Why California is so expensive: It's not just the weather, it's the regulation - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/07/07/why-california-is-so-expensive-its-not-just-the-weather-its-the-regulation/ <comment><USER3> I don't get why this is surprising. The goal of nearly all of these regulations is, effectively, to prevent housing from being built. They reduce supply, while demand is increasing. This is basic economics.

Compare this to Toronto. Housing is getting more expensive here, yes, but not at nearly the same rate. Demand is increasing because of high immigration, but supply is being allowed to increase as well- and mostly in the _up_ direction. There's a condo over on College street that just opened, 60 floors or more I believe. An 80+ twin tower condo is I think now approved by the city over on King. The main strip of North York must be averaging 25-30 stories tall, and it's 15km from downtown!

If California wants to lower their housing prices, they need to have supply match demand. To do that, they need 50 story buildings. A lot of them. And they need to start soon, because they take years to build.

<comment><USER4> > If California wants to lower their housing prices

That's the rub, after you've constrained supply and inflated prices, there's a vested interest of those who've seen their values increase and those who bought at high values to not let them drop.

This is especially important for those that bought at a high value, as if the worth of their house drops, then they can find themselves in a position where they owe much more than the house is worth. We've seen this situation before, not too long ago. It's not pretty.

AFAICT, the trick is to manage growth effectively in an area through restrictions and incentives so that you try to stabilize house prices as much as possible (like the economy), such as tracking inflation and/or some other indicators. If you enact regulations that suppress new housing when demographics call for more of it, you need to offset that with incentives.

The worst thing that can happen is that a group will wrest disproportionate control over housing policy for an extended period, and then the policies they enact through self interest spiral out of control and make the situation worse for everyone.

<comment><USER5> Why can't you just live in the house? I mean it sucks when your investment doesn't work out, but at least you have a roof over your head. Isn't that all you really need (unless you're some kind of real estate mogul, in which case it's hard to feel bad since it's just business then).

<comment><USER6> Because housing in California is just _different_ than the rest of the US; there's really no other way to describe it (Illinois born and raised, now living in SF).

A lot of CA people explicitly treat their home equity as their retirement fund, planning to "cash it out" when they retire. Then there's the people with loans they might be cashflow-negative on month-to-month (paying down a sliver of principal), who are hoping to re-amortize into a new 30-year loan when their value goes up, hopefully cutting some of their payments.

I'm 31. My household income is well over 200K and I have many friends in the same boat, and none -- I really mean it -- zero -- of us own homes. The only hope is to get into a "starter home" as some other commenters describe and then hope to have enough equity that if you ever want to have a kid or live in a non-shoebox, you'll be able to afford to make a big down payment on a new place.

I hate this because it seems extremely financially imprudent, but realistically, your options are to play the game or move. There just isn't sanity in/around the Bay Area housing market.

<comment><USER7> This is why I don't understand (at a practical/economic level) the allure in the tech world of moving to the Bay Area.

In NYC we complain like crazy about housing, but it's honestly fine compared to what you describe. In NYC you can't have it all but you do get to pick any two of: spacious, cheap, or short commute.

Apparently in the Bay Area it's pick any zero? Why do people keep going there?

<comment><USER8> > Apparently in the Bay Area it's pick any zero?

No, its not. You can find spacious, reasonably cheap places within tolerable -- though not short -- commutes of most Bay Area jobs.

I suspect that young, high-income tech workers very often (1) want short commutes, and (2) want other aspects of the urban lifestyle of the core of the Bay Area whether or not it comes with a short commute, which makes the peripheral, long-commute places with such housing unattractive. (Plenty of families where the adults work in the core areas of the Bay Area _do_ live in those peripheries, though.)

> Why do people keep going there?

Because that's where the (tech, for instance) jobs are?

<comment><USER9> Short commutes are under 15 minutes, which is not uncommon in much of the US. That's just not possible from cheap housing in the Bay Area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > In some California cities, the average four-bedroom, two-bathroom home would > set you back over $2 million, while a similar home would cost less than > $100,000 in many other US cities.

This is a little but misleading. You have to scroll _way_ down to get to any city with an average under $100k for the described home and those are in cities with vast, mostly-abandoned areas where (basically uninhabitable versions of) such homes might cost as little as $10k. (Their averages are brought way down by outliers, in other words.)

<comment><USER11> You are right, the author was extreme, but not by that much. Look at Houston, or Austin and you'll find lots of perfectly nice, new construction, 4b/2br in the $250K range. I live an hour outside Boston where there is a similar dynamic at play. My frustration is that large cities like Houston are able to build inexpensively, while relatively small ones like Boston/SF are just insane.

<comment><USER12> > My frustration is that large cities like Houston are able to build > inexpensively, while relatively small ones like Boston/SF are just insane.

Houston is a large city just because it's sprawlville (to a ridiculous degree, city limits is an astounding 627 sq mi). It's not a fair comparison to an urbanized city like Boston or SF (that both have 5+ times the density).

<comment><USER13> And sky-high property taxes in Texas also helps keep prices low.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Regulation does not come out of thin air--it comes in response to abuses. It's intellectual twaddle to complain about the resulting regulation without acknowledging its source--which is abuse of the commons.

<comment><USER15> What if Californians just decided they want their communities to look the way they do now?

Switzerland could make everything less expensive if they imported cheap labor and cut the minimum wage. But they elect not to.

I guarantee that if you made California cheaper you'd attract more people and then it'd just become more expensive again. There's not enough space there to accommodate all the people in the country that would live there if they could afford it.

<comment><USER16> That is almost what happened. During the 1970s and 1980s, Californians collectively decided they didn't like the changes that were going on and that they wanted their state to be frozen as it was circa 1965 forever, in both physical and economic senses, so they enacted a bunch of regulations designed to achieve that -- Prop 13 that froze property taxes, rent control in San Francisco, stricter zoning laws that prevented almost any medium or high density development in both the suburbs and in the urban cores.

These regulations had numerous unintended and unforeseen consequences, however, which collectively had the effect of exacerbating rather than curing all of the economic problems that were changing society in the 1970s.

<comment><USER17> If that were true I'd expect to see something of a continuous spectrum of suck extending from the 1970's to today. But instead it's not like that at all - the bay area is hugely prosperous and happy until the late 2000s when a confluence of factors led incredibly rapidly to where we are today.

There is _some_ truth to what you're claiming, but I'm tired of this "California just wanted to freeze itself in the 1960s and look how wrong they were." In truth everything was going pretty good for everyone until the last decade or two.

<comment><USER16> The various land regulations such as Prop 13 and rent control were _overtly_ billed as "ways to stave off all the social change that's been happening" when they were debated and passed in the 70s and 80s. It's not a guess or some sort of conspiracy theory. Review the newspaper polemics of the time. It was quite openly the goal.

You can see exactly that continuous spectrum of decay in California in many places. The state has become ever more polarized into rich and poor, with less and less middle, during that entire time. This is partially a process that was going on everywhere in the US, but all the extra regulation in California that was designed to halt that process actually made it worse.

The California middle class has been massively eroding since the '70s. Before that, you could drop out of high school and still get a job that would lead to you owning a house within a few years. Now, owning a house is impossible for almost everyone.

The land regulations that restricted supply have made long term housing prices grow far faster than the national average: [http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/0...](http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/08/US-San-Francisco-California-median-home-sales- prices-1971-2015-05.png)

Huge tracts of formerly middle class suburbs near San Francisco and LA have become massive ghettoes -- where you still have to pay half a million dollars or more to buy a house next to thugs who openly sell crack 24 hours a day, where people are shot a couple of times a month. Where else in the US do you pay half a million dollars for a house in the ghetto?

The middle class jobs have mostly evaporated -- other than sinecures in California's vast bureaucratic and public employee apparatus, in which case you get a job for life with a powerful, politically-connected union to keep you from ever being fired for any reason. Good luck getting one of those unless you have a friend or relative who's already there.

Yes, things are great if you happen to be a high skilled tech worker in San Francisco during the late 90s or from circa 2010 to present, but this is a very small fraction of the population. Most Californians who don't have advanced computer programming skills only got squeezed harder by that influx of new money pushing up real estate prices still further.

And we haven't seen anything yet. Just wait till the "smart farm" trend really kicks in: [http://www.economist.com/technology- quarterly/2016-06-09/fac...](http://www.economist.com/technology- quarterly/2016-06-09/factory-fresh)

Soon, very soon, robots will be picking all the produce in the Central Valley, and there will be millions of newly unemployed low-skilled workers flooding into San Francisco and LA looking for work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Using 'California' as a unit, and then selecting housing prices from the Bay Area to illustrate. Okay. Because houses in Stockton are $2mil?

I don't dispute that there are some really stupid land-use regulations in _certain cities_ , but to hand-wave all of California as suffering from the yoke of regulation is to show a biased and superficial hand.

<comment><USER13> True, but cities have borders and if one constrains building, the builders can just go outside that city's limits.

This is why I think that statewide factors are the dominant force here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> There are _plenty_ of places in California where you could buy a home for $100K. The article does a very poor job of demonstrating a causal relationship between "regulation"\--he doesn't even cite any specific ones--and basic supply/demand dynamics that are common to major metro areas throughout the world.

All he's got is a very hand-wavy argument and a chart that abruptly cuts off circa 1994.

</comment><comment><USER20> Are there any examples of cities or states that have been able to successfully transition from expensive to affordable housing in a non-castastrophic manner?

