Ask HN: I'm already fluent in English. How can I improve further? - <AUTHOR> I've been reading, writing and speaking English as a second language ever since I was a kid. I can conduct hour-long conversations at work or when on holiday with native speakers without getting tired or feeling strained. I give presentations, tell jokes and would sometimes even speak in English because I find it easier to express my current thought in it.
And yet it doesn't feel like a mother tongue. I still feel some sentences are direct translations of the way I would say something in Hebrew, and that a native speaker would have said it differently.
I'm also aware of my grammar not being perfect. Knowing which preposition to use is sometimes challenging.
So, how do I improve my English further? What's the next step after reaching this level? Obviously online classes wouldn't do. The only option I could think of is living in an English speaking country, but that currently not an option.
PS this entire post was written without any help from online resources, so you can take that as my current level of English writing. If you spot out anything you might have articulated differently, it'd be great to hear! Thanks! <comment><USER2> Joseph Conrad is considered one the greats of English literature, yet his sentence structure and flow is strongly influenced by his native Polish.

Would have he been a better writer if he had worked to eliminate this obvious influence on form? I highly doubt it.

At a certain point, you have achieved native fluency. From there, what you do with grammar and flow is up to you- the rules are not cast in stone. Borrow what you think is best from any and all languages at your disposal, and knead it in to English. If it works, we all benefit.

<comment><USER3> French too. He spent a bit of time working for French ships prior to moving to British ones. English was actually his third language, amazingly enough, which just further solidifies your point.

 _On 13 October 1874 Bobrowski sent the sixteen-year-old to Marseilles, France, for a planned career at sea.[15]:44–46 Though Conrad had not completed secondary school, his accomplishments included fluency in French (with a correct accent), some knowledge of Latin, German and Greek..._

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My mother told me that watching TV in English made a big impact on her English fluency.

 _Knowing which preposition to use is sometimes challenging._

Prepositions are one of the hardest things to translate. Sometimes, translating it one way gives it a different meaning than you intended and other times it really doesn't but wouldn't be the "common" usage.

To give an example, my sister was going on about people translating stuff in the Harry Potter books, looking for hidden meanings, and she told me Voldemort was French for "flight of death" and I told her "No, _de_ can also be translated as _from_. I would translate that _flight from death_."

 _Flight of death_ is nonsense in English. It doesn't make sense. _Flight from death_ has a completely different meaning and makes perfect sense -- Lord Voldemort was trying to get out of dying. He was trying to escape his own death. He was fleeing from death.

But if you are talking about someone's hometown, saying "Doreen, from Columbus" or "Doreen, of Columbus" means the same thing and most people wouldn't misunderstand it. De in French is often used that way as well and it more or less doesn't matter which of the two English prepositions you use.

<comment><USER5> "Vol de mort" can also mean "Theft of death", as "vol" is both "flight" and "theft" in French. Now you have another problem.

<comment><USER6> Rowling has a strong french heritage and a degree in french literature. As a native french speaker, I can assure you that this is a deliberate play on both meanings: "Flight from death" because he is the one who escapes death, and "Theft of death" because this is the way he kills his enemies (The Avada Kedavra spells capture the soul of the dead into the wand)

<comment><USER5> I'm unfamiliar with her work, but as a native speaker myself I figured the word play was an opportunity too good to miss, albeit obvious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hi Mantanrubin,

I am an English teacher to foreign students and have a few at your level of fluency. With these students I usually do custom classes using content from literature, poetry and current affairs, mainly to get them using advanced vocabulary and grammar, and then applying it to their own lives so that they can discuss topics in detail in a variety of ways. Making sure to know when to use colourful language, when not to, the perfect phrasal verb or idiom and so on.

One of the other comments in this thread also mentions good fiction (Conrad). I'd second that, as well as adding variety with more modern writers as well as those of the classics. For example, a book like Satchmo (story of Louis Armstrong's life written in his own vernacular - it's brilliant) is as useful to your advancement of English fluency as is Conrad, Wharton, Louis Stevenson. The thing to note with the classics is to find one or two you really enjoy (I don't particularly enjoy Austin but I love others).

Additionally to literature you could read scientific material, listen to and interpret hip hop and explain it to someone else, try to write poetry, speak with young native speakers, speak with older native speakers and so on.

If you'd like to do a class any time you can also contact me if you'd like. My vety basic website is teacherross dot com.

Good luck and keep going.

Ross.

<comment><USER8> What are some ways you get people to use more complex structures and phrasing? I'm a native English speaker learning Spanish and I struggle to get beyond small talk when talking to native Spanish speakers

<comment><USER7> Some ideas would be to listen for, or create your own, long sentences with multiple clauses (even if shorter sentences would be easier. Also by speaking to different age groups, for example older generations tend to have many colourful expressions that are not commonly used anymore. Apart from that, if you wanted to get very complex you could ask someone to explain a difficult subject matter to you, something they might have expertise in, e.g. something scientific, their heritage, their thoughts on politics etc. Anything that forces multiple clauses and deep consideration and revision of ideas.

