Taft-Hartley were legal until then, so those aren't examples of the illegal actions you refer to.

<comment><USER7> If unions have power in a free market, that would be absolutely fine with me lol

But you're being disingenuous and or are deluding yourself if you claim that union power wasn't vastly more limited before the advent of labor laws, and that what power they did have wasn't disproportionately as a result of the threat that they'd engage in the illegal acts that they were so well known for.

So to clarify, while I predict any transition to a free market would result in a drastic reduction in the power of unions, I would have no problem with a scenario where my prediction proves wrong and unions have substantial power in a free market. I just don't like the laws that overwhelmingly advantage unions at the expense of investors.

<comment><USER13> Do you, or do you not, support repealing Taft-Hartley as part of your advocacy for a free market?

Why or why not?

Since you argue "I just don't like the laws that overwhelmingly advantage unions at the expense of investors", I think you believe the current US laws are too union friendly. Which is hilarious. Was there ever a time in US history when you think the balance was right? Or have they always been pro- union? If not, when do you think the balance changed, and what caused that change?

Part of what makes it hilarious is that we only need to look at the recent wildcat strike by teachers in West Virginia to see that 1) their actions were illegal - state law prohibits public employee strikes, 2) it was effective not due to threat of physical intimidation but by threat of mass departure.

Companies _right now_ are disproportionately powerful, including as as a result of actually doing illegal acts. Wage theft is one of the most common crimes in the US, and it often goes unpunished.

About 10 years ago, Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe Systems and others conspired to refrain from soliciting each another's employees to keep their salaries artificially low. Their fine was less than their profit from the crime, no high-level exec went to jail, and all the companies are still geld in high esteem.

Even if we stick to corporate involvement with unions, "U.S. employers are charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all union election campaigns" \- [https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer- opposition...](https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-opposition- to-union-election-campaigns/)

> Employers are charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all union > election campaigns. And one out of five union election campaigns involves a > charge that a worker was illegally fired for union activity. Employers are > charged with making threats, engaging in surveillance activities, or > harassing workers in nearly a third of all union election campaigns. Beyond > this, there are many things employers can do legally to thwart union > organizing; employers spend roughly $340 million annually on "union > avoidance" consultants to help them stave off union elections. This > combination of illegal conduct and legal coercion has ensured that union > elections are characterized by employer intimidation and in no way reflect > the democratic process guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act.

This is not surprising, because just like pro-union people engaged in "illegal acts" \- and mind you, who had the biggest influence in creating all of those laws? - companies also engaged in horrid, immoral, and illegal acts.

Or, do you defend the action of the government and coal mine owners involved in the Ludlow Massacre?

Do you defend the actions of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency as they hired goons to physically intimidate and attack union members? There are still federal laws limiting the federal use of "The Pinks."

What is your take on the conclusions of the La Follette Committee? Did the extensive espionage system of private corporations, as part of their union- fighting efforts, indeed mean that "employees became subjugated to private corporations and were denied constitutional rights"? Why did companies need to use "[M]achine guns, tear gas bombs, and clubs ... to prevent and disperse union meetings"? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Follette_Committee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Follette_Committee)

So sure, you can bring up "the illegal acts that [unions] were so well known for". "But you're being disingenuous and or are deluding yourself if you claim that" businesses weren't engaged in even more horrid behavior.

<comment><USER7> >>Was there ever a time in US history when you think the balance was right?

Yes, in the 1880s, where there were no federal laws violating freedom of contract, and state laws that did violate it frequently being struck down by the Supreme Court under Lochner Era judicial doctrines.

Do you really believe that unions were no less powerful before the advent of labor laws? Have you seen the unionization rate statistics?

I'm puzzled by your insistence on this absurd notion that labor laws that violate freedom of contract don't disproportionately advantage unions. Your Gish Gallop of off-tangent anecdotes notwithstanding.

<comment><USER13> Then why can't a company sign a private contract with a union saying that the company will only hire members of the union?

I mean, if companies can establish company towns, since under the freedom of contract ideology employees are willing to live there as a condition of employment (a la Pullman), then surely a closed shop contract must also be acceptable.

My "Gish Gallop"[1] is because you keep cherry picking your history to justify your specific pro-capital/anti-labor "free market" viewpoints. But you _cannot_ point to the worst actions of unions without - to use your earlier term - juxtaposing it with the worst actions of businesses. This juxtaposition is appropriate as union power grew as a response to bad employment conditions.

For example, yes, striking coal miners destroyed property and attacked the National Guard in 1912. Bad coal miners - very naughty indeed. Oh, wait, it was after the National Guard, along with business guards, machine-gunned the strikers' tent city. Does the freedom of contract justify those murders? Clearly, no.

You asked "Do you really believe that unions were no less powerful before the advent of labor laws? Have you seen the unionization rate statistics?"

You know that's a rather odd question, right? Of course unions can be more powerful if there are laws to support the unions. Just like businesses can be more powerful if there are laws to support businesses. Try getting rid of the laws which isolate shareholders from legal liability, and see what happens to corporate power.

Unionization rates were higher before Taft-Hartley was passed. Since my argument is that unions are legally prohibited from exercising their full power as they would in a free market, then that means unionization rates _should_ decrease because people aren't going to pay money for something that doesn't help them.

Which is why the WV teachers had a wildcat strike - illegal actions were more effective than being in a union.

[1] Personally, I think it's more an example of Brandolini's law than a Gish Gallop - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_pr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle)

<comment><USER7> Again with your strawman, part of a pattern of extremely bad faith responses to me. I never once said that in a free market, a company can't sign a private contract with a union saying that the company will only hire members of the union. I even said that earlier. The laws that currently prevent this should be eliminated, as well as the laws that prevent companies from refusing to negotiate with unions, and prevent them from firing workers who unionize and/or strike.

>>But you cannot point to the worst actions of unions without - to use your earlier term - juxtaposing it with the worst actions of businesses.