Even at a more local level ( [https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf- housing/](https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/) ), the problem is complex with many stakeholders. How do you get everyone to agree and try to reach a better solution?

<comment><USER21> Governor Brown has a bill that will help a lot with thee problems: [http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real- estate/201...](http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real- estate/2016/05/brown-affordable-housing-development-approval-ceqa.html)

<comment><USER17> > new projects with 20 percent affordable housing for tenants making no more > than 80 percent of the area median income or projects with 10 percent > affordable housing near transit would be exempt from most local reviews.

That sounds great, but think of it this way: a 200-unit luxury apartment complex that includes a shithole in the back with 40 units that lack parking and a separate access door would be exempt from local oversight. Does that sound like a pattern for success to you?

<comment><USER22> More stock is more stock. The guys moving into the rich condos live somewhere now, presumably somewhere worse, since they want to move. It's demonstrably effective in freeing up lower income apartments. Perhaps these lower income apartments are still going to be expensive, and available only to whatever you define as the "wrong kind of people", but you gotta start someplace.

<comment><USER13> There was an article that something like 45% of new units are bought by foreigners and people from other metros.

<comment><USER22> Sure, but that presupposes that they aren't buying units already. I don't think that's likely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think this is true of everything in the Developed world, not just housing.

Healthcare, education, taxis, hotels, small engines. They're all insanely expensive because of the massive amount of regulation that's been added to them in the last 50 or so years. Of course, those regulations add safety and control and structure, so I'm not saying they're all bad.

Just look at the houses or air quality or safety record in undeveloped countries to see what happens without all those regulations.

I find it fascinating that apps like uber and air bnb are basically just getting around all of the regulations and are in a sense going back in time to the way things were (and still are in the undeveloped world.) i.e. if you want to sleep somewhere, you just pay someone for a room in their house - <USER2> mind if they have a "permit" \- same goes for an informal taxi in most of the world.

It will be interesting to see what happens when people make apps/websites for all the other areas of our world that have an enormous markup because of regulations.

<comment><USER24> In Latin America, there is lots of regulation. Just try opening a business. Hiring an employee.

<comment><USER23> It depends if you do those things legally.

There are also tons of things you can do without regulation like picking people up in your car/van or letting people sleep in a room in your house or cooking them a meal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> No mention of Prop 13. A statewide market distortion that likely overshadows the city-level regulations.

</comment><comment><USER25> If this is ever to be solved, it has to be on the state level. Individual cities or counties are not going to nobly go against their interests and start building more than they have to.

But a _lot_ of people have gotten _very_ rich off of this, so I don't know if there is any political strength behind this. What happens to the Jerry Brown proposal will be a good indicator.

<comment><USER26> But building more housing isn't against any city's interests, more housing means more tax revenue. The people who are likely to block this are the people who have made "fortunes" by seeing the value of their homes rise. I would argue that those people have more power statewide than they do in the denser cities where few people own their own homes.

<comment><USER25> After Prop 13, housing is a net loss. Or so I'm told.

I _think_ it's more of a NIMBY thing. People can agree that California needs more housing, but fight to the death against it near their house.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The last California housing crash was in 2008. The next one may be starting. There were lots of empty houses only 6 years ago.

Outside the coastal zone, there's not much state level regulation. The coastal zone is regulated because there's a general consensus that California doesn't want a wall of high-rises at the coast like Honolulu or Singapore.

San Francisco has substantial opposition to "Manhattanization", even though things are going that way. Different communities on the SF peninsula are going in different directions. Redwood City is building vertically - 8 to 15 stories, not skyscrapers, but many buildings are going up.

It's not clear that the Silicon Valley boom will continue much longer. Web has been done. Apps have been done. IoT, if it happens, will come from places where "things" are made. The Next Big Thing hasn't appeared yet.

</comment><comment><USER28> This post made me think of a little history.

There were plenty of problems in the 19th century, but the ideas of the era did _not_ lead them to suppose that the first answer to any problems was red tape.

The effects of this difference are huge. I know this isn't quite apples-to- apples, but a rather stark comparison comes to mind: Using the comparatively primitive technology of the 1880s, James J. Hill was able to build a transcontinental railroad in a decade (using private finance). Here in Seattle, the public transit authority says it's going to take two or three decades to build a train that goes just six miles.

<comment><USER6> My friends and I talk about this a lot.

We aren't living in the 1880s anymore. For one, we value life, health, and safety much more than they did back then, with things like OSHA, much more stringent labor laws (overtime, child labor), more types of insurance required for employers including unemployment and various disability coverage, environmental laws like CEQA/Clean Air Act, and tons of other stuff.

But I think the biggest change is ultimately cultural. We just don't value growth today like we did back then. We want safe workplaces, and a clean environment.

I also think there's a much greater tolerance for government bureaucracy today then there was in the 1880s, including all kinds of permits that take weeks to issue, multiple agencies overseeing everything at the state, local, and federal level, and just in general a huge expansion in the size of government. If you told someone from the 1880s that US government spending would rise to some 40% of GDP over 120 years, they'd think you were totally insane.

I go back and forth on whether it's good or bad. It's a complicated question. It takes forever to get anything done, and yet, young Chinese nationals are coming to the US because their parents have utterly ruined their environment, they don't trust the safety of their food supply, and factories with hundreds of people in them burn down, killing everyone inside. I used to think the US and Europe were radically different places, but I'm coming to see they're more alike vs. different. It's really the US and China that are worlds apart.

<comment><USER28> I think (but am not completely certain) that we needed a high-growth environment to be rich enough to invent the technologies that give us safe workplaces and a clean environment.

If that's true, I also wonder what safety and and living standard improvements we might be giving up because we don't have high growth today.

<comment><USER29> >we might be giving up because we don't have high growth today

If by this you mean our descendents. It would be fair to note that life for most was quite brutish and short in the "high-growth" period you're lauding. Would you have been a collier or among the more fortunate, I wonder?

<comment><USER28> It was brutish and short for most people because there wasn't much wealth of any kind. How far would the combined fortunes of the industrialists gone in raising the standard of living had they been confiscated and distributed to everyone else? Not far at all, it turns out. 50 million people lived in the US in 1880, and Vanderbilt's $232 million fortune would have netted each of the the other 50,189,208 Americans around $4.62 each (around $114 in 2015 dollars). What they got in exchange from these captains of industry (steel, rail, oil, and a future where their children went on to live better than they did) was worth a heck of a lot more to their lives and livelihoods than a few fistfuls of coins.

Even if you were Andrew Carnegie, you'd have no Xbox, no CT scanner, no supercomputer in your pocket, no access to the Internet, no way to jump between cities by air...

Back then, all people were so poor, not just in material goods or safety technologies, but in _knowledge_. In the 19th century, they didn't know a damn thing about what actually caused cancer, so people routinely did incredibly stupid things (stupid to us, that is, with the knowledge we have today) when making dyes and many other chemical processes.

Incredibly, the alternatives to all that were even worse. If you just sat at home and did nothing, what would you have to do? Play cards and starve to death? Books were still expensive, and remember what I said about all the things that even Carnegie wouldn't have access to in his time?

Given all that, I'd rather start as a poor person today than be a rich person in 1830.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> SF et. al. aren't an oil boom town that'll crash in the next cycle. SF is the Manhattan of tech and tech is where most economic growth will come from for the foreseeable future.

Regulations don't help. NIMBYism doesn't help. But if you ended both I still don't see how it would ever be as cheap as somewhere like Houston.

<comment><USER6> On the other hand, oil boom towns don't _move_.

Anecdotally, a lot of people I know are leaving SF. I imagine the next 20-30 years will look like any other industry, where a clear center emerged, but then it diffused outward into the broader economy as more and more industries assimilated the new tech.

Now, you could make the argument that SF's core competence isn't so much a technology as the process of innovation itself, but I'm not sure that's the argument you're making. And I don't see any reason why a cheaper place with a lot of smart people and money (to reference pg) couldn't be the next SV, like say, Pittsburgh, or Seattle. Though I guess the social network, which is really what holds this entire place together, does have some staying power...maybe finance is the best example to prove your point?

<comment><USER31> We have yet to see a new SV emerge in another city. The capital from VCs is still here. Unless something drastic changes, SV will remain firmly planted as the world's tech hub.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> People who own houses in CA and Bay Area in particular, especially those who bought recently, why would they want housing prices to go down?

<comment><USER33> Because we understand the problems of monoculture and non-diverse communities? Because we know where income inequality leads? Because we'd rather see fellow humans have a place to live in, instead of seeing our bank account grow?

Because for some of us, social responsibilities matter too, not just money?

<comment><USER34> > Because for some of us, social responsibilities matter too, not just money?

You'd be changing your tune if the $1M+ house you bought suddenly went underwater to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.

<comment><USER33> I lost 50% on my house, and I'm still saying this, so no, I probably wouldn't.

I get that this is a huge burden. I don't suggest that's the magic fix, or that this should happen across the board at such staggering numbers. I'd prefer if it didn't happen to such an extent again to me, either.

I was merely answering the OPs question why anybody owning a house would want them to go down at all.

We are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. They need to come down, and they will, sooner or later. The only question is if we want to handle this in a controlled way, or as a collapse, like last time 'round.

<comment><USER32> > "Because we know where income inequality leads?" \- income inequality is not > the real problem. The _real_ problem is that lower end of the spectrum is > too low and has been stagnating for too long. Whether fixing the _real_ > problem will lead to lowering income inequality or not is irrelevant. For > case studies on "take money from rich and give to poor" visit any of the > post-communist countries (I am actually from one).