In a very basic way, with my less fluent students I continually ask then to explain their thinking behind an opinion... Why, why, why

And of course including more advanced material than their level dictates, to push them harder and learn faster.

Hope that helps somewhat!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am going to suggest you watch a few episodes of 'Only Fools and Horses'. It's an 80s sitcom set in Peckham, South London. The show is practically considered a national treasure in the UK and most people who grew up in the UK are very familiar with it.

The reason I suggest it is that it showcases a very particular dialect of British English that many people struggle with (even native English speakers) if they aren't familiar with it. The show was so popular in fact that many modern colloquial British English phrases/words can trace their appearance to this show, not because the show invented them, but because the show exposed so many people to this dialect.

Some examples of words/phrases popularised by OFAH: dipstick, wally, cushty, lovely jubbly.

See [http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/onlyfools/lingo/](http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/onlyfools/lingo/) for more.

If you want to master modern British English, check it out. It's also hilariously funny.

<comment><USER10> I was going to suggest something similar; listening/watching English TV which doesn't have the received-pronounciation.

Other good choices would be "Yes Minister" (original series), "Fawlty Towers", and for extra-credit you should absolutely try to watch "Rab C. Nesbitt" (which is set in Glasgow.

I'd suggest that Only Fools & Horses (after the second/third series) is pretty understandable to all British people, but a lot more would struggle with the Scottish accents.

Here's a brief sample, and another Scottish themed comedy sketch:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k7VoFiagfs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k7VoFiagfs)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMS2VnDveP8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMS2VnDveP8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> My biggest struggle is to sound like native due to lack of daily practice with native speakers. There is not enough resources on this one while there are plenty of resources for beginners / intermediate levels. In my native language, I can comfortably phrase one sentence in multiple ways, make it sound casual or less casual, while in English, I think I don't know enough about making myself sound casual.

<comment><USER12> I wouldn't prioritize so much sounding as a native speaker unless you fear discrimination that may affect your career or personal life.

Under my point of view I view keeping your accent as part of your identity and something that makes you unique.

<comment><USER11> I used to appreciate to hear this actually. However, now I'm a father who needs to teach his son speaking, and I feel that I'm not good enough.

<comment><USER13> Nothing to worry about there - he'll pick it up from his peers. You'd do better to be sure he learns your first language as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > The only option I could think of is living in an English speaking country, > but that currently not an option.

Speaking from personal experience, I think all this will do is change your speech patterns and modulate your accent ever so slightly.

You likely read/write English better than a native English speaker already. Some of the language/grammar I've encountered from my English colleagues in both formal and informal written communication is absolutely terrible, and I attribute that to them "learning" English by way of speaking and "incorrect" colloquial usage before perfunctorily running through their English lessons at school.

<comment><USER15> > You likely read/write English better than a native English speaker already.

Kinda by definition this can't be correct. English is defined by what the native speakers speak. It might be that sometimes how they say things doesn't match up to how you were taught was correct, but it is likely to be correct for their dialect.

<comment><USER16> >> English is defined by what the native speakers speak.

What about regional accents? For a non native speaker of English, understanding English as spoken in Scotland is a challenge. And I heard people born in UK complaining they had sometimes difficulties with American English (for example with real life/social things). This without speaking of people from India who speak an English which is slightly different from US' or UK's English (and equally valuable and "native").

So I guess a definition of "native speaker" is a bit difficult.

<comment><USER17> After I learned German for a few years, I lived in a region of Germany where many people spoke in a dialect. At the time I thought I had a pretty good handle on what was dialect and what wasn't. A good amount of dialect made it into my speech anyway, since that's how the locals spoke.

Later I discovered to my surprise that a few of the words I had placed in the "standard German" category were actually from the regional dialect.

I actually think it was more helpful to my language abilities to have learned two different German dialects (one of which was standard German). It also helped me to understand how languages change and what it must have been like several centuries ago when there wasn't a standardized German and people had to struggle to understand someone from far away area that in theory spoke the same language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> These suggestions from the University of Washington might help:

"Strategies for enhancing English language fluency: General fluency" [https://www.washington.edu/teaching/programs/international-t...](https://www.washington.edu/teaching/programs/international- teaching-assistant-program/resources-for-international-tas/communication- resources-for-international-tas/strategies-for-enhancing-english-language- fluency-general-fluency/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Many of already waded in so not sure I can add anything different. However, here I go ;)

I guess for me the main question is, what do you mean by 'fluency?' Do you want to speak/be thought of as someone from an English speaking country? Or is it more a personal feeling that you want to _be better_?

For someone with an already high-level of English speaking and writing, I think the remaining barrier is more cultural than language. Like can you decipher common codes as someone who lives in the culture of that English- speaking country. And from my experience, a lot of that is broken up into two categories - 1. childhood identifications, things like education system, curriculum; regional, national milestone events, etc.; and 2. pop culture today, things like TV shows, current events, views on social, economics, politics, etc.

I think it's easier for the US case just because how pervasive American soft power is. But in any case, my feeling just from your post is that it's perhaps really more culture rather than language that you want to focus on.