Your characterization of the general behaviour of unions compared to businesses is disingenuous. It's a lie invented by unions and their beneficiaries to deceive the public.

Union workers commonly beat and murdered "scabs" who crossed their picket lines, which resulted in replacement workers being intimidated into not crossing those lines. The hiring of private security (e.g. the Pinkertons) was primarily in response to the threat of violent actions like this by unions, and the violent confrontations that did occur were primarily because unionized workers refused to desist from threatening replacement workers and violating the rights of the property owner to their own company premises by trespassing and blockading it.

That was the general reality of the late 19th century, and not your out-of- context anecdotes that you trot out to pull at heart strings.

And the violent and illegal actions of unions were justified by their supporters, who used the same class-warfare narrative and false characterizations you're trotting out now to justify the current bevy of anti- contract-freedom-laws.

>>You know that's a rather odd question, right? Of course unions can be more powerful if there are laws to support the unions.

You didn't even answer the question. You responded to a strawman. I asked if you think unions are more powerful now than they were in the late 19th century when contract liberty was less restricted by labor laws.

What you don't want to plainly admit to is that a return to a free market would greatly reduce the power of unions.

>>Unionization rates were higher before Taft-Hartley was passed.

Changing the subject. I didn't ask about Taft-Hartley. I asked about the late 1800s, before drastic interference by labor laws to limit contract freedom, and how unionization rates compared then to now. I'm not suggesting we keep Taft-Hartley. I'm suggesting repealing all of the labor laws instituted since the 1880s relating to how companies and unions may interact.

Your evasive propagandizing is quite typical any time the subject becomes unions and their dependency on the government limiting the contract liberty of employers.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Free Software Proponents, was there a moment that converted you? - <AUTHOR> Could you share the moment or set of experiences that pushed you over the edge and made you want to commit heavily to free software? <comment><USER2> I don't remember having an epiphany; it was sort of a gradual process. I guess the closest thing to a "moment of conversion" was installing and using Ubuntu, and soon realizing I no longer had to be abused by Windows. That was around 2010.

These days, I am much less fanatical than I used to be about free software. I still want to release any code I have control over as free software (probably AGPL to maximize freedom for downstream users), but I don't refuse to use non- free software. I am on Ubuntu right now (after more than a year of insisting Debian was better for me), but may end up buying a Mac so I can build and distribute apps for iOS.

Some reasons for my loss of zeal:

1) No modern devices can run on 100% free, de-blobbed software all the way down to the BIOS, like the FSF insists we all should be using. What happens when the supply of old Thinkpads is depleted? Will the FSF's annual ethical giving guides continue to push people to buy them for themselves and their loved ones?

2) Sometimes for work or school I need to use Slack, Zoom, or Keynote. Yes, there are free alternatives, but my colleagues or professors are not going to go out of their way to accommodate my refusal to use non-free software. I'm not as popular as RMS is, and probably never will be.

3) I'm a developer, not a sysadmin!</comment>


Amazon used 'neo-Nazi' guards to control workers in German factory scandal - <AUTHOR> http://rt.com/news/amazon-abuse-staff-germany-310/

<comment><USER2> This was a particularly dumb thing to do, but to be fair to Amazon, it was hardly intentional or part of the company policy.

Luckily there was very little "evil" done or intended, at least compared to similar work places in Germany, and the wages involved are often higher than comparison wages.

Even though in Germany we discriminate heavily against Neonazis to an extent that would make some democracies cry, we can't really ban them from any work.

Nevertheless, Amazon is already feeling the heat, both commercially and in the public discussion.

It's a reminder that labor sub-contractors should not be chosen due to price only.</comment>


Balsamiq knows how to win people - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/PrITw.png

<comment><AUTHOR> This was posted on HN earlier: Donating Your Software: A Whole Lot of WIN! <http://blogs.balsamiq.com/product/2009/08/13/donating/>

</comment><comment><USER2> Please blur the serial key.

<comment><AUTHOR> 3/4ths of the serial key is already blurred.

<comment><USER3> Do you mean I can get the key in ((26 * 2) + 1)^3 = 148 877 trials? Sweet!</comment></comment></comment>


Walt: JavaScript-like syntax for WebAssembly - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ballercat/walt <comment><USER3> I was excited at first. Compile Javascript like code into WebAssembly text format? Zero dependencies? Count me in!

I thought: Great! Let's try it! So how do I use it? How do I hand over a string of Walt and get a string of WebAssemblyText back?

I though there is a javascript file somewhere in the project that has a compile() function that does that.

And then I clicked on the Quick Start Guide and it looks much more complicated. It tells me to install node, npm, webpack, walt-compiler, walt- loader... set up a project with a certain structure, create a landing page...

Help :) That's not what I want. I just want a function that takes a string and returns a string.

Would it be possible to just offer a javascript file to be used directly in the Browser? That exports a function which translates your JS dialect to WasmText?

Is that file somewhere in there maybe?

<comment><USER4> Yes, that's the compiler: [https://github.com/ballercat/walt/tree/master/packages/walt-...](https://github.com/ballercat/walt/tree/master/packages/walt- compiler)

It's written in JS so you'll need node to run it, and npm is a package manager for node so you should use that to install and call it.

If you just want a hosted site to play with code, it's linked right at the top: [https://ballercat.github.io/walt/](https://ballercat.github.io/walt/)

<comment><USER3>
        It's written in JS so you'll need node to run it

I happily run JS in my browser all day. Why do I need node for this code?

<comment><USER4> Because different runtimes support different features and performance (like dealing with files and disk access) but I already posted the link for the browser version in that comment.

<comment><USER5> I think that's not quite what was asked for. What was asked for is one JS file with a function that takes a string and returns a string. Not a node package, not a website. Check out Three.js, it's a big library which can be used as one file three.min.js.

<comment> gchq-7703 If you check the `dist` folder within the linked Git repository you can see a `walt.min.js` file[0]. You should be able to include that file and try out the package in your browser in a similar way to how you use `three.min.js`.