> "We are currently on an unsustainable trajectory." \- Why? Which trajectory > is sustainable?

> "The only question is if we want to handle this in a controlled way, or as a > collapse, like last time 'round." \- Lol, there is no question about that. > The real question is how?

<comment><USER33> That's what "income inequality" is a shortcut for. I apologize, I of course meant "the disturbing increase in income inequality". I didn't intend to advocate for absolute income equality :)

Which trajectory is sustainable? One where housing prices don't significantly outperform income growth, where the price range allows people of all ends of the spectrum to find housing, and where the inventory isn't constrained as much by regulations that only serve the purpose of "ensuring property values".

> Lol, there is no question about that. The real question is how?

I'm curious - if there's no question about that, your "why would they want housing prices to go down" doesn't make sense. What do I miss?

I want them to go down now & controlled because I'd like a controlled descent. It seems you agree on that :)

"How" is a surprisingly tricky question that, among other things, depends on local economics. The solution for LA will look different than the solution for SF. (And SF is in a _deep_ pickle. I'm glad the LA problems are not quite as bad yet)

Affordable housing projects (and financing them) will play a key role. But they're far from the only part - we'll also need to talk about densification, fixing blighted neighborhoods, simplifying the permitting process.

There will need to be changes to the rent control system, meaningful fixes to minimum wage, improved public transit, fixes to the nonsensical zoning system... And Prop 13 needs to die a fiery death.

Many of these changes are going to be somewhat painful for existing homeowners, but the inevitable collapse if we don't address this will be more painful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I completely agree that there is way too much regulation. But, the other part of the equation is people are still willing to pay the resulting price in the end. In the more "prime" communities like Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Mountain View they still seem happy to pay the extra cost to get permits to tear down a 60 year ranch style home and then petition a city council to put a custom build in its place. Contractors advertise that they know the regulations and how to work with officials to get their permits through and charge a premium. The funny part is once construction is complete the new residence want to prevent new construction in order to "preserve the neighborhood" they moved into.

</comment><comment><USER36> Housing is expensive because demand is high while supply is low. Perhaps a portion of the the difference in housing costs between certain areas in California and certain areas in other states (i.e., the 4 br/2 bathroom example) can be attributed to regulation, but the the vast majority of the difference is attributed to the fact that there is high demand for that $2 million home whileas that $100k home is in Podunk, Fly-Over State, USA where no wants to live.

In addition, at $100k, there _has_ to be something wrong with that home. My old house's insurance bill claimed that it would cost in the mid-$200k range to rebuild that exact same, 4 bedroom, 3.5 bathroom, ~4,000 sq. ft. home.

<comment><USER37> The natural way that markets behave is when prices are high, the price is an incentive to create more supply, which then reduces the supply/demand mismatch.

With reduced regulation, there would be much more housing supply in SF. E.g. the city's footprint is slightly larger than Paris proper, which has 2.5x the population thanks to a consistent building height of ~6 floors. Paris is hardly a free-market bastion, or a place known for low quality of life, but SF out-regulates Paris with its tyranny of the vocal minority and regulation by bodies driven by perverse incentives.

Apart from directly adding supply, building up increases tax revenues and local population which enables / justifies transit expansion, which then increases the practically accessible pool of housing for anyone desiring to live in the city.

So, in trying to understand your point: do you not believe that housing costs would be lower if there was 3x the supply of housing, ala Paris, and a faster, more comprehensive farther-reaching transit system?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Very true in NYC also, everything is so tightly regulated that the spending power of your dollar bottlenecks compared to other parts of the country

</comment><comment><USER39> Regulations, at least well intentioned regulations, exist to reduce risk to society.

However, risk tolerance is rather subjective. It would be nice to allow people to pay more for less risk and have things cheaper if they are comfortable with more risk. Forcing everyone to the same lowest common denominator forces people who can tolerate the extra risk to pay for more than they need.

Let people have more of a choice. Maybe it can be rated to a certain level of safety with regards to different aspects (wind, fire, flood, accessibility, etc).

When I was poor, I built my own place in a friend's warehouse for $3,600 (mostly lumber and drywall from Home Depot) and about 2 months of my own labor with 1 other person helping. It was a small 2 story structure with 4 rooms. It had electrical, Internet, and plumbing. It obviously wasn't to code but it was completely functional and comfortable to live in. I read up on the different codes and why they existed and chose to follow the ones that make sense from a structural engineering / human safety standpoint, while ignoring other ones that I thought wouldn't have any significant impact on me (handicap accessibility, etc). I also wasn't concerned with how it looked. Exposed drywall. Used melamine sheets as giant whiteboards for the interior walls because they were more functional to me than traditional walls.

If I had to live according to the regulations, permits, etc, I would have been homeless. But since I was willing to skirt the law and tolerate more risk I was able to get by for dramatically cheaper.

I also had to spend time learning how to do framing and construction but that's not really a big deal if you know how to read and can use the Internet.

Then there are those regulations that only exist to satisfy the wants of some politician or their cronies. But that's a completely different issue.

</comment><comment><USER40> Case in point. I've a remodel project last year. The city has a regulation to require home owner to plant tree in front of the house for any permit based remodel work. When asked how to the tree planted, they said asked the state park service to get the permit and ttee requirement. But, but, I can pay a fee to substitute the tree planting. wtf.

</comment><comment><USER41> It also hasn't helped that the Fed has held the interest rate so low for so long in order to prop up the property bubble.

If the interest rate went up a couple of points, nobody could afford the mortgage on a million dollar home. At that point, the market would start moving in a different direction.

<comment><USER31> Those interest rates would also affect developers who are looking to build. The net effect could be a lower supply that keeps demand constant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Housing is also expensive because of the California building codes. These include things like double pane windows, copper pipes and energy efficient appliances. These raise the cost of new construction compared to other states, but lead to long term lower home ownership costs and reduced energy consumption. If we are serious about climate change we need to create such regulations. Buyers will chose cheaper houses if given the choice.

</comment><comment><USER43> Housing prices are driven by average income, interest rates and population growth. Period.

In a stable metro, the minimum price is a floor driven by the prevailing rent as defined by social services for section 8. The median is driven by the median two earner income. You can validate this by looking at small cities with dominant employers like a state Capitol.

Everything else just changes the size, form and fitting of the housing unit.

<comment><USER44> Plus speculation. If it was driven by just those factors Ireland wouldn't have happened.

<comment><USER43> That's more about cheap rates and access to capital. Very little speculative activity is financed by cash.

<comment><USER44> It depends on your market. We're seeing a lot of Chinese capital (cash) being dumped into real-estate since it's seen as a cheap investment that produces good returns.

In this bubble that house is appreciating at 17% per year or more. If you're leveraged you can get higher returns, but finding someone to loan you the money may be difficult. If you've got cash, just dump it on properties and let it appreciate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Really interesting EconTalk from 2011 about cities, regulation, and growth: [http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/10/avent_on_cities.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/10/avent_on_cities.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> Figure 1 uses data that ends over 20 years ago?</comment>


Apple's new parental control: Daily Stormer is in, sex-ed is out - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2018/10/19/daily-stormer-for-kids.html <comment><USER2> I don't really see an issue here. The Daily Stormer is just a political site, should political sites really be banned for having wrong think? Sex related topics on the other hand tends not to have any intellectual use for people below 12.

I'd rather find my son reading The Daily Stormer than sex ed when he is 10.</comment>


US Wireless Data Prices Are Among the Most Expensive on Earth - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/j5zpw7/us-wireless-data-prices-are-among-the-most-expensive-on-earth <comment><USER2> It's just another way to celebrate American Exceptionalism. We have among the highest prices for data, and companies have free speech. Yay?</comment>


Mtm is the Micro Terminal Multiplexer in around 1000 lines of code - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/deadpixi/mtm <comment><USER2> How does this compare to `screen` and `tmux`?</comment>


Kedrosky: Worst Dow Jones Junes Since Depression - <AUTHOR> http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/06/26/worst_dow_jones.html <comment><USER2> Why is the graph not arranged by date? Can't even see trends with that. This is meaningless.

</comment><comment><USER3> What an arbitrary sample set (all months of June).</comment>


Neural Network in Glass Requires No Power, Recognizes Numbers - <AUTHOR> https://hackaday.com/2019/07/16/neural-network-in-glass-requires-no-power-recognizes-numbers/ <comment><AUTHOR> Here is the paper: Nanophotonic media for artificial neural inference

[https://www.osapublishing.org/DirectPDFAccess/41E7D08F-B350-...](https://www.osapublishing.org/DirectPDFAccess/41E7D08F-B350-8845-B8759C2673CBA96C_415059/prj-7-8-823.pdf?da=1&id=415059&seq=0&mobile=no)</comment>


Mozilla boss Brendan Eich resigns after gay marriage storm - pierre-renaux http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26868536 <comment><AUTHOR> This is just sad. Gay marriage has literally _nothing_ to do with Mozilla's work or mission, and there has not been any evidence that Eich was using his position at Mozilla to advance some kind of anti-gay agenda. This is basically the definition of thoughtcrime -- Eich did nothing wrong other than to have an opinion and donate a bit of his own money to a cause he supports.

It was not all that long ago that taking a pro-gay-rights position might have led to this kind of retaliation. If you are one of the people who rallied against Mozilla, just remember that political winds can shift and that in a few decades you might be the one receiving this treatment.