</comment><comment><USER20> The answer to your question really depends on what you need it for. Technical or content writing? Work communication? Deeper conversations in your personal life?

I think the most broadly applicable answer is to read the most famous English stylists such as Gibbon, Carlyle, Arnold, or novelists like Austen, Eliot, Henry James, etc. This writing is complex and sophisticated enough to be challenging even to native speakers, but the vocabulary is still almost totally congruent with modern English.

However, since you're posting on HN, I suspect you'd like a response from a more technical perspective, in which case my answer is: read and write open source documentation! Writing good docs requires complete understanding of the terminology and concepts involved, as well as compositional skill and precision. It's a great exercise which will improve your English, as well as your understanding of the code you're writing about - and as a bonus you're giving something back while you learn.

<comment><USER21> _my answer is: read and write open source documentation_

I disagree. You need very little language skill to read technical docs if you're familiar with the topic, and only slightly more to write them yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> A lot of the advice given is good, but I would like to add something I did not see: you can only be really fluent at a language you practice daily. I speak three foreign languages fluently, and speak two of them daily (English and German). I barely speak my mother tongue (French) with anyone else than my 3 and 1 yo. I am not really fluent at my mother tongue anymore, and my family often makes fun of how I speak, which is often a straight translation from English or German (and I apparently also have a German accent), with lots of pauses to search my words. Of course, one week in a French speaking environment and fluency is back.

What I want to say with it is: do not worry too much. Read, listen and speak English with natives, and you will keep a decent enough level to gain real fluency any time you get immersed in an English speaking environment.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm also a 'non native' speaker of English and it has been my second language from childhood.

For me the question is - for a global or a widespread language like that of English, is there any characteristic which can be defined as 'native'. English speaker from Scotland would sound very 'non-native' in Australia and vice versa.

I would imagine for a languages like Mandarin or Russian which is spoken in a particular geographical region with homogeneous population can have that characteristic - "Spoken like a true native". But for languages like English not so, same could be true for languages like Spanish and Hindi (3rd most widely spoken - contained in a geographical region but spoken among very diverse and non-homogenous population).

</comment><comment><USER24> Take some quiz for reality check. [https://www.merriam-webster.com/word- games/vocabulary-quiz](https://www.merriam-webster.com/word-games/vocabulary- quiz)

<comment><USER25> As a French, half of the questions were about french words, which seem fancy and very formal in english, but very basic in french ;) Couldn't make the other half :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> > I've been reading, writing and speaking English

Error! Missing oxford comma! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma)

In all seriousness, your post reads better than most native speakers.

If you're writing something formal, and you're unsure if something is technically correct, find a style guide you agree with and consult it. The journalistic styles are intended to be clear: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Stylebook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Stylebook)

There are many style guides: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_guide#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_guide#United_States)

When I'm struggling with a sentence, I make sort of a mental graph of the sentence and apply rules (usually around commas, and mostly without thinking, it just happens). I think it's because I was trained as a kid with these diagrams: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_diagram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_diagram)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_usage_controversies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_usage_controversies) is a useful list. Most speakers are bad at one or more of these. I was never able to train myself to pick out a split infinitve, for example, but I would be able to if I were better educated.

Also, Grammarly is an AI thing that's supposed to detect and correct, but I haven't used it. It's quite popular with the kids these days, so they'll probably be dictating what "english" is if they get big enough: [https://www.grammarly.com/](https://www.grammarly.com/)

You might also not want to speak perfect English. Most Americans certainly don't. What I mean is, is that a "double copula" is technically "wrong", but it does convey extra information and give a cadence and a degree of informality. English has lots of little choices like that.

</comment><comment><USER27> There is a lot of variation among native English speakers. The only thing that sounds non native in what you wrote was "if you spot out anything". I would always expect "if you spot anything". But the fact that other posters picked up on different things suggests this could be regional variation (I'm in the UK). I know people who have lived and worked here for a decade and still feel they perform worse in a job interview in English rather than their native language due to the extra cognitive load. On the other hand, my partner has lived here about 10 years since she was a student and finds many things (e.g. work stuff) she can express more easily in English while other things (how she's feeling) in her native tongue.

I speculate that you get better when you are pushing past your limit, whereas comfortable practice stops you from regressing. For example, being in a situation where you are too tired to speak English but you have no choice. Also, you could try more challenging forms of text such as poetry or older English literature. While I doubt you have need to speak like Shakespeare, forming a bit of fluency with 16th century English may prime your mind to be more aware of the subtle differences you hear in modern English. Anyway, just speculation so take with a pinch of salt!

</comment><comment><USER28> I live in England and I'm married to a Brit, and I still make hilarious mistakes and cause silly misunderstandings. Would it be better if I wrote or spoke an ice-cold perfect English? I don't think so.

I'm proficient in English and I feel confident speaking. I don't think my accent hurts me in my professional or personal life. On the contrary, I think that it enriches the conversation. I can count with one hand the number of times a bad accent or not knowing a word or expression caused even the slight issue in my life during the last few years.