[0] [https://github.com/ballercat/walt/blob/master/packages/walt-...](https://github.com/ballercat/walt/blob/master/packages/walt- compiler/dist/walt.min.js)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What's the difference between this and something like AssemblyScript?: [https://github.com/AssemblyScript/assemblyscript](https://github.com/AssemblyScript/assemblyscript)

EDIT: I see that this project actually existed slightly before AssemblyScript. Still seems like two very similar projects.

<comment><USER7> I wrote/maintain Walt. This question comes up a bunch.

The two projects are really similar no doubt. I can't speak for AssemblyScript, but my own motivation was simple. I wanted to learn WebAssembly and I wanted an accessible platform to do so with. At the time this wasn't really possible, tools like emscripten took forever to set up and were clunky to use. Plus I knew C already, I wanted to learn WebAssembly instead.

So where Walt is an attempt to write WebAssembly with a familiar syntax, AssemblyScript is an attempt to compile TypeScript to WebAssembly. To do so AssemblyScript comes with many more niceties/features out of the box IIRC, like optional(?) GC for example. Walt makes no such attempts and takes a more DIY approach.

Walt also has language extensions, via customizable syntax and compiler pipeline, where AssemblyScript is a TypeScript compiler more or less. My hope is that this allows for a babel-like situation for WebAssembly in the future via the tooling setup for Walt. I don't think this is a goal of AssemblyScript.

<comment><USER8> > _Walt also has language extensions_

IMO this is a good decision. I much prefer a platform with a small API than I can personally extend over a large platform that has specific customization options or lots of extra features that all just "kind of" solve whatever problem I have.

Reading this makes me more interested in the project than I was before.

One quick recommendation, it was kind of hard to find the documentation for the Webpack free compiler ([https://www.npmjs.com/package/walt- compiler](https://www.npmjs.com/package/walt-compiler)). This is purely anecdotal, but I suspect that at least some of the people who are turned on by having a low-level library that doesn't include Typescript niceties will be turned off by seeing the quick-start immediately say to install Webpack. Might be a good idea to have the compiler documentation inside the wiki alongside the quick-start?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been going with Lua for writing raw webassembly

Assembler setup: [https://github.com/serprex/luwa/blob/master/rt/make.lua](https://github.com/serprex/luwa/blob/master/rt/make.lua) Resulting code for a gc looks like this: [https://github.com/serprex/luwa/blob/master/rt/gc.lua](https://github.com/serprex/luwa/blob/master/rt/gc.lua)

& it leaves the full Lua language at my disposal for metaproramming. At the end of a day a human usable assembler needs to be a macro assembler

It'd be neat to have a JS macroassembler, could then have the host browser runtime compile wasm modules dynamically

<comment><USER10> > Resulting code for a gc looks like this: > [https://github.com/serprex/luwa/blob/master/rt/gc.lua](https://github.com/serprex/luwa/blob/master/rt/gc.lua)

Nice! That's a compact gc, perfect for browsers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Are people really editing .wat files by hand to eek out the last bit of performance? Seems like you would need instruction level profiling to do it justice

Wasabi: A Framework for Dynamically Analyzing WebAssembly

[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.10652.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.10652.pdf)

<comment><USER12> Do web assembly files really have a .wat extension? This can't _not_ be an easter egg reference to the famous talk, right? :)

<comment><USER13> Should have gone with .wtf. WebAssembly Text Format.

<comment><USER12> .wtf will always be Warcraft Text Files for me. Nothing like editing that Config.wtf file when playing WoW...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Fascinating! Serious question: could this turn JavaScript (technically Walt) into a serious language for scientific computation? That now runs in any browser?

E.g. Python is used a lot together with NumPy/SciPy, but for performance the actual computation in NumPy/SciPy is done in C since Python is too slow. Would it be possible to create Walt-native versions of NumPy and SciPy... e.g. NumWalt and SciWalt? Or even Jupyter notebooks based on Walt?

<comment><USER15> You could just port the C libraries that Python uses.

You might want to check that you're actually gaining any performance, the JIT compilations of JavaScript aren't often slow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This looks great. I've been looking for a project like this for a while - <USER2> simple language in which I can write hot code and compile it straight to web assembly for use in existing node and web projects.

However, I wonder whether Walt is markedly faster than JIT-compiled javascript? Have you benchmarked the performance gain?

<comment><USER7> I have not, this has been requested quite a bit though. My focus is currently on making sure the toolchain is stable and performant itself. It's likely that the performance of the compiled code is on par with other wasm vs JS comparisons though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Superb! I would love to see native programs being ported using traditional JS to the browser, perhaps this is a step closer for a clone of Photoshop in the open web!

I like the progress of where webassembly is heading! :)

</comment><comment><USER18> This is amazing. Yes! I've always wanted something like this.

I wonder if we could make a boiled down typescript language server that would give excellent code completion and squiggles for Walt.

</comment><comment><USER19> Full circle?

</comment><comment><USER20> Glad I took part of this project early and got the possibility to focus it to great goals

</comment><comment><USER21> Doesn't JavaScript compile down to WebAss? Isn't that the point?

<comment><USER22> WASM is a very new standard. Some JavaScript implementations do compile to machine code at run time, but JavaScript does not "compile down to WebAss".

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'd rather use Rust than javascript 8 days a week

<comment><USER24> I wasted too much time trying to look if there was a way javascript date objects would report there being eight days in a week...

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Let a thousand flowers bloom and all that, but come on. That particular flower is a freaking baobab already. I assume it's mostly for use outside of browsers.

</comment><comment><USER26> > Highlights:

> No C/C++ or Rust required, just typed JavaScript.

That's not a flaw...!