<comment><USER2> Today, I learned just how trivial people believe gay rights are. I'm actually surprised by it. That's much sadder to me.

<comment><USER3> See, this comment is why we need to do a better job of keeping stories like this off the front page. There's nothing in the comment you replied to that indicates any cavalierness about "gay rights", and yet, there it is: the nasty comment accusing another HN user of bad faith. Right on cue.

<comment><USER4> > There's nothing in the comment you replied to that indicates any > cavalierness about "gay rights"

You missed the point. The GP's comment, by dismissing gay right's relevance to mozilla, implicitly treated the matter in a "cavalier" manner.

Let's do a little find/replace to prove the point. Eich donated $1000 to the KKK. The GP notes that lynching niggers has nothing to do with the day to day operations of Mozilla, so what's the big deal. The parent is dismayed by how trivial black person's rights are considered by HN. What's your comment, tptacek?

<comment><USER3> You don't even know if you disagree with this person about marriage equality, but here we are talking about the KKK.

<comment><USER4> My opinion is irrelevant. And if your point had any validity, it would transfer right across.

You're changing the topic - you know I'm right. Take it to heart, please. These things are important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> On the one hand I'm happy, because it will end the political controversy that has resulted in a blow against Mozilla, but on the other, I feel kind of bad. I mean sure, the guy is a massive prick for donating to support Prop 8, but that honestly is no where near as relevant to his position as CEO of a nonprofit software company as it was made to be. The guy has contributed a lot to his field, and based on my impressions, has been very valuable to Mozilla as an employee in the past. I fully believe that he would have been capable of moving Mozilla in the right direction had it not been for this scandal. With his resignation, Mozilla could end up with a CEO who hinders them instead.

<comment><USER6> Why does being against gay marriage make you a "massive prick". If people for gay marriage wasnt a minority it would be legal already, are you saying that the majority of the population are massive pricks, and should be ostracized from their jobs?

EDIT: here comes the leftist downvote brigade, the sad thing is I support gay marriage, you people should really grow a backbone.

<comment><USER7> FYI, the radical American left's approach to public policy is that you should wage total warfare on everyone who disagrees with you, and attempt to punish them in any way possible. Deny them business, deny any notion that they are intelligent or decent human beings, et cetera. There is no room for pluralism, and intellectual honesty is of secondary importance at best.

In this case, Brendan Eich is a bad person. Clearly his donation means that he is incapable of interacting with anyone who is gay or any of his political enemies in a civil manner, and will go out of his way to marginalize their contributions to Mozilla. Therefore we should attempt to punish him by kicking him out of his job.

Postscript. No representations are herein made about the non-radical American left, other lefts, the American right, other rights, the existence or nonexistence of a radical center, the merits of any policy proposal of any group including the left (radical or otherwise), et cetera.

Post-postscript: See also this comment, wherein a HN user argues that we should start boycotting any company who employs anyone who voted for Prop 8. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7470443](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7470443)

<comment><USER8> I've been on the receiving end of this due to who my father is. When I was a kid, he was in charge of PR at a Bay Area oil refinery.

\- Activists attacking him during city council meetings and pushing for his termination

\- An orthodontist refused to take my brother and I on as patients because he disagreed with my father's job

\- Various, err, _packages_ left on our doorstep

\- Unprofessionalism amongst some teachers, except when they needed a donation from the refinery. More than one snide comment.

Ironically, one of my best friends was the daughter of a lead activist in town. That led to some awkward moments getting dropped off to hang out.

<comment><USER9> _\- An orthodontist refused to take my brother and I on as patients because he disagreed with my father 's job_

Sounds a lot like things some in the religious right do that the left objects to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd like to reiterate that Obama was against gay marriage during 2008 and California, the most liberal state ever, voted against it. A lot changes in 6 years(1).

I'm a democrat in support of gay marriage because citizenship, benefits, and filing taxes jointly should be granted regardless of sexuality.

But this witchhunt is ridiculous. However, a shitty language like js being necessary to deal with every day, that is unforgivable.

1 - The male-born transgender Fallon Fox is hailed as a gay hero for fighting again natural-born women. I don't agree with this (male bone structure, went through puberty as a male), and I definitely can't see this happening in 2008 for sure.

</comment><comment><USER6> I believe in gay marriage but I also believe in peoples right to oppose it, this whole thing is shameful.

<comment><USER11> I don't think that at any point Eich did not have the right to hold his opinion, just as people and companies have the right to choose not to associate with those who hold those views. Mozilla, and those (internal and external to Mozilla) who are calling for his resignation are not the government are not opressing him in any way.

Whether or not this is the right call for Mozilla is up for debate, but whether his rights were infringed certainly is not.

<comment><USER12> "people and companies have the right to choose not to associate with those who hold those views" If his beliefs are religiously motivated, actually companies do not have the right to discriminate based on that. And imagine a modified version of that statement used to justify forcing out a gay CEO: "people and companies have the right to choose not to associate with people who believe in and act upon homosexual beliefs"

<comment><USER11> Fair agument, I did not think that through. Mozilla is, of course, required to comply with any and all anti-discriminiation laws which apply.

However, would I be correct in saying that his rights are not being infringed by having people (both internal and external to Mozilla) call for his resignation because of his beliefs, and his contributions to causes which are actively damaging to some of those in the community? Especially in the case of Mozilla, who rely heavily on volunteers, the opinions of those connected but not necessarily employed by Mozilla should be important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Thread for the announcement has been buried for some reason, but it's here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7526619](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7526619)

</comment><comment><USER14> I think that it's a shame that Eich had to resign. And I say this as someone who is very happy to see the winds changing in the US (and elsewhere), and who thinks that it's a good thing that gay marriage is becoming the norm and accepted law.

Mozilla is a non-profit. It's normal and expected for a non-profit to have officers and directors who agree with the stance of the non-profit. I would expect the head of a vegetarian organization to be a vegetarian. I would expect the member of a religious organization to be an observant member of that religion. And I would expect that the head of a labor union patronize union shops more than non-union ones.

So if Eich had taken a public stand against open-source software, or against Web standards, then it would be totally and utterly reasonable for him to resign, or to be forced out.

But Eich didn't take a stand against things that are at the core of Mozilla's mission. Rather, he had a personal opinion -- one which I don't share -- that used to be mainstream, and is increasingly seen as out of the mainstream, at least in large portions of the US and many other liberal democracies.

I think that it's unfair, and even a bit dangerous, for him to be forced out because of a personal political opinion.

If the next head of Mozilla gets up and says that he thinks it's OK for women to have abortions, would it be reasonable for them to be forced out? After all, there are many millions of people who feel that abortion is murder. (I don't concur with this opinion, but I know that it exists.)

If the next head of Mozilla donates money to anti-Obamacare ads, saying that things should go back to the way they were a few years ago, you could make a pretty good argument in favor of saying that this opinion will effectively condemn many people to death, or perhaps crippling poverty.

I don't think that we want this to happen. We don't want CEOs to be ousted because they have political opinions which reflect a minority.

I've often engaged in political discussions and debates with clients, some of whom hold opinions that I find completely and utterly wrong-headed, and perhaps even dangerous. But I'm not going to stop working with them because they hold different opinions. Rather, I'm going to be professional and work with them -- and perhaps even continue to debate them, so that they'll see my side of the argument.

Eich believes that gay marriage is wrong. I believe that he's wrong about that, and history is increasingly against his opinion. But his opinion doesn't have to do with Mozilla's mission.

By capitulating to public opinion over Eich's personal politics, Mozilla has opened Pandora's box. I worry that people who want to become the heads of major companies and organizations will keep their opinions and donations to themselves, for fear of eventually being condemned for those opinions. And that can only be bad for democracy and openness.

<comment><USER15> Amen to that. I think it's a real shame, too. I'm really pissed about it in the sense that here we are in an era where you are not allowed to have your opinions on anything anymore.

You are anti-gay ? You're a homophobic biggot and you should die. That's the gist of the message this sends. What if he is homophobic ? Who cares and what does that have anything to do with Mozilla ?

People demanding his head with the argument that it's intolerable not to tolerate difference don't know the disservice they did to their movements, because after all, they were intolerant for his difference too.

Now, you are not allowed to be "anti-gay". You are not even allowed not to be "pro-gay". You're not pro-gay ? What an ignorant biggot.

You're not even allowed to be without an opinion and not give a fuck about what people do with their bodies. Nooo ! You _have_ to agree, or else you're homophobic.

Is this freedom of expression ? Is this the liberty these people are calling for ?

And this climate pushes you to say things like what you said, as a disclaimer, that you have gay friends, that you're not against it. It tells you a lot about the violence of their opinion.

What did he do that was illegal ? There was a project that some people supported and some were against. The pro-gay marriage lobbied and the anti-gay lobbied, or don't they have that right ?

Pro-gay donated money, too, and shook hands, and pulled strings, etc.

This is akin to (an online debate isn't one until Hitler is brought up) ban Mein Kampf under the argument that Hitler did what he did. What if I fucking want to read it ? Am I a Nazi for that ? What if I like his paintings ? Are we not allowed to think on our own, or are people shareholders of our very own, deepest beliefs ?

It's sad.

That's also like that Abercrombie and Fitch CEO who was attacked for what he did and say. What if I'm the CEO of a clothes company and I don't fat people to wear my shoes ? What the ____do you care ! Don 't buy my clothes and case closed ! And the only reason you'd be pissed off is if you were fat, in which case you wouldn't be able to buy the frigging clothes in the first place, and you wouldn't buy them if they issued fat sized clothes anyway, so why the fuss.