Going back to the question, it comes from experience. To this day I still hear words that I don't know or want to say expressions that I only know how to say in my mother tongue. In those situations, I give a literal translation and then look for a similar expression in English. You'll find that many times there is an equivalent, but other times such expressions don't really exist in other languages. And that's great! it adds to the richness of knowing more that one language. As a side, if you find yourself in these situations, make very clear to your conversation partners that you want to get corrected when you make a mistake, otherwise some people will keep quiet out of politeness.

Lastly, keep in mind that not all native speakers of a language talk perfectly all the time (far from it!). There is a good chance you already write better than some people by virtue of paying more attention to it. Once you realise that language is about communication and not about getting a perfect grade, it will lift a weight out of your shoulders and allow you to enjoy it more.

</comment><comment><USER29> @OP Listen to me very carefully, because what you're going to read here might significantly not only improve your skills but also make the whole process of learning languages far more simpler than what most people (incorrectly) apply.

There's a branch of linguistics called "applied linguistics". Within it the people studying it learn how to - and this part is crucial - teach a person of a given nationality a foreign language of choice using proven, mostly effective methods. As you see, the AL process is going to look like differently for an Italian leaning Spanish and an American learning Polish. This is why the person that can guide you, a teacher, must be of your native nationality. It takes on average 2,5-3,5 years of not that hard work to make a person speaking let's say English into someone who's impossible to distinguish from native speakers. I've seen the results myself, and I was glazing my eyes!

Instead of looking for a regular teacher take the one that's been studying applied linguistics instead. Those people aren't much more expensive. You need a guidance of that kind because someone knowledgeable must tell you what you, specifically, do wrong. Having that knowledge and reasonable tools to address your challenges you're going to love what you can get from the learning process.

I'm the best example :) My teacher told me after 2 years that I'm the most untalented, lazy, not motivated enough, stubborn person she's ever seen in her life. Plus that the fact that she made me who I am today is her greatest success ;) Kudos to her - I'm doing pretty fine with English (being Polish). Moreover, I know what I don't know, so now I can work on my own. You can't put a price on that.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER30> I looked at you post carefully (I do some copy editing, so I'm used to looking for errors), I couldn't find any. I'd not believe someone who said they could tell that you weren't a native speaker. The only thing, very slight, I'd probably say that "I'm also aware that my grammar is not perfect" would be a little more idiomatic, but that could be an AmE/BrE thing.

</comment><comment><USER31> Correction in your last para:

"If you spot out..." should be "If you spot anything you might have..."

"Articulated" doesn't quite work because the past tense shades towards meaning "movable with joints" instead of "express." I'd have gone with the simpler "said differently."

Honestly, it gets really tough at this level, because native speakers learn these shades of meaning - if they learn them at all - through years of exposure and practice. A lot of them are just conventions. There's no dictionary or textbook for them. They're just standardised language quirks which everyone knows and copies.

I would _not_ suggest you learn by reading the great English prose stylists, because a lot of the stylings are archaic. It's great writing and can be entertaining and enjoyable, but it's not a prose style you want to emulate because it will sound stuffy and pompous in a modern context.

See also: "social register." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_\(sociolinguistics\))

Instead I'd buy a shelf full of novels by 20th century and later writers. Orwell is always good, but also Margaret Atwood, Robertson Davies, Don DeLillo, Iain Banks, maybe Thomas Pynchon at a stretch. Definitely Terry Pratchett and JK Rowling. Among many others.

Don't just read them, see if you can understand how they use social register to set tone and define character in different social contexts.

For day to day English your best bet is probably the magazine industry. Regular reading of tech magazines and wider cultural and political commentary will help a lot.

<comment><USER4> _" Articulated" doesn't quite work because the past tense shades towards meaning "movable with joints" instead of "express."_

That didn't even cross my mind. That's probably "an engineer's perspective" so to speak.

These days, lots of words have different meanings to different people, depending upon the context of their lives, and it's getting really hard to treat anything as a lingua franca, even English which gets called "globish," because we have so many people with such rich and varied knowledge bases who use the same words to mean different things entirely.

I do agree that _said_ is the better word, but mostly because it's shorter and more common and not because there is much risk of it being misinterpreted, given the context.

<comment><USER32> Honestly, to this native speaker, articulated was a perfectly good word choice in this instance & one that I might have made myself.

I agree; I don't think the alternate meaning of 'jointed movement' is going to occur to the majority of people - it's really not in common use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> > I still feel some sentences are direct translations of the way I would say > something in Hebrew, and that a native speaker would have said it > differently. I'm also aware of my grammar not being perfect. Knowing which > preposition to use is sometimes challenging.

Just learn how to do that properly, and maybe learn why certain things are spoken/written the way they are (the history behind English is quite fascinating). Google exact match is a godsend for this :D

> The only option I could think of is living in an English speaking country, > but that currently not an option.

That may actually turn out to be a major disappointment. Native English speakers don't care about how they speak (or even write). Aside from your accent, which may never improve, you will likely be better than half of the country you'll be living in :D

On the accent: You can sound native, but always a bit off to anyone paying attention. Physiological differences due to growing up with another language in the very early years. Perhaps constant everyday training and speaking only English can help.