<comment><USER27> It all depends which of all these ugly langages you are the least uncomfortable with. I hear they even use js for servers now. Rise and fall... lol

<comment><USER28> Honestly I thought you referring to Rust as an ugly language would send more replies your way.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple patents method for disabling cell phone cameras - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/apple-patents-way-to-prevent-concert-piracy/?hpw

<comment><AUTHOR> Very handy if you're a corrupt policeman, oppressive regime, etc.

</comment><comment><USER2> Quick and dirty:

"The patent describes an invisible infrared sensor integrated into mobile iOS devices with a built-in camera — which includes iPhones, the iPod Touch and iPad 2. As the Apple patent explains, an infrared sensor in a mobile phone could be used to search for another signal that would say whether it is O.K. to activate and record footage with the phone's camera."</comment>


The GDPR is here Panic - <AUTHOR> https://blog.onyxbits.de/the-gdpr-is-here-panic-743/ <comment><USER2> If I understand the GDPR correctly (and who does?), this article is very misleading. Specifically:

"If you don't have an office in the EU, our laws can't touch you. "

That's only true if you never travel to Europe. You could have a website that's in violation of GDPR, travel to Europe on vacation or business, and get arrested.

<comment><AUTHOR> > You could have a website that's in violation of GDPR, travel to Europe on > vacation or business, and get arrested.

No, you can't. This still requires a warrant.</comment></comment>


GitLab acquires Gitter - <AUTHOR> http://blog.gitter.im/2017/03/15/gitter-gitlab-acquisition/ <comment><USER2> Dupe [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13877156](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13877156)

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13877156](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13877156)

</comment><comment><USER4> Not really a dupe, since it's a link to the official Gitter blog instead of Venturebeats

</comment><comment><USER5> What is the use of Gitter with Gitlab, in the post-slack world?

<comment><USER6> Huge gitter user here. We have still found it more seamless for our open source community over slack. A big reason for this is due to the model of how easily gitter enables people to join rooms.

Our community has over 4k users in the channel.

Slack still seems to be more focused on internal companies not communities with lots of people.</comment></comment>


Bird deaths down 70 percent after painting wind turbine blades - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/black-paint-on-wind-turbines-helps-prevent-bird-massacres/ <comment><USER2> Recent discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24257648](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24257648)</comment>


Start-up investors are being extra-cautious thanks to some costly flops - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/r-high-profile-busts-signal-caution-in-start-up-investing-2015-9?op=1 <comment><USER2> Startups failing =! Cautious VCs but whatever is good for the clicks...</comment>


Why not taking a salary is good - <AUTHOR> http://www.anoowa.com/blog/

<comment><USER2> Permalink: <http://www.anoowa.com/blog/?p=103></comment>


Flatwhite Syntax – Minimal light syntax theme - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/biletskyy/flatwhite-syntax <comment><USER2> I guess it should be mentioned that this is for Atom.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a port for Sublime Text: [https://github.com/Willamin/flatwhite](https://github.com/Willamin/flatwhite)

Actually, that's the first one I came across, but decided to post the original because I think the concept is interesting.</comment></comment>


Building an iOS weather app with Angular and ClojureScript - <AUTHOR> http://keminglabs.com/blog/angular-cljs-weather-app/

<comment><USER2> I don't need another weather app, but it's well-made and I like to support a job well-done.

edit// works great on iOS 7 beta 2 ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> Great app. I've been helping beta test and it's obvious a lot of effort went into making it look polished and feel responsive. An amazing feat of programming and design magic. Angular, ClojureScript, HTML5 and CSS3 working in concert. Congrats lynaghk and ryan!

</comment><comment><USER4> You might guess that it is well done from the screenshots, but it is even more polished than I expected. If you we're unsure about native vs PhoneGap, try this out. The one thing that doesn't feel quite right is changing the time of day.

</comment><comment><USER5> Great work. Could you elaborate why you didn't pick the route of using one of the mentioned libraries, Clang or Acute?

<comment><AUTHOR> Neither of them were released when we started development. Also, I tend to think that it's better to explicitly manipulate JavaScript data structures through ClojureScript than try to build some potentially leaky abstractions on top of them.

Since ClojureScript's protocols are so flexible, it doesn't take a lot of work to teach ClojureScript about JavaScript---whereas the other direction is much more difficult to get right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> They claim 15 data sources but I wasn't able to figure it out. Anyone know what the sources might be?

<comment><AUTHOR> One of the app authors here; The Weathertron uses the backend API provided by the forecast.io guys (who also do the DarkSky app).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks fantastic! Did you use PhoneGap?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep; the app is packaged up for distribution via PhoneGap, and we're also using its geolocation shims.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> downloaded it -- worked great on my iphone 5. Impressive!

</comment><comment><USER9> Beautiful, improbable, awesome.</comment>


White House's Claims That the TPP Would Curb Internet Censorship Are Fantasy - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/white-houses-claims-tpp-would-curb-internet-censorship-are-fantasy <comment><USER2> It's only semi related, but Michael Geist has been going through the TPP and writing about problematic parts of it for Canada. He is very focused on Canada, but I imagine a similar list could be generated for any non-american country. Below is a link to the latest post, which contains links to the rest at the bottom:

[http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/03/the-trouble-with-the- tpp-...](http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/03/the-trouble-with-the-tpp- day-47-agricultural-sectors-faces-hits-and-misses/)

</comment><comment><USER3> As much as like I EFF's coverage in general:

> And we will continue to press our partners to allow digital information to > cross borders unimpeded. We are working to preserve a single, global > Internet, not a Balkanized Internet defined by barriers that would have the > effect of limiting the free flow of information and create new opportunities > for censorship.

This is technically correct. It doesn't create _new_ opportunities for censorship. These opportunities always existed.

> The TPP illustrates these shortcomings well. Its free flow of information > rules would only be enforced for foreign enterprises, and only those > entities based out of countries that have signed the TPP. So if a country > were to enact a law banning some type of online content, the TPP's free flow > of information rules would do nothing to prevent the enforcement of that > censorship against websites or platforms that are locally-owned in that > country.