It's a really pathetic moment, people.

<comment><USER16> What? No one is talking about any restrictions of free speech. Nor any statements you've mentioned.

You're allowed to take any of those stances. Equally as you're allowed to bitch on the internet regarding the fact that he paid to revoke the rights of others. (And yes, they were deemed "constitutional rights" before being revoked.)

Unfortunately for Eich, his opinions currently seem to be on the wrong side of history.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If OKCupid are so against Brendan for his stance on gay marriage, they need to stop using javascript, for Brendan Eich invented javascript.

<comment><USER18> Let's play a game called Name that Fallacy!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> from his earlier interview, it definitely seems like he was forced out, and resigning was just to save face. Values and ideas may change, but seems like the witch-hunt will be around to stay... Will he continue to be CTO at Mozilla?

<comment><USER20> No, he's leaving Mozilla [https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next- mission/](https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Mob rule wins the day. Sigh.

</comment><comment><USER22> Would there be such outrage over Eich's resignation had he donated to KKK or an anti-Semite group? Just curious.

</comment><comment><USER23> People change. I believe that he could be a good person in a role for Mozilla, despite being against gay marriage. The fact that he steps back from this important role both shows that either Mozilla or Brendan himself are sensitive to the topic. I would like to believe that Brendan has changed (some people tend to do that over the years) and resings as a sign of admitting that he was wrong about the gay marriage thing. This makes the whole situation kind of paradox - him stepping back indicates a kind of sensitivity that I would like in a leader for an organisation like this.

<comment><USER24> I'm getting the feeling he really did voluntarily step down to save the company. But if he wanted to fight it he might have a good case, as per California Labor Code - Section 1101:

>No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:

>(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.

>(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

>\- See more at: [http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/LAB/1/d2/3/5/s1101#sthash...](http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/LAB/1/d2/3/5/s1101#sthash.uT6Lmptj.dpuf)

The other paradox is that this might do more damage to Mozilla than if he stayed, the reaction is pretty split but a lot of people see this as an act of cowardice on Mozilla's part. I'm personally finding it hard to respect how they handled it.

<comment><USER9> But what the precedent of this event does, is drag our society one step deeper into the idea that groups pressuring companies to do (b) is "just how things are" in the US.

<comment><USER24> It's even worse than that, this isn't like Bill Maher getting fired from ABC for something he said on the air during a time of hysteria. This was something Eich did in private six years ago which he may or may not regret, depending on how you interpret his blog post. The precedent this sets is truly awful.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Ultimate Cheat Sheet for Investing All of Your Money - <AUTHOR> http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ca6ae38471d227b05e07a47e9&id=76ffe3738f

<comment><USER2> Niche information with worst presentation!!!</comment>


Show HN: Push More – Receive Webhook Requests in Telegram - <AUTHOR> https://pushmore.io <comment><AUTHOR> We switched from Slack to Telegram a few months ago for our team communication at BetaList. Some of our website notifications (new signups, certain errors, etc) still were sent to Slack though through a variety of integrations.

I made a simple service that accepts webhook requests and posts them to Telegram. You can interface with the bot directly (@pushmorebot) or add it to a group to have notifications show up there.

You can use it in multiple groups and have different notifications for each.

One caveat right now is that that the webhook URL is visible to anyone in the group so be careful when using it in a public group. (If there's enough interest I'll add some privacy controls.)

<comment><USER2> Wow, care to elaborate more about the switch from Slack to Telegram? I've been thinking of doing the same with my team, and this webhook feature was exactly what I was going to build. Thanks for releasing this.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're only a 2-(wo)man team and already on Telegram so it was a pretty easy switch. We also didn't have too many integrations and the ones we did are now migrated with Push More.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This kind of feature can easily be implemented by oneself as we described here: [https://www.curry- software.com/en/blog/telegram_unit_fail/](https://www.curry- software.com/en/blog/telegram_unit_fail/)

No need for an external service and dependency!

Also this approach allows very simple integration into code. I.e. in rust:

        pub fn telegram(msg: &str) {
            use std::process::Command;

            if let Err(e) = Command::new("telegram").arg(msg).status() {
                println!("Error occured while calling the telegram command! {:?}", e);
            }
        }

<comment><USER4> Absolutely. Their API as well as community's convenience wrappers are pretty excellent. Wrote an entire bot in a day (@LiveCoinWatchBot) and that's a testament to the development ease, not really my skills. Definitely the case for considering not depending on anything there, even a library. Let alone 3rd party service. BUT...

There's a case for users without running available endpoints for the hooks. I'd bet those people who also have need for Telegram integration with some 3rd party webhooks are in majority over us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Haha, I started building something similar using python (not that I like that language, but it seemed like the right tool for what I wanted). Additional features I (partially) added: User verification (click link that's reachable only via company IP), notification categories (users can configure which they want to receive) with attachable priority (sender site), user-configurable nagging (based on category and priority, e.g. for build errors the bot can ask the user for an ack) and user-configurable work hours.

But my boss decided we wouldn't need that, so I stopped working on it. Maybe I can release the code as open source.

Edit: User-configuration was via /command messages for the 1337 kids and clickable buttons for most options (better convenience/less steep learning curve).

</comment><comment><USER6> I built a quick app with PushMore, to send limited 80 character alerts. It requires a passphrase to send, so that you're not spammed all the time.

[https://pingr.xyz](https://pingr.xyz)

<comment><USER7> Mmmm, I quickly broke it by giving it invalid data:

TypeError: name.split(...)[0] is not a function at /app/server.js:74:37 at Layer.handle [as handle_request] (/rbd/pnpm- volume/649f928c-a1e2-4468-8355-00786f42479e/node_modules/.registry.npmjs.org/express/4.16.3/node_modules/express/lib/router/layer.js:95:5) at next (/rbd/pnpm- volume/649f928c-a1e2-4468-8355-00786f42479e/node_modules/.registry.npmjs.org/express/4.16.3/node_modules/express/lib/router/route.js:137:13) at Route.dispatch (/rbd/pnpm- volume/649f928c-a1e2-4468-8355-00786f42479e/node_modules/.registry.npmjs.org/express/4.16.3/node_modules/express/lib/router/route.js:112:3) at Layer.handle [as handle_request] (/rbd/pnpm- volume/649f928c-a1e2-4468-8355-00786f42479e/node_modules/.registry.npmjs.org/express/4.16.3/node_modules/express/lib/router/layer.js:95:5) at /rbd/pnpm- volume/649f928c-a1e2-4468-8355-00786f42479e/node_modules/.registry.npmjs.org/express/4.16.3/node_modules/express/lib/router/index.js:281:22 at Function.process_params (/rbd/pnpm- volume/649f928c-a1e2-4468-8355-00786f42479e/node_modules/.registry.npmjs.org/express/4.16.3/node_modules/express/lib/router/index.js:335:12) at next (/rbd/pnpm- volume/649f928c-a1e2-4468-8355-00786f42479e/node_modules/.registry.npmjs.org/express/4.16.3/node_modules/express/lib/router/index.js:275:10) at serveStatic (/rbd/pnpm- volume/649f928c-a1e2-4468-8355-00786f42479e/node_modules/.registry.npmjs.org/serve- static/1.13.2/node_modules/serve-static/index.js:75:16) at Layer.handle [as handle_request] (/rbd/pnpm- volume/649f928c-a1e2-4468-8355-00786f42479e/node_modules/.registry.npmjs.org/express/4.16.3/node_modules/express/lib/router/layer.js:95:5)

You really shouldn't echo out stacktraces to the internet ;).

<comment><USER6> Hahaha yes.

Quick build => Quick break

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love it but it has a few catches.

could you please escape the whitespace? "hello world" returns me "hello+world" . Also I am trying to configure a nice template on zapier, so I'd need it to reckon "newline\n" last but not least, parse URLs please!

EDIT: looks way better if I send data in JSON instead that raw/form

</comment><comment><USER8> cool I can get the bot to post a PM to me but the website says it also works in group chats..how? no documentation

<comment><AUTHOR> Invite the bot into the group :) (and send /start to get the webhook URL)</comment></comment>


Spiral: Self-tuning services via real-time machine learning - <AUTHOR> https://code.fb.com/data-infrastructure/spiral-self-tuning-services-via-real-time-machine-learning/ <comment><USER2> Using a cache as an example feels off. I mean, yes. To a large degree, machine learning is fancy statistics done by the computer. And, to a large degree, caching is keeping the data that is statistically most likely to be accessed again.

However, my understanding is the classic algorithms for caching have yet to lose to the new machine learning ones. Has that changed?

<comment><USER3> Classic caching algorithms like LRU use only last access time as a feature. You are correct that ML based on only that one feature won't be much different than LRU. However, most of the time, data items have metadata that can be used as features, for example, image size and type. With this additional metadata ML algorithms can do a lot better than LRU that is only using access patterns. Also, think about how image content (sports car, an attractive person, etc) could predict if this image it likely to be accessed in the future.

<comment><USER2> I think some caching algorithms are a bit smarter than just LRU. Though, that is typically as much in having multiple caches as it is anything else.

More importantly, I know this is claimed a lot. But I thought the last few explorations of the idea I saw did not actually see fancier algorithms win. Indeed, the best strategy from my memory was random spreading of the data with an almost random replacement strategy. I think some of the win there was just the low overhead of the bookkeeping, but it was still one of the better bets.