</comment><comment><USER34> I love the Only Fools and Horses suggestion.

This question and related suggestions might vary by English speaking country, or even region. The beauty is there is no 'right'.

[https://twitter.com/SirPatStew](https://twitter.com/SirPatStew)

This was my second stage of enjoying learning my mother tongue. Not Patrick Stewart specifically (he's superb), but doing Shakespeare in secondary school (UK). Great fun. This was an inner London comprehensive not a fancy school at any level, yet everyone loved it. Who hates shouting 'Ho!' at the rest of the class? The interpretation, flexibility, etymology, was enlightening.

The third stage was writing a thesis in university. I think you're there for precise writing already. I think you're > a lot of native speakers already. Try some Shakespeare. Lots of good other suggestions here too; find one that fits, and try a few that might not seem they do, but then do.

Disclaimer: Am no linguist.

</comment><comment><USER35> Firstly, your English is indeed very good - for a second language, that's awesome. Well done!

Secondly, I'm in a similar position to you with German. I have two advantages over you:

1\. I lived and worked in Germany for several years; 2\. I am married to a German.

That said, there are a few things that I try to do to improve. Not sure if they're relevant to you, but take what you can from them.

1\. I ask lots of technical questions. I enjoy languages and try to get to the root of both my own language and others, and to find the connections between them. I talk about German grammar and idiom to my wife to the point of tedium.

2\. I listen to lots of podcasts by people from different regions with different dialects.

3\. I try to read some older German texts, to get a feel for how the language has evolved over the last few hundred years.

Honestly though, you're getting to a level of proficiency that is quite rarefied for a non-native speaker, so returns will naturally diminish.

One final thought:

> spot out

is not good English idiom. "Spot" would suffice. :-)

Good on you for making such an effort, mate. Best of luck.

</comment><comment><USER36> As children (native speakers), we were aided in learning to read by reading the Book of Mormon aloud together as a family (taking turns, helping the younger ones). I think it helped and familiarized us with not just one kind of English that we were used to, but broadened us significantly (As the King James Bible might, but the Book of Mormon seems to be in a style slightly older.)

It's available freely online at [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm?la...](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng) or [https://www.comeuntochrist.org/requests/free-book-of- mormon](https://www.comeuntochrist.org/requests/free-book-of-mormon) . (I have more info at my web site, linked to my profile; feedback or questions there are welcome.)

</comment><comment><USER37> Don't worry. Many native British people don't know what a preposition is and as for those Colonials across the Atlantic, I give up!

Rather than attempt perfect grammar (if there is such a thing), I recommend you find a writing/speaking style you find comfortable with. This might mean using interesting idioms (where most natives would use cliches) or 'talking in writing'. Consider these two alternatives:- (a) Use short sentences. (b) Here's a thing you could try. Brief sentences with just one thing in them at a time.

Vocabulary will always help, but sources can be peculiar (dumbed-down or deliberately off-centre) or jarringly out of date.

All in all, people are more interested in what you have to say than picking out silly non-conformities. Read a few news or Wikepedia articles in English you might fancy comparing with Hebrew to get the flow of sentences.

Good luck. Good reading. Good writing. Good conversation.

</comment><comment><USER38> Everything that is worth knowing was written in English or has been translated to it. Well, not quite, but it's a good rule of thumb. So, immerse yourself in books written in English. Get audiobooks if you can. If you go far enough, you will be exposed to new concepts and ideas in English first, before they percolate to your native language. After a time, you will find yourself struggling to put into your mother tongue concepts which are, for you, effortless in English.

English is a beautiful language, because it lets you reach people. Honor it by always doing your very best when writing and speaking it. Pay attention to your pronunciation, and challenge yourself by writing more, if you can, and editing and sharing your work.

Other than that, perfect native pitch is over-rated, and it may take away confidence dearly needed to talk and practice more.

<comment><USER39> >Everything that is with knowing was written in English or has been translated to it.

Noam Chomsky must have believed this too; when he was prince of linguistics he considered trying to save or document dying languages a waste of time and unfashionable.

It effectively resulted in a language genocide.

It's hubris to think English will contain all of the answers.

There was a really engaging interview with Wade Davis on CBC about this: [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/saving-the-planet-means- liste...](https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/saving-the-planet-means-listening-to- indigenous-peoples-wade-davis-1.5467071)

Forgive the tangent.

<comment><USER38> > Everything that is with knowing was written in English or has been > translated to it.

It's a rule of thumb, a practical rule for life at the same level than buying groceries. I'm well aware that language incarnations form a very esoteric space, worth studying and caring about if you are in the right profession, or have the time and the inclination.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I think humor is one of those language areas that is hard to achieve in a foreign language. It seems to me that if you can do that well then you've reached a good milestone.

English idioms are hard, even for native speakers, so you might want to get a book on those.

I knew of someone that kept his English sharp by reading whole newspapers every day. You might want to do the same thing by going to one of the big English newspaper sites. The opinion/review area is usually where you will find writers using the more common form of the language.