Yes and _nothing_ prevents that already. The TPP doesn't alter the sovereignty equation, it is a trade treaty.

The TPP makes things worse but such weak attacks against statements that are technically correct are largely ineffective.

Posts like these are much more effective as they show legitimate problems that could have been resolved favorably (for the general population) in a trade treaty:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/new-infographic-tpp- an...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/new-infographic-tpp-and-your- digital-rights)

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/sneaky-change-tpp- dras...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/sneaky-change-tpp-drastically- extends-criminal-penalties)

<comment><USER4> > The TPP doesn't alter the sovereignty equation, it is a trade treaty.

Except that trade treaties become supranational constitutions when enterprises in other countries can use trade courts to enforce treaty clauses over national governments' own legislation and constitutions since they usually surrender their sovereignty to these treaties. These kinds of effects have already been amply documented with regards to the WTO, CAFTA, NAFTA and others. This is political science mainstream. See: Stephen Clarkson, Uncle Sam and Us: Globalization, Neoconservatism, and the Canadian State (2002), among many others.

<comment><USER3> Please provide evidence I can sue the US government as a purely domestic entity under NAFTA arbitration.

Commerce has to cross the border for what you are saying to be true.

<comment><USER5> I can't provide specific evidence for you to sue the US Govt over NAFTA, but your comment

> Commerce has to cross the border for what you are saying to be true.

seems overly broad. I think there are established cases which disprove that. All it has to do is have an impact across the border, not necessarily trade across it.

[http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/stateco...](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm) is full of interesting examples with Hunt v Washington State Apple Ass'n (1977) being one of many that seems relevant.

And [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich) for an (arguably) purely domestic california marijuana law.

<comment><USER3> The topic is trade treaties, not the Commerce Clause.

You seem lost on the context...the Commerce Clause isn't relevant to the impact of a trade treaty on domestic policy in regards to domestic companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I find the EFF to be so weird sometimes. They do great, essential work on protecting encryption, but then occasionally post outright dumb stuff like this (from the linked post above):

> Its free flow of information rules would only be enforced for foreign > enterprises, and only those entities based out of countries that have signed > the TPP.

Yes, because _it 's an international trade agreement._

<comment><USER7> They're a lobbyist group. Lobbyists on our side, but they still are fighting for one tree in the forest of governing.

Policy is often a trade-off - sacrificing one good for another, and the EFF fights for only a few goods. In this case, I don't feel the EFFs concerns outweigh the benefits of the TPP, though obviously it's a lot bigger than that.

I don't think we can say just because the EFF supports an action, it is something we should do. But they should still fight for their trees to the end, even if we decide not to support it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am convinced that this administration would say just about anything to get this passed.

</comment><comment><USER9> Does an annotated copy of the TTP exist anywhere?

<comment><USER10> [https://github.com/takahashim/tpp- agreement](https://github.com/takahashim/tpp-agreement)</comment></comment>


Berkshire Hathaway Code of Business Conduct and Ethics [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/govern/ethics.pdf <comment><USER3> Interestingly, at the AGM this weekend, Warren noted that they receive over 4,000 reports through their BRK hotline per year. He commented that most are not actionable, but that they have made significant investigations and changes based on what has been reported through the hotline.

Edit: Added that it was 4k _per year_.

<comment><USER4> would be interesting to see it broken down by company

<comment><USER5> I wonder how many are pissed off NetJet union members?*

*NetJet (a Berkshire subsidiary) has been in a labor battle, with employees outside protesting the meeting this past weekend.

<comment><USER6> Why do you describe them as pissed off? Simply because they use their rights to battle for better working benefits? This snide characterization of unionized labor undermines all workers' efforts at fair compensation.

<comment><USER5> Calling someone "pissed off" makes no value judgment about them being right or wrong, it just describes their emotional state.

I would describe the citizens of Flint, MI as "pissed off", and rightly so. Would you say that description is undermining their efforts to right past wrongs?

If I were you I would hesitate to make such hasty accusations.

<comment><USER7> Eh, maybe, maybe not. Language is powerful. Replaced the "pissed off" descriptor in that sentence with "shafted" or "fucked over" and it dramatically shifts the narrative.

<comment><USER8> That may be so, but the words used were "pissed off" and not any of the wildly different examples you've provided which dramatically change the narrative.

<comment><USER6> That's the point. The ones he provided indicate the workers have merit while pissed off is quite close to disgruntled.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why is this relevant? Am I missing something?

Isn't this just typical corporate jargon?

<comment><USER10> Buffet did just make headlines by criticizing the CEO of Well Fargo, of whom Berkshire Hathaway is the largest shareholder, for their poor handling of the fake account scandal. Perhaps that's why Berkshire's code of conduct is attracting interest.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-06/buffett-s...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-06/buffett- says-wells-fargo-totally-wrong-in-approach-to-scandal)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The startup crowd has a hard time with a lot of these, especially the "Corporate Opportunities" one. So much so that I'd venture a guess that many are unaware that legally that's a pretty fundamental responsibility for a principal/officer of a corporation.

<comment><USER12> I don't see why you think that's the case. It's pretty typical language in an offer letter in California and is even specifically called out as legit in the part of the California code that prohibits non-competes.

And Waymo seems pretty pissed over a violation of this term. The theft of secrets issue was just the trigger.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Warren Buffett is one of the world's most brilliant and skilled virtue- signaling crony, rentier capitalists.

[https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/03/17024/warren- buff...](https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/03/17024/warren-buffetts- mobile-home-empire-preys-poor)

[https://www.thenation.com/article/shelters-clinton- built/](https://www.thenation.com/article/shelters-clinton-built/)

 _However, when Nation reporters visited the "hurricane-proof" shelters in June, six to eight months after they'd been installed, we found them to consist of twenty imported prefab trailers beset by a host of problems, from mold to sweltering heat to shoddy construction. Most disturbing, they were manufactured by the same company, Clayton Homes, that is being sued in the United States for providing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with formaldehyde-laced trailers in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Air samples collected from twelve Haiti trailers detected worrying levels of this carcinogen in one, according to laboratory results obtained as part of a joint investigation by The Nation and The Nation Institute's Investigative Fund._

<comment><USER14> If he truly cared so much about equality, he'd spend zillions to lobby Congress to massively raise taxes on the rich, publicly-finance political campaigns, commit to real climate change policy, enact single-payer healthcare and address broken justice and mental healthcare systems with reform and compassion of investing in citizens and the public commonwealth.