(This is all off the table, of course, if you _know_ what the access pattern will be. Then, by all means, set things up accordingly.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One of the authors here. Be happy to answer questions

<comment><USER5> I'm having trouble fully grasping this:

> Today, rather than specify how to compute correct responses to requests, our > engineers encode the means of providing feedback to a self-tuning system.

"encod[ing] the means of providing feedback to a self-tuning system", got it, very cool!

But don't they still have to "specify how to compute correct responses to requests"?

<comment><USER6> Not OP / GP; from what I understand, this isn't an API generated by ML, it's a cache manager. "Computing correct responses to requests" refers to deciding whether or not it should read it from some caching layer and whether or not it should be cached in the future, and it does this by optimizing some parameters. The difference is something like it decides whether or not to use the API or the cache to load an image or some content, rather than saying "this request should return a response with these properties". Hopefully I'm right and this makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Potentially confused with SpiralGen: [http://www.spiralgen.com/](http://www.spiralgen.com/)

<comment><USER8> And even more easily confusable with DeepMind's Spiral, another reinforcement learning project: [https://deepmind.com/research/publications/synthesizing- prog...](https://deepmind.com/research/publications/synthesizing-programs- images-using-reinforced-adversarial-learning/)

<comment><USER9> Yet less confusable with a certain French television police procedural and legal drama series set in Paris.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This looks really interesting. Does anyone know if there are plans to open source the framework?

<comment><USER3> Thank you for your interest, this is very encouraging! There are no immediate plan to open source this, but this is something we may consider in the future.</comment></comment>


Please build websites for the web, not just Google Chrome - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/dd/2017/11/28/please-build-websites-web-not-just-google-chrome/ <comment><USER2> I sympathize with both sides of this argument. The author is correct: If you're providing a service on the web, especially a widely used one, you should make it usable for all web users to the fullest extent possible, regardless of browser.

But on the other hand... boy am I glad I switched from web dev to primarily back-end work. Building and maintaining complex software that works reliably in one environment is enough of a challenge as it is... without all the extra variables of an ever-changing landscape of browsers and devices, with varying levels of feature support, all of which you have zero control over.

IMO being a front-end dev is borderline masochistic :)

<comment><USER3> >> IMO being a front-end dev is borderline masochistic :)

Some of us just like the challenge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This reminds me of the microsoft rep that installed chrome mid demo because edge wasnt working properly lol (article was posted on HN a few weeks ago)

[https://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2017/10/30/microsoft- engine...](https://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2017/10/30/microsoft-engineer- chrome-edge-google/)

<comment><USER3> Yet again another example of one good use for MS browsers, installing a different browser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This isn't really my area of expertise so if this already exists feel free to educate me.

Would it be possible to have a generic browser that isnt controlled by any vendor, but perhaps contributed to by all of them, which could be used as a dev standard? It doesn't even have to be available to users, just devs. Vendors could still develop their browsers any way they want, but when output diverges from this kit, they would at least know it. As a dev you could use this as your test kit and know that if it works here, it works everywhere.

I could see problems with this being backwards compatible, but at the point where the major vendors sign on, all future releases would compatible (and eventually all releases as older versions are retired).

I suppose that perhaps though this is already accomplished by Chrome, but it seems less than ideal for many reasons.

<comment><USER6> I think that would in effect become just another browser developers need to test with.

Vendor browsers will miss features compared to it, and have extra features, and do some things a bit different. Developers wouldn't consider it "the dev standard" since it wouldn't be used by many people, and what matters is that your users can use what you meant them to use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Reminds me of the time of websites only using -webkit vendor prefixes in the CSS even though the same properties were available to other browsers. Available either as other vendor prefixes or just the standard property. It got so bad that other browsers started supporting the webkit prefixes, which defeated the purpose. Not that vendor prefixes were a good idea to begin with.

</comment><comment><USER7> Please build IE to be compatible with standards that have been implemented for years in Firefox and Chrome.

Last I tried, IE still does not have a fully compatible CSS grid and doesn't handle HTTP 2 server push at all.

Is it because they don't have enough smart programmers to implement those things? Or they can't update their software? Even though every few weeks or months there are full updates that they push at will.

I can't believe people still haven't figured out at this point that MS is doing it deliberately, just like they have been all these years. Because every time the web becomes more powerful and compatible, it weakens MS's position.

<comment><USER8> Have you tried Edge, IE at this stage is pretty much abandoned, or Edge is taking over IE.

<comment><USER7> Windows 10 automatically opens things in IE still as far as I know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Unfortunately, thenextweb.com site doesn't open at all for me on iOS and Safari.

Hmm. Maybe they should take some of their own medicine?

<comment><USER10> You should upgrade to Netscape 9. Works fine on my Nokia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Companies will build websites for whatever gets them the most money. If supporting FF costs more than the additional revenues from only-FF users, they will build Chrome-only sites. Really surprises me how easily people forget that companies are out there to make money.

<comment><USER12> Seems silly, that often its 40% of the market that companies are willing to leave to competitors for relatively tiny development costs.

<comment><USER11> Then another company will capture that 40% of the market and disrupt the first company for tiny development costs. Still can't see the problem.

<comment><USER13> And until that time, the customers are entitled to bitch and moan as much as they want for the company to do things right. Which is exactly what this is.

<comment><USER11> And until that time, the company is entitled to tell them "install Chrome", which is exactly what this is :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If I build for Chrome I build for like 80%. Then I can also usually assume it works for Safari and Opera. In in most cases also perfectly well for Firefox.

If there are small design issues on a minority browser it's not bad. And more than small issues are very unusual these days anyway.</comment>


SpaceX Raptor: Methane fueled full-flow staged combustion cycle engine - <AUTHOR> https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/ <comment><USER2> While the article was focused on the Raptor engine, it shows how great an engine the RS-25 of the space shuttle was. It was crazy expensive, but as the shuttle was reused, one could justify the cost. The sad thing is, this engine will be used in the SLS - with no reuse what so ever. If anything describes the insanity of the SLS system, then this. They are flying the most expensive rocket engine ever in fully disposable mode. Even worse. After ending the shuttle program, the engines were of course preserved, so at least the first SLS flights are going to waste the origininal shuttle engines.

<comment><USER3> NASA just constantly boxes itself into corners like these, going with the "least worst" option.

Here's an interesting article talking about how they came to the conclusion that the RS-25 was the only way to go;

[https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/nasa-defends- restart...](https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/nasa-defends-restart- rs-25-production/)

<comment><USER4> Does NASA have any choice? It seems like the political environment in which they operate makes it essentially impossible to pursue any kind of sane long- term strategy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems like with as many F1s as were used on each Apollo mission, he should count more than 17 flights. Also, I know at least one F1 was shut down before reaching orbit.

But, wow, what a great presentation! None of the other explanations I read of the full-flow design were anywhere near as clear and comprehensible. My understanding of rocket design principles has taken a great leap.

<comment><USER6> If we're using that logic then there are also 9 Merlin engines on each Falcon 9 and 3 RS-25's on each shuttle.

<comment><USER7> 10 per mission, don't forget the 2nd stage. And 28 per FH mission.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > The RD-170 actually produced more thrust than the F-1, but since it barely > ever flew, I figured it wasn't as relevant in this line up, figured it's > better to go with engines that have actually been used, a lot!

Wikipedia lists some 84 launches - including a dozen of failures - of Zenit, which uses RD-171 on the first stage - the near-twin of RD-170. That's a lot of launches.

<comment><USER9> That was pointed out to him here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/bsy6rp/a_deep_rundo...](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/bsy6rp/a_deep_rundown_on_the_raptor_engine_explaining/eosasto/?context=8&depth=9)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Enthalpy is basically the relationship between volume, pressure and > temperature

I appreciate the non-technical approach to the subject, but this is false. Enthalpy is an energy, it accounts for both internal energy (heat) and work.

<comment><USER11> Enthalpy is energy required to create a system. Internal energy required to make up the system (to bring it's internals to given Temperature, pressure ect), but there is additional work needed to position the system in the universe (that is, to free some space for it, like moving (working on) water or air to place the system of volume V in it).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> One of the best technical and easily digestible articles I've read in years

</comment><comment><USER13> If I ever get to ask Elon an ama question it'd be this; in the beginning the Merlin was ablative chamber and nozzle, I thought SpaceX was going the sea dragon/big dumb booster route. Contrast with today inparticularly the raptor, they're pushing the state of the art. Why the change?

<comment><USER14> My take on an answer: they knew that they'd have to create a working rocket in just a handful of attempts (turned out that they'd hardly had money for the fourth - the first successful - attempt). An ablatively cooled nozzle was the easiest way to solve the nozzle-cooling problem and they deferred work on a more sustainable method to later.

Other pragmatic solutions were for example that the booster and upper stage have the same diameter so that the same tooling could be used. Or that the diameter of the stages is 12 feet because that's the maximum diameter that could be easily and cheaply transported by road to the launch site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Very counter intuitive that all of the fuel and oxidizer goes through the preburner yet so elegant.

</comment><comment><USER16> How does the Raptor solve the coking problem in the fuel rich pre burn chamber?

<comment><USER17> By using methane instead of kerosene.

Methane won't cause soot/coking.