Additionally, to that, I would start a blog or some other writing form that will force you to practice what you've learned on a regular basis. You need to go back and review what you've written and see where you've made mistakes. You might need some help with that.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER41> I was born in one, lived long in a second and now am home in a third country.

In all three languages I feel confident, can tell jokes, understand and have tested level C2 ([https://www.efset.org/cefr/](https://www.efset.org/cefr/)).

Still, every once in a while, I "have this feeling" my proficiency is subpar. Still I learn new expressions and grammar twists that I was now aware about before.

What helps me getting more certain and better in the word craft of the local language is asking locals to correct me and ask them to explain words and constructs that seem strange or unknown to me.

</comment><comment><USER42> I found that living with a native English speaker in the same house does teach you a lot of intricacies of the language - pronunciation and grammar. However, it's a deep territory of diminishing returns. In Europe, everyone's English is kind of bad (a lot of people are fluent, of course, but almost never above the level you want to reach), so there are not many people to appreciate your fluency. I found it to be more enriching to learn a new language instead, that gives massive appreciation of the languages you already know.

</comment><comment><USER43> Very fluent!

Little things I would tweak as American speaker

"I'm aware my grammar isn't perfect". "But that's not currently an option"

Also "holiday" is a British English term. If you're speaking to Americans use "vacation".

This doesn't seem to be a problem for you but the biggest area I usually see is verb tense, and singular / plural. "I want two watermelon" "I asks for the watermelons" "25% is roughly align with what I see" (should be "aligned", or "roughly aligns" and drop is) "They hasn't shared the results yet" (should be "haven't" for plural subject)

</comment><comment><USER44> For speaking and listening watch and re-watch seasons 3-10 of the Simpsons, very wonderful, dense humor. Try to make sure you get all the little off-hand comments and subtle jokes

</comment><comment><USER45> Practice. Reading will always help you (with any language), and watching movies and tv will train your ear. If a totally immersive experience is not an option, I do not think there is much more you can do. It is normal that a foreign language does not feel like your mother tongue, you will probably keep improving but there will always be some difference.

If your goal is to improve your writing too, I cannot recommend enough "The elements of style" by Strunk and White.

</comment><comment><USER46> I think I'm at a similar level as you, I can speak and write fluently but I suspect that I'm not always using the right words in the right context.

In my experience, the only way to really get a feel for that is to have conversations with native speakers. I had some native (Canadian, British) speaking colleagues in the past, at a time when I falsely believed that my English was near perfect, and it was amazing how much I noticed that I still had to learn.

</comment><comment><USER47> If you'll tolerate nitpicking (EDIT: I don't consider any of this worth pointing out other than nitpicking):

Rather than "would sometimes" as "will sometimes".

I'd rephrase "current thought" to "thoughts" or "train of thought".

I'd rephrase "I'm also aware of my grammar not being perfect." as "I'm also aware that my grammar is not perfect."

"but that currently [is] not an option" (presumably a typo).

<comment><USER48> These are all the things I would have picked out - except I would just drop 'would', not replace with it 'will'. (The verb then becoming 'do', later in the sentence.)

I'd also add that in changing any of those I could easily be proof-reading a native speaker's writing.

With the exception of:

> if you spot out anything

unless it's an AmE idiom or something, to me that's the only think that marks you out as non-native. I'm aware I've said both 'picked out' and 'marks you out', and I have no idea how to explain why this is different, it just sounds weird.

> if you spot anything

<comment><USER49> AmE speaker here. I have never heard anyone use "spot out" as a verb, but on the other hand, prepositions seem to pretty frequently attach themselves to new verbs or drop from common phrases. It still bugs me a little to hear colleagues talking about "building out" a new feature instead of simply building it, for example.

<comment><USER48> That is a weird one, yes. I think it comes from 'flesh out', which, if similar, is at least old enough that it doesn't sound strange to me.

Wiktionary sort of suggests it should sound similarly odd - it doesn't discuss it on the flesh out page [0], but for flesh vb. [1] it does give '5\. To put flesh on; to fatten'.

[0] - [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flesh_out#Verb](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flesh_out#Verb)

[1] - [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flesh#Verb](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flesh#Verb)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Study "The Elements of Style" ([https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Fourth- William-Strunk-...](https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Fourth-William- Strunk-ebook/dp/B079C7VZ3Y/)), a classic on better writing. It will teach you about how to really write for the reader and not for yourself.

<comment><USER51> I also recommend Steven Pinker's Sense of Style[1], as a more modern and definitely more interesting to read alternative.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Sense-Style-Thinking-Persons- Writing-...](https://www.amazon.com/Sense-Style-Thinking-Persons-Writing- ebook/dp/B00INIYG74/ref=sr_1_7?crid=TNL9FAD82TFP&dchild=1&keywords=pinker+steven&qid=1588147991&s=digital- text&sprefix=pinker+%2Cdigital-text%2C319&sr=1-7)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Here are three things you can usefully try. Watch more movies in English with the subtitles off. Do "Picture Description" with an articulate english speaker (you both describe a given picture to each other). If your pronunciation isn't perfect really work on that with a coach.