Sure his giving some capital to B&MGF seems like a noble deed, but it doesn't go far enough to change the world for the better in desperately vital ways given his assets, influence and capabilities.

Buffett might live in a tiny house in Nebraska and try to seem a "good guy," but actions ultimately speak louder than words. That might seem harsh/entitled/demanding but a few people like him control trillions of dollars and the politics of many countries (which is also partly our fault for not opposing these conditions and demanding a fairer division of profits/labor/representation.), he's in a much better position to act instead of "standing around" as if he's stuck in an economic "bystander effect."

<comment><USER15> > If he truly cared so much about equality, he'd spend zillions to lobby > Congress to massively raise taxes on the rich

Why the talk about "equality" always comes down to forcibly taking other people's money?

<comment><USER16> I'll bite.

Because capitalism is a system in which the rich get richer. This preferential accumulation of wealth where wealth already is is an inherent feature of capitalism.

The same kind of phenomenon can be seen in the population of cities for example: the more people there are in a city, the more other people are likely to move there.

If you want to know more about this, see, e.g. Picketty ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty- First_Ce...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty- First_Century))

Also, profound inequality is bad for growth (The IMF says so, [https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion- Notes/I...](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion- Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-Global- Perspective-42986)): "when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down.".

So given that there is a runaway feedback loop that make the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer, and given that profound inequality is detrimental to the economy at large, it logically follows that there must exist some scheme to redistribute a part of the wealth of the extra-rich to the rest of society.

Taxation is (or should be) such a shame.

Note that there is no moral argument here. No finger pointing, no entiltement. Just a systemic view of things: it is detrimental to all to let a runaway feedback loop increase inequalities.

<comment><USER17> Except that huge inequalities exist in socialistic economies as well, and capitalism means the middle class of today live as well or better than the richest people in the world did in the 1920s.

<comment><USER16> I am not advocating switching to a planned economy. I'm just pointing out that any capitalistic system has a tendency to concentrate wealth.

I even acknowledge that the poor are getting richer. The problem is just that they are getting richer at a slower pace than the rich, and unless this problem is addressed through taxation, then it will lead to economic stagnation or worse.

<comment><USER17> If you want to address concentrated wealth address the tax system and real crony capitalism (not the fake kind that is used to slur Buffett). Eliminate patents, tariffs, tax businesses that receive government subsidies, etc.

Competition is the best bar to too much competition.

<comment><USER16> While I also long for the elimination of some of the things you list (mainly patents), I want to emphasize that even in a perfectly competitive and ideal market, the phenomenon of preferential wealth accretion would still happen.

Picketty's explanation is that capital's reward is higher than work's, but I'm not bent on defending that explanation (even if until a better one comes up, I'll stick to Picketty's).

As far as I know there is no counter example of the phenomenon itself (whatever the underlying reason is).

<comment><USER17> You can't stop some people from working harder or smarter than others, or saving money instead of spending everything they make. Those people will accumulate wealth far faster over time.

<comment><USER16> That is where you are mistaken. The people who will accumulate wealth the fastest over time are the people who already have wealth.

Even statistical anomalies like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs got more money, once they became slightly rich, from the capital they owned than from the work they produced.

<comment><USER17> Only because they didn't consume their capital, they kept it reinvested, and kept working. There have been thousands of business owners who could have become billionaires, but traded too much of their equity for a big house and expensive distractions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This seems like a pretty standard Code of Conduct.

</comment><comment><USER19> Anything about unsound investments which are nevertheless likely to be bailed out and so have a great expected ROI? Tax evasion by taking companies off the stock market and canceling dividends?

That Berkshire's code of ethics is linked here is an amazing PR achievement, rivaling such jewels as the one-time potent "Don't be evil" (actually beating this one hands down as it has worn out even though Google didn't get $billions of bailout money.)

<comment><USER20> How does acquiring a public company evade taxes?

<comment><USER21> Ha, I believe I know what the parent meant. Technically by not distributing a dividend that would otherwise been paid the government does not collect on the taxes that would have been due had the dividend been paid. I see how one could stretch this to consider it "evasion" As the government has not collected taxes by there are a zillion obvious offsets to factor in here that make this a bit of a silly point to make.

<comment><USER22> Taxes are paid by the corporation before they pay dividends. Paying dividends does not reduce a corporations tax liability.

<comment><USER21> Correct - apologies for not being clear... if I own a business and receive a dividend, I pay taxes. So that same income was taxed first at the corporate level and second at the personal level. THe evasion - which I consider to be a stretch here - is that by not paying a dividend it becomes trapped in retained earnings and the government doesn't receive its second piece.

I'm not saying I agree with the view here but the point is technically correct. A $100 of profit for Apple in the us is taxed 40% at corporate level to become $60 and by the time it gets to me it is worth 32

<comment><USER23> Not paying a dividend isn't remotely tax _evasion_ , IMO.

It's barely even tax _avoidance_...

<comment><USER24> You two are agreeing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Berkshire hires 3G Capital to do the dirty work of layoffs and cost cuttings, because you know, BRK is an ethical business.

<comment><USER3> How is remaining inefficient the ethical outcome?

You know what's worse than a few people losing their jobs? Everyone losing their jobs because a competitor is more efficient and drives you out of business.

<comment><USER26> The choice isn't (always) "lay off some workers or go out of business". Instead it's "It's profitable now but it could be _even more_ profitable if we did something that incurred job losses."