<comment><USER18> My analysis is probably wrong, but anyway, Methane is CH4. There is one carbon atom to 4 hydrogen atoms. RP1, or Kerosene, is a mix of different chemicals, but the ratio is roughly one carbon atom for every two hydrogen atoms. So, with Methane, there is less carbon to be converted to CO2 or left as soot for the same amount of hydrogen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Great post! Read it beginning to end.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is this Why there is a methane surge? [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20012612](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20012612)

<comment> Tuna-Fish No. The quantities of methane touched by SpaceX are low by something like 10 orders of magnitude, and they _burn_ their methane, rather than releasing it to the air.</comment></comment>


An Interesting Pointer Puzzle - <AUTHOR> http://denniskubes.com/2014/08/11/interesting-pointer-puzzle/ <comment><USER2> Something is overlooked. Note that:

        int *a[] = { 1, 2, 3 }

violates a constraint in the C language; an ISO C conforming implementation must issue a diagnostic --- and, additionally, it may stop translating and reject the program.

Why? Because expressions of type int are being used to initialize elements of type pointer to int, without a cast.

The first step is operating your compiler such that you get the required diagnostics out of it, or at least the important ones, and then some. For instance, with gcc:

        # C90
        gcc -Wall -ansi ... # some would add -pedantic

        # C99
        gcc -Wall -std=c99 ...

and then, don't ignore diagnostics that are "mere" warnings!

And, of course, passing a pointer argument to a "%d" conversion specifier in printf is undefined behavior.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're correct. I wasn't trying to say this was the way to code. In fact I pointed out that we were ignoring warnings on purpose. The interesting part, at least to me, is that the output of the logic errors were consistent leading to a nice example of bad pointer math. Understanding how the compiler is seeing the code was illuminating.

<comment><USER2> What do you mean by "bad"; what calculation do you intend to label that way?

In the sequence 0, 4, 8, 12, 16 the deltas are equal, and consistent with the size of an int in bytes.

It looks bad when we don't _know_ it's pointer math, and/or are not aware that the syntax we used doesn't index into the array; if we know these things, it is unsurprising.

Now if you got the Fibonacci sequence, that would be astonishing! :)</comment></comment></comment>


Pelican books take flight again - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/25/pelican-books-take-flight-relaunch

<comment><USER2>
      "Who would have imagined that, even at 6d, there was a thirsty public
       anxious to buy thousands of copies of books on science, sociology, economics,
       archaeology, astronomy and other equally serious subjects?"

      [....]

      Editions of 50,000, even for not obvious bestsellers, were standard [....]
      (These days a publisher would be delighted if such a book made it to 2,000.)

Sixpence in 1937 is about £1.50 (US$2.50) today. The new series sells for £8 ($13.50).

<comment><USER3> I've been noticing a lot of kindle books in the 1.99 to 3.99 range recently. I wonder how sales are different vs 9.99 to 15.99

<comment><USER4> The kindle versions of these will be £3.99, half the price of the paper edition. The lower price point makes good sense to me -- it encourages impulse buys, and the e-books have no significant marginal costs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The co-founder of Pelican books, V. K. Krishna Menon, was a very important figure in Indian independence and a controversial diplomat and defence minister afterwards. He split with Allen Lane, I have heard, over a dispute over how commercial the venture should be - with Lane taking a more commercial viewpoint.

This story is so obscure that I have never found any reliable source for this. I am glad to see Guardian acknowledging the role of Krishna Menon in the history of Penguin books and Pelican books - it seems vague even in the Wikipedia article on Krishna Menon.

He also was pivotal in the non-aligned movement: what is now called the "third world". Originally the term denoted countries allied neither to the West nor to the Soviet Bloc, but now it has become synonymous with squalour.

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

</comment><comment><USER6> So the news is, despite this thing called the Internet happening, and Wikipedia, and YouTube how-tos, and self-publishing becoming reputable and lo- capex, and most non-fiction on a slow downward trend, Penguin is going to reboot a non-fiction imprint, with conventional pricing and distribution, with books on the sort of topics one gets in TED Talks and free online university lectures. How does one pitch a business case for something like this?

<comment><USER7> Quite simple actually. These books contain big meaty subject matter. Not fucking glossed over topics like a ted talk or wiki entry.

The laws of thermodynamics cannot be condensed down into a 14 minute video.

The internet has cheapened both the access and depth of knowledge. There are a lot of internet commentators out there who barely grasp a briefly summarized topic yet assume an expert position.

Many of them browse hacker news even ;-)

<comment><USER8> So true. The amount of dross one has to wade through on the internet to find something worth the reading can be huge. Whilst being printed in paper format at the end of a chain of editors, proof-readers, financial outlay and vast amounts of effort on the part of the original author (generally quite qualified, and even then you can double check this yourself before you read) doesn't guarantee a good result, the odds are much better.

They picked some good authors to start with; Ha-Joon Chang's previous book for the general audience was a good read from a good writer.

<comment><USER9> After slogging through _A People's Tragedy_ I'm interested in Figes book on an expanded time frame of Russian history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think those are all available for considerably less than £8. The non- scarcity of books has pretty much hung them here and that's a good thing.

Publishers sell books.

I just want the words and they're virtually free to distribute.</comment>


How Sweden is Solving Sex Slavery - <AUTHOR> http://justinis.com/how-sweden-is-solving-sex-slavery/ <comment><USER2> There's quite a bit missing from this article, like any sort of data from the FSC who is actively working to get out an accurate message. I know its a blog post, but that doesn't mean it needs to be inacurate...</comment>


Gremlins - <AUTHOR> https://www.darpa.mil/program/gremlins <comment><USER2> Gremlins were not "luck charms of many British pilots during World War II" as Darpa states. They were bad luck demons that could kill pilots.

"Gremlins were said to engage in such a myriad of bad behavior as sucking the gas out of tanks through hoses, jamming radio frequencies, mucking up landing gear, blowing dust or sand into fuel pipes or sensitive electrical equipment, cutting wires, removing bolts or screws, tinkering with dials, knobs or switches, jostling controls, slashing wings or tires, poking or pinching gunners or pilots, banging incessantly on the fuselage, breaking windows, and a wide variety of other prankish acts. "

[https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/07/the-real-gremlins- of-...](https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/07/the-real-gremlins-of-wwii/)

<comment><USER3> There's a Bugs Bunny animated cartoon in the Merrie Melodies series that depicts a Gremlin like the one you mentioned.

Falling Hare (1943)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZElJxTCIsJI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZElJxTCIsJI)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am not an aerospace engineer, but the figure '20 uses' stood out to me as odd: if it's 20 uses, why not just build it to be easily serviceable indefinitely? With no pilot you massively simplify the set of engineering and materials problems, and if it's going to be reusable that many times you're still going to have to perform maintenance, refuel, re-arm, etc. What is so different between '20 uses' and 'decades'?

<comment><USER5> If they're expecting a 5% loss rate per mission, then there's no point making them last longer than 20 missions. You can also make things cheaper and more durable if they don't have to be designed to be disassembled.

<comment><USER6> If there's a 5% loss rate per mission, then there's a 35% chance that it will survive 20 missions.

<comment><USER5> Adjust the loss rate and the point stands, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This isn't just a concept. There's already hardware flying.[1]

As a concept, it makes sense. The USAF is being killed by the costs of the F-35. An aircraft that can survive in hostile airspace today is insanely expensive. The USAF just won't have enough of them to go up against anybody serious. Something cheaper is needed.

A cheaper unmanned aircraft won't survive as well. That's OK; if you can get 20 combat missions out of the thing, that's not bad.

[1] [https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2018-05-09](https://www.darpa.mil/news- events/2018-05-09)

<comment><USER8> > _Something cheaper is needed._

And if you can get it below (or in the ballpark of) the costs of shooting it down, that's another huge win.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The problem with the SUAS concept is energy and scale. You can't have something very small (small enough to fit a dozen in a C-130, so several metres in length at most) which has a powerful turbofan engine and significant range and excellent manoeuvrability and compact stowage.

Recovery especially is rather implausible due to the complex aerodynamics and risk to the people on the mothership. C-130s are fine for a demo I guess, but are particularly terrible tactically, as the adversary SUAS systems would easily be able to take them out.

<comment><USER8> > _Recovery especially is rather implausible due to the complex aerodynamics > and risk to the people on the mothership._

Fly straight up, cut engines, fall ballistic. Maybe even add a parachute. The US recovered spy satellite footage _in the 60s_ this way, with payload falling from space and being caught in-flight. So it should be workable today as well.

<comment><USER10> Technology is much more advanced nowadays, why not use that? I would envision a robotic arm that automatically collects UAVs when they approach sufficiently close to the mothership. The arm can be rather large and can be extended through rear loading bay.

<comment><USER8> > _Technology is much more advanced nowadays, why not use that?_

Is it though? I mean, it ostensibly is, at least on paper. Not so much in practice, though.

Maybe there is a cycle of expansion and contraction? In the 50s-80s we've pushed tech across all domains as far as we could, doing miracles. Then it got all scaled back in an attempt to optimize the most common use cases to be cheaper. If so, I can't wait for the next expansion phase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't understand why you'd want to tell everyone how your weapons work. It may be a cultural thing, as I am not American. What is the reasoning behind it?

<comment><USER12> Advertising, given huge income from arms sales. Also perhaps generating fear and awe.

<comment><USER13> It's definitely a form of advertising. US companies often publish vast amounts of public R&D, and universities routinely do it. The US military sometimes behaves that way for the exact same reason.