</comment><comment><USER53> Browse [https://www.urbandictionary.com/](https://www.urbandictionary.com/)

look for games like [https://research.google.com/semantris](https://research.google.com/semantris)

Play online games with teamspeak

<comment><USER54> Would not recommend casually browsing the former to get better at English. Looking up new terms that you encountered on social media, maybe.

<comment><USER55> also urban dictionary contains a lot of obviously joke definitions where you need to already know the word to see it is not the actual meaning.

<comment><USER54> You don't need to know the actual meaning, but you do need the context in which it appears. If your coworker puts a new acronym in a code comment it's likely not a vulgar definition, for example.

<comment><USER55> Yes, but then it is something like reading those list of acronyms definitions where LOL somehow means "hail Satan" (urban dictionary often is quite good, but in the context of the question this can be a serious problem). I would recommend it more for refreshing old memories rather than for learning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Have you tried reading a lot of English text written by fluent native speakers? I find that this is a great way to learn idiomatic usage that you can then emulate. (Disclaimer: I'm a native speaker, but this is how I've improved my language skills. Also I've started writing more.)

</comment><comment> el-salvador You could try reading articles from the Economist. They have a very interesting way of writing that avoids common phrases, cliches and words that come from latin when an English equivalent exists. They also use lots of comparisons and interesting word choice.

</comment><comment><USER56> Well, take this test to find where you really stand. (maybe be prepared to be humbled)

[http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/grammar- challenge/](http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/grammar-challenge/)

</comment><comment><USER57> Read. When I a actively reading books (not the Internet, but actual books - fiction or nonfiction, doesn't seem to make much a differenct) I can notice my vocabulary expanding. When I fall out of the habit, it atrophies.

</comment><comment><USER21> _If you spot out anything you might have articulated differently, it'd be great to hear_

I'm not a native speaker, but I'd use "spot" rather than "spot out". Don't know why, just looks a bit unusual.

<comment><USER32> You "call out" something that you've spotted.

I suspect that the OP has merged one idiom into the other :)

As a native speaker, "spot" by itself or maybe more formally a verb like "notice" would be something that I would use in normal everyday speech in this context.

I would probably write: _"If you spot anything you might have articulated differently, it'd be great to hear about it!"_

OPs grammar & vocabulary is really impressive. Internalising all these entirely unwritten rules that are implicit to native speakers of a language is what makes the difference between someone who is "merely" (! hah: like there's anything unimpressive about being fluent in a non-native tongue) fluent & someone who sounds like they grew up with the language.

(I know someone who has lived in Paris for decades & speaks fluent French, but to this day still speaks French with an obvious Yorkshire accent. Not even just an English accent: it's obviously a Yorkshire one!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I find that one of the hardest things is to know what sounds natural. I found this website useful for checking specific phrases [https://ludwig.guru](https://ludwig.guru).

</comment><comment><USER59> I'm in the same ballpark as you are, and you actually seem a bit better than I am. Some teachers specialize in accent training, it might be a good idea to find one that could help you progress in that direction.

</comment><comment><USER60> you don't give specific area you want to improve, but your words sound like you might want to improve written or some type of formal communications. I think those recordings at Oyez might be an interest choice. Listen the recordings while read the transcript on screen. It is a mix of both formally written and quick verbal exchanges. And some of the recordings are really interesting and informative. If you prefer reading, I suggest ALDaily, hand- chosen light reads everyday, covers many fields of literacy, and well-writen.

</comment><comment><USER61> What do you read in English? I would suggest that achieving deep fluency in a language requires experience with the greatest and formative literature of that language.

<comment><USER37> The English language is changing. Nobody speaks like Charles Dickens, John Buchan or Emily Bronte. Even TV shows from the 1970s are wildly out of date.

<comment><USER61> This assumes several things, all of which I believe are wrong:

1\. it assumes that the references to the writings of Charles Dickens, Emily Bronte, William Blake etc. etc. do not litter the linguistic landscape and that people could not improve their understanding of the language by picking up on those references (John Buchan maybe not so much)

2\. that there are not levels of usage of the language where these references are required (which I called deep fluency), one can certainly be fluent and argue points, but not know how to adequately poke fun at Alan Simpson's quote of "Who steals my purse, steals trash" without some familiarity of Iago.

3\. Finally it assumes that there will never be any conversation or situation in which there will be people familiar with these references, and that they would do anything like sprinkle those references throughout their speech, as a sort of intellectual spice. Widely read people may often do this and, as like seeks like, their acquaintances are probably widely read as well, so it can be helpful to know what these people are talking about.

If you cannot recognize the reference, you cannot respond in kind.

At any rate I thought it a truth universally acknowledged that some phrasings don't go out of style, and must be in want of insertion into any discussion they could possibly fit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> > I'm also aware of my grammar not being perfect.

As a native English speaker is this funny since English grammar is a bit fluid.

> Knowing which preposition to use is sometimes challenging.

True that. Also adjective order.