For example, Carrier was already very profitable when they decided to outsource to Mexico.

[http://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/snapshot_of_a_broken_system_...](http://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/snapshot_of_a_broken_system_how_a_profitable_company_justifies_laying_off_1400_people_moved_their_jobs_to_mexico/)

 _" A look at United Technologies' annual report reveals even more good news: Commercial and industrial products, Carrier's category, make up over half of UTC's $56 billion in net sales. Climate, Controls & Security had 3 percent growth in 2015, the highest in the company; it was the only division to increase its profit margin year-over-year. "Organic sales growth at UTC Climate, Controls & Security was driven by the U.S. commercial and residential heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and transport refrigeration businesses," according to page 14 of the report. In other words, air conditioners – what the workers are making in Indianapolis – drove the growth of the best-performing facet of United Technologies' business."_

<comment><USER15> > "It's profitable now but it could be even more profitable if we did > something that incurred job losses."

If keeping someone's employed is making the company less profitable than it could be if it fired him - why would the company keep paying this person money?

<comment><USER27> The argument being presented, is that a job is - to one degree or another - <USER2> right or entitlement. The argument is: while yes, that job is of low productive output and it may be questionable as to whether it serves any purpose or needs to exist, it employs someone and therefore should exist specifically for that employee's benefit as opposed to the benefit of the owner of the business who provides said job.

That's an emotional argument without any factual or rational merit to support it. It's meant to arrange the 'working class' as the rulers of the means of production. Standard labor vs capital debate.

<comment><USER26> No, a job is not a right or entitlement, but then again, that wasn't my argument. In the case of Carrier, they were trying to move part of their _most profitable_ divisions to Mexico. It wasn't a case of employing people for charity, it was literally a case of adding more zeros to an already fat bank account.

<comment><USER15> > It wasn't a case of employing people for charity, it was literally a case of > adding more zeros to an already fat bank account.

I don't understand, why is adding zeroes to already fat bank account is morally different from pulling the account from negative to positive?

<comment><USER26> I'm not understanding, could you clarify? Thx. Oops, I think we're too far down the rabbit hole for "reply" to work. I'll take a stab at answering but forgive me if I'm answering the wrong question.

When a business is losing money, paying employees is a charity. When the business is making a great profit and decides that it could make even more by hurting/laying off some employees, that is a choice with moral implications.

When there is plenty of ice cream bars for everyone but the first guy who arrives at the cafeteria grabs all of them out of the freezer and proceed to sell them to everyone who comes later, the first guy didn't _earn_ them. He didn't actually increase the amount of ice cream. He only _captured_ the value.

It _is_ possible to not grab every single ice cream bar especially when you have more than you can ever eat. People and companies do this all the time. As a businessman, I don't find it necessary to screw every other party in a transaction in order to feel successful.

<comment><USER17> None of this addresses the question. We have the highest standard of living in history because businesses relentlessly increased productivity, in both good and bad years, and this eliminated unneeded low value jobs. It also creates more valuable new jobs.

If they hadn't done so, 95% of Americans would still be doing brutal farm labor.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Seven Habits Of Highly Effective Mediocre People - <AUTHOR> http://therumpus.net/2013/02/the-seven-habits-of-highly-effective-mediocre-people/

<comment><USER2> Uh oh. The title reeks of linkbait.

> I've never done anything that stands out. No "Whoa! This guy made it into > outer space!" or, "This guy has a best selling novel!" or, "If only Google > had thought of this!"

"The reason we struggle with insecurity is because we compare our behind-the- scenes with everyone else's highlight reel." (Steven Furtick), etc, etc

> I've started a bunch of companies. Sold some. Failed at most. I've invested > in a bunch of startups. Sold some. Failed at some, and the jury is still > sequestered on a few others.

Okay the title is really slipping here. Who wrote this?

Oh. James Altucher. That guy submits a lot of articles here. And that's okay. Some of them are pretty good! But being the goddamn _prince_ of link-bait titles leaves me with a sour taste.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=jaltucher>

"I Want My Kids to Be Drug Addicts", "How to Be An Effective Loser", "10 Reasons I'm Giving Up On Having Opinions" (the jokes on us there.), etc, etc

Anyway, back to the article. The problem with articles like these is that they're 2 parts enjoyable read, 7 parts snark and 1 part decent advice. It's not a bad article, but I'm certain you could get the same information across with just as much amusement while still toning down the Malcolm-Gladwell-esque linkbait-snark machine.

A few things that stood out to me:

> Procrastination could also be a strong sign that you're a perfectionist, or > that you're filled with shame issues. This will block you from building and > selling your business. Examine your procrastination from every side. It's > your body trying to tell you something. Listen to it.

I think that bears repeating as worthwhile, sincere advice.

> Out of silence comes the greatest creativity. Not when we are rushing and > panicking.

My Bosnian sculpture teacher always said the exact opposite. Once most artists tend to "make it" and live very comfortably, they tend to stop producing as much. When times are tough, when their mind is filled with desperation, is when they tend to make their greatest pieces, he'd say. I have no idea if this is true or not, but it's always made me wonder. Certainly, for me doing programming and writing, I need to be clear-headed and emotionally unperturbed, etc, but maybe its different per person or discipline.

</comment><comment><USER3> Previous discussion here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4403906>

</comment><comment><USER4> > He's built 20 companies and failed at 17 of them.

This is oddly inspiring :)

</comment><comment><USER5> humble brag</comment>


Scientists can use their ears instead of their eyes to process data more rapidly - <AUTHOR> http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/more-than-meets-the-eye-nasa-scientists-listen-to-data/#.VAqqwee7mX0 <comment><USER2> I work alongside a group of engineers responsible for HDD testing, failure analysis and firmware development. One of their tools of the trade is an old radio shack telephone amplifier with a magnetic suction cup pickup. Using this unit, the engineers listen to the noise coming from the HDD electronics and motors and can identify firmware versions, drive states (like heads parking) and posible timing issues - I often hear discussions like 'this drive must have the r3 firmware mod as the cache preload kicked in slightly later' and 'sounds like this unit has a manufacturer x motor'

</comment><comment><USER3> I want to work on this sort of thing! I've spent the last ~20 years listening to synthesizer and field recordings in a professional capacity. It'd be great if they opened this similar to projects like GalaxyZoo or the like - I'd love to leverage my audio skills for scientific ends.