When you can advertise that you're cutting edge, it helps attract the best minds. That's dramatically more valuable than worrying about eg China or Russia stealing the idea to Gremlins. Those ideas and technologies get out regardless, you can't protect them very long. Competitors and adversaries are going to catch up with a given piece of technology, even if they have to figure out how you did it the hard way. By recruiting the best minds to work on problems, you can ensure that you remain a lap ahead of the competitors that will steal or copy from you regardless. If something is very sensitive, then perhaps you can buy a bit more time by keeping it strictly secret, it's still going to get out. If your tech is good enough, powerful countries will do anything to get at it.

<comment><USER14> vis. Google's open source offerings.

<comment><USER12> And even Microsoft's ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Carrier has arrived.

<comment><USER5> <Protoss noises intensify>

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defenses)

</comment><comment><USER17> The part I found most enjoyable was the fact that DARPA says the British love Gremlins, while Americans made them into horror icons.

</comment><comment><USER18> "and retrieve them in mid-air" sounds pretty challenging.

</comment><comment><USER12> Cruise missiles? Drones? With "AI"? Whatever, so damn predictable. But hey, when you gotta kill, you gotta kill. Might as well do it efficiently, with as little operator risk as possible.

But it does suck, when you're the target. And low operator risk makes wars a _lot_ easier to sell to frightened masses. So likely, there'll be more targets, for less justifiable reasons. Resource wars, for example.

<comment><USER19> On the other hand, it's the military who have the money. Jet fighters and bombers came before jet airliners. So, maybe DOD's involvement will bring the Singularity closer.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure that angry AI is something to look forward to. Unless I'm the angry AI, anyway ;)</comment></comment></comment>


What Noma did next: how the 'New Nordic' is reshaping the food world - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/food/2020/feb/28/what-noma-did-next-new-nordic-food-rene-redzepi-claus-meyer-locavore-foraging <comment><USER2> for an article which practically browbeats us with environmental concern and "brutal inequality" it really is odd they celebrate Noma where lunches cost on the order of $375 without drinks[0][1]. So basically we have a group of pretentious activists bemoaning the well being of the planet and the little guy while eating a mere lunch that is more most of those little people see per month if not year.

Spare me.

I tried to read the article with an open mind but the amount of preaching was a bit over the top so I went restaurant hunting and outside of the Ikea mentions this what you get, the elite basically having the food equivalent to Papal dispensations. Probably the same bunch which jets from high profile high visibility environment conference to the next.

You do not reshape the world on four hundred dollar lunches.

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/dining/noma-restaurant- co...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/dining/noma-restaurant- copenhagen.html)

[1] [https://noma.dk/food-and-wine/](https://noma.dk/food-and-wine/)

<comment><USER3> Much of the article is about the democratic food changes brought about by Claus Meyer, Noma's original owner and the one who recruited Rene Redzepi for the original concept (and eventually sold Noma to Redzepi). What Redzepi is doing is definitely experimental and for the jet-set crowd, whereas the article details how Claus Meyer is working with Ikea and putting food in supermarkets...

<comment><USER4> > You do not reshape the world on four hundred dollar lunches.

> Much of the article is about the democratic food changes brought about by > Claus Meyer, Noma's original owner and the one who recruited Rene Redzepi > for the original concept (and eventually sold Noma to Redzepi). What Redzepi > is doing is definitely experimental and for the jet-set crowd, whereas the > article details how Claus Meyer is working with Ikea and putting food in > supermarkets...

You're judging the efforts of the staff by the clientele they serve? Big mistake.

I actually met the current creative staff at Noma when they came and dined at our restaurant, and they're super humble guys. I was expecting them to be in suits and ordering the most expensive wines, they were guests of Kimbal so it was all comp'd anyway. But instead they were in Dickies jackets and jeans and were interested in hearing about what we do/did as a farm-to-table and met our Team in BOH.

The current creative director at Noma is also the same guy who worked under Ferran at El Bulli, and if you haven't realized or can appreciate what they've done for food you're either entirely oblivious or beyond help.

Just the amount of attention that has been placed on food education and sustainable Ag practices, and sourcing locally and from organic farmers alone have made massive strides, MAD (Rene's conference) [1] is also a premier platform for launching these projects.

Granted, more can always be done, but restaurants are poor business ventures, and the staff are overworked and underpaid.

1: [https://madfeed.co/](https://madfeed.co/)

<comment><USER3> I'm sure the Noma guys are humble. Noma is notorious for using free labour and underpaying and overworking everyone else. Their restaurant literally couldn't exist in most countries as they'd violate a ton of labour laws...

> restaurants are poor business ventures

They're actually great ventures, there's just a lot of restaurateurs who don't know how to make money.

Anyhow, Noma is influential in the foodie world, but their influence on popular culture and eating habits outside Scandinavia is way overstated.

<comment><USER4> > Noma is notorious for using free labour and underpaying and overworking > everyone else. Their restaurant literally couldn't exist in most countries > as they'd violate a ton of labour laws...

That's any restaurant, you don't work at these places because its a good business proposition with good work-life balance, you do it mainly out of passion. It just so happens that Michelin awarded places have deeper talent pools to draw from.

I should know, I worked at a new 'concept' headed by a 3-star chef and lasted 5 weeks before I realized what a scam it was and walked out. Just for context, I've been a Sous-chef but I'm often the highest paid BOH hourly worker in most my restaurant jobs as just a cook, making more per hour than almost all sous- chefs on a weekly basis with 1/2 the responsibilities. I can usually jump from BOH or FOH if/when needed.

I also had the privilege of working with one of the rockstars from El Bulli Hotel, who pretty much said the same.

> They're actually great ventures, there's just a lot of restaurateurs who > don't know how to make money.

What first hand experience do you have with this? I've ran kitchens before (granted, it was in Europe) and the food, maintenance, utility and labour costs are only ever really reasonable when you run lean as hell and alcohol sales are through the roof (think late Spring/Summer and holidays). Otherwise buy-outs are the only thing to be seen as a healthy ROI.

> Anyhow, Noma is influential in the foodie world, but their influence on > popular culture and eating habits outside Scandinavia is way overstated.

Wrong again:

[https://www.eater.com/2018/11/8/18068596/dan-giusti- brigaid-...](https://www.eater.com/2018/11/8/18068596/dan-giusti-brigaid- nutritious-school-lunches-american-cafeterias-noma)

I grant you a lot of it is good PR, as most high-profile 'foodie/chef' stuff typically is. but it has made a significant impact in the end consumer that wasn't there. And its trying to disrupt archaic, bloated budgets in Government run crony-capitalist systems (school lunch programs).

Dan Barber's trajectory to its current notoriety is a good example of how collaborative efforts help elevate profiles:

[https://www.vogue.com/article/rene-redzepi-dan-barber- lela-r...](https://www.vogue.com/article/rene-redzepi-dan-barber-lela-rose)

Now, would I personally travel to eat at Noma DK/MX, no... not really. I'm not into molecular gastronomy, I come from a Scientific background with several years working in a lab, and most of their novelty relies on HS level lab/bench work.

Its interesting, and I'm glad they're successful; but unless I'm a being treated to a menu for free I'm not going, also I'm not there target demographic as I cook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would say that's mostly old by now and the new new is this bit: "he is partnering with Ikea – which feeds 660 million people a year, making it one of the 10 largest food-service operations in the world – to "veganise" its menu." The linked article from last summer is a good summary: [https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/we-tried- ike...](https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/we-tried-ikeas-first- meatless-meatballs-and-they-were-ok/news- story/666c7ad550f6cb2a220d6a531e73f27b)

<comment><USER6> In my region, Ikea is known for cheap furniture and their tasty currywurst. They have plenty of other dishes of course and by my experience it is quite good for what it pretends to be.

<comment><USER7> I don't know if it's regional at all, but I recommend the Swedish meatballs.

Side note: I propose that vegan meatballs be called peatballs! (Peat is made out of plants, correct? I'm not super knowledgable about that stuff.)

<comment><USER3> Peat is this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat)

So no, doesn't really work well as a word for foodstuffs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Fun fact, the chef René Redzepi is actually of Albanian origin. Hence he has been infusing some of that cuisine into the restaurant's menu/ingredients....

Perhaps is what makes Noma so successful, as he has combined the best of two cultures.... (Nordic and South Europe)

One of his Albanian 'students' opened a very successful restaurant in Tirana, which is very delicious:

[https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g294446-d10080...](https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g294446-d10080738-Reviews- Mullixhiu-Tirana_Tirana_County.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> > land of herring cured in lye

This is not a thing. Yes, herring are cured, but not in lye. _Lutefisk_ is made from large white fish (eg. cod), not herring, and it's best known as a Norwegian dish. (Do Danes even eat the stuff?)

<comment><USER10> Do Swedes even eat that stuff?

<comment><USER11> Well, some Swedes eat Surströmming, that's ... umm 'bad' as well.

I heard a joke that went like this:

To eat Surströmming, you need three lakes. One lake to open the can in (so it does not splash), another to rinse the fish and a third one to wash your hands in. Then avoid bathing in these lakes for the next decade.

<comment><USER12> >>Well, some Swedes eat Surströmming, that's ... umm 'bad' as well.

I don't get the hate about Surstroming. Had it in Sweden and I can totally see enjoying it with some pickled gherkin and few shots of vodka. But then I'm Polish so I'll eat pickled anything.

<comment><USER13> The problem is the smell and the fact people don't know how to handle it to avoid the smell.

(Hint: for starters you have to open it under water people!)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>