</comment><comment><USER4> By the way, this is more or less what Dr. Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster's character) was doing in Contact. People often assume that it was an error, because "radio telescopes don't produce sound", but anything produces sound if you process it right.

</comment><comment><USER5> I grew up with the bleeping chirps of software loading from 300bps modems and "turbo" C64 tape recorders. I could easily recognize different games from the sound they made when loading, and it is trivial to recognize the various modem handshakes. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvr9AMWEU-c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvr9AMWEU-c) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmPpl6UMuH0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmPpl6UMuH0)

</comment><comment><USER6> Back when I was a student we played around with the concept of listening to ultrasonic echoes in a similar way. Basically human ear can get far more information from a reflection than what one can get from it by eyes.

Eventually you could do Non Destructive Evaluation better by just listening to the data and not just looking at it "Sir, this weld sounds wrong".

But alas, IT pays more so that thing was buried on that lab :)</comment>


The Perpetual Microsoft Canard - <AUTHOR> http://drdobbs.com/windows/229301144

<comment><USER2> When people talk of the demise of a company with billions in cash (and more billions coming in every year), they are generally talking about the demise of its _influence_.

The question isn't whether Microsoft will vanish next year (or even in a decade), because it won't. The question is _will Microsoft be a leader or a follower? An innovator or a copy-cat?_

It isn't inconsistent to say that Microsoft will continue to sell a lot of copies of Windows and Office and remain very relevant in the enterprise, while at the same time saying that Microsoft, on its present course, is doomed (for lack of a better word). Because, the Microsoft that we know from the 80s and 90s just isn't the same Microsoft in a lot of ways that matter to geeks and investors. Much like GM isn't the same car company it was a couple decades ago.

Things can always change. It's probably easier to claim the #1 spot or fall from the #1 spot, than to _reclaim_ it, but it isn't impossible.

As for XBox's success, I remain highly skeptical of that division. First, they haven't recouped the billions it took to enter the market. Most importantly though, you are only as good as your current console. There's little loyalty in the video game console market. Had the PS3 been better priced and launched sooner, the red-ring would have been a far bigger disaster. It's cut throat...which is great, but you simply can't say Xbox 720 will succeed because Xbox 360 [barely] came in 2nd place in a 3 person race.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually XBox 360 is #3 in the race (just fell behind PS3 WW sales -- XBox kills the PS3 in the US, but the PS3 kills it in Asia by a HUGE margin. PS3 has a slight lead in Europe, but pretty much a wash there).

With that said, for MS the "race" in the console wars really isn't a race. They want to be in the race, but it doesn't really matter that much if they are #1, #2, or #3, as long as #3 isn't 5M units sold WW. The XBox has always been strategic to be in the living room. And for that it is succesful.

The real question is can MS leverage that to do something bigger? That remains to be seen, although so far they've been a bit slow with it. Fortunately Sony, Apple, and Google have been even slower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm an ex-'softie and proud of the work I did there. It seems every current or past employee of Microsoft has some story to tell about "the good old days" when everything was smaller or faster or they were all only X steps from BillG or everyone was just more "hard core". Most of the stories I personally hear (or comments I read on minimsft.blogspot.com) about the impending implosion at Microsoft seem more like seeing greener engineering grass somewhere else. Usually in the past at Microsoft.

The internal politics are often toxic and the raw amount of stuff for someone new to learn is so daunting that someone who's been there for a while seems like a god relative to the newcomer. I think that probably helps grow this kind of mythology. More experienced people leave (by choice or because of the draconian review system) and the newer 'softies think the golden age is ending.

Externally, it's a lot of fun to talk about Microsoft dying. In the face of record profits, wasn't it? Yeah, whatever. Are they relevant? What does that mean? Is my sewer bill relevant? I still pay it. People still pay Microsoft.

I could use their stock chart as a straight edge but that doesn't mean they're dying.

</comment><comment><USER4> "I don't like how much Microsoft charges for its tools"

I've got plenty of issues with Microsoft but the cost of their developer tools isn't one of them. I mean, sure Visual Studio Ultimate Super Turbo Edition Alpha X costs $11k, but who actually needs that? The Express Editions are free, which is very favorable pricing compared to say MonoTouch for Android or iOS which cost $400 just to get your foot in the door.</comment>


Ask HN: what are the best looking web application user interfaces? - <AUTHOR>

What are sexiest, most stylish AND functional web application user interfaces you know?  I'm NOT talking here about garden variety websites.  Talking about web applications that are functional, that require significant user interaction. <comment><USER2> I would never attribute 'sexy' to a website.

Stylish and functional, I'd suggest you take a look at lifehacker.com . Functionality wise, it depends on what's appropiate for the type of website. There's a reason why portal websites are rarely being used (except on say, company intranets). Stylish I would attribute to a lot of things including layout, conciseness, typography, certain interactivity, considerate and a few others including things like support for graceful degradation where appropiate.

A website in my eyes is something someone visits with predetermined intentions looking to satisfy themselves within a specific niche. This described behavior doesn't differ from real world examples such as when you go to a supermarket to buy food.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's a question on Quora, which I found very helpful and it keeps on getting updated.

[http://www.quora.com/What-startup-homepages-are-most- simple-...](http://www.quora.com/What-startup-homepages-are-most-simple-clear- and-effective-and-what-makes-them-so?__snids__=45425424)

</comment><comment><USER4> Stripe's dashboard is pretty but you've set a pretty hazy bar on what qualifies.</comment>