My suggestion is read and watch popular English fiction. I say that because I'm dubious that your English is technically deficient. More likely has to do with the intersection of culture and language. As in when and how to shift from formal to informal depending on situation. Also remember the English speaking world itself is fragmented. For instance I can often tell where someone grew up in the Bay Area by their speaking style.

</comment><comment><USER63> Deliberate practice makes perfect. (Watching TV or even reading is not enough.) One caveat, though: it will _never_ feel like a mother tongue.

</comment><comment><USER64> My first thought was to suggest finding multiple English translations of a piece of Hebrew Literature you like and comparing them. Then I remembered the linked article, which is a comparison of four different English translations of the verse novel Eugene Onegin, by Alexander Pushkin. The article was written by Douglas Hofstadter, a professor of cognitive science and comparative literature at Indiana University who has an essay collection called Metamagical Themas (an anagram of Mathematical Games). The first few essays are about self-referential sentences and a subset of those, self- replicating sentences, which you really have to read to believe. Maybe check out his book Gödel, Escher, Bach. It won the Pulitzer, but if you pick it up, just remember that when you get confused, it's his fault, not yours.

But Winston Churchill said it best, and this is great advice: "short words are best, and old words, when short, are best of all".

[https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/07/20/r...](https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/07/20/reviews/hofstadter- translation.html)

[https://www.powells.com/book/-9780465045662](https://www.powells.com/book/-9780465045662)

[https://www.powells.com/book/-9780465026562](https://www.powells.com/book/-9780465026562)

</comment><comment><USER65> Etymology, learning about the roots and origins of words gives a language so much more depth and meaning.

</comment><comment><USER66> Try to make more mistakes. Many native speaking people aren't speaking properly.

</comment><comment><USER67> Here's one aspect of English that drives me completely insane: phrasal verbs.

</comment><comment><USER68> Listen to BBC Radio 4.

</comment><comment><USER69> Read fiction.</comment>


An awesome Full Page JS Scrolling plugin [kudos to Álvaro Trigo] - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alvarotrigo/fullPage.js

<comment><USER2> I'm curious how many people have issues with the real-world UX of sites that use frameworks like this. From anecdotal observation, I don't think I can remember a site where the transition from panel to panel wasn't either abrupt in its transition start/stop, low framerate when rendering the movement, or had an unnaturally heavy (or, alternatively, light) translation of mouse/pad scroll distance to movement distance.</comment>


Node video upload/playback - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/SYNQfm/synq-node-videoupload <comment><AUTHOR> Client library simplifying use of the SYNQ video API from a Node service

The library provides functions mirroring the endpoints in the api, and some simplifying functions.

It makes use of request-promise so all functions returns promises.

Give us feedback:-)

Stian</comment>


I Hate Haml - <AUTHOR> http://ithaca.arpinum.org/2010/11/16/haml-hate.html

<comment><USER2> In which the OP can't figure something out so they choose to flame it instead.

The OP provides the following example as a irrefutable damnation of haml:

%h2 Heading content

%p This is just some

      %em emphatic

      text. Maybe I'll talk about

      %code $BASH_VERSION

      here.

They complain about the inability to nest em and code tags on a single line.

Hey OP, try this:

%h2 Heading content

%p This is just some emphatic text. Maybe I'll talk about $BASH_VERSION here.

or did you forget that you can mix html in with haml where needed? Pointless, sloppy, flame-bait. /endrant

I was reluctant to learn HAML myself, but after being "forced" to do so on a project last spring, I actually cringe when I see standard HTML and CSS now. Not only has haml shrunk the size of my code by almost half, it has made it easier to scan, maintain, and my css matches up much more closely to my markup. Simply put, HAML/SASS is one of the biggest productivity/sanity boosts I've experienced in my young development career.

*edit: spelling, and formatting.

<comment><USER3> In addition, you can use something like the markdown filter for body text.

        :markdown
          ## Heading Content

          This is just some *emphatic* text. Maybe I'll talk about `$BASH_VERSION` here.

<comment><USER4> As someone who uses HAML constantly:

1\. :markdown doesn't accept classes, ids, or any other modifiers like %tags. This makes for some difficult fugging.

2\. You cant do - ruby or = ruby under :markdown or similar.

This is terribly inconsistent and requires some stupid work arounds.

<comment><USER3> 1\. Discount, used by both RDiscount and BlueCloth, supports limited use of classes in inline text via pseudo-protocols in link-style tags. You can also use inline HTML in markdown. I believe that the latter is what most people do.

2\. You can do the equivalent of = in Haml filters by enclosing the Ruby in #{}. For example, where _sign_up_path_ is a Ruby helper method:

        :markdown
          [Sign Up](#{sign_up_path})

Personally, in the past I've put large blocks of mostly-static content (eg, a TOS) in a erb template or partial. I now often use the markdown filter for things like help documentation in my sites.

<comment><USER4> The :markdown "symbol" doesn't take a class.

        :markdown.red#item2

        %list:markdown.red#item2

        %list.red#item2:markdown

...

<comment><USER3> Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your point, but :markdown isn't a tag that gets output to html, it just designates the beginning of the block to be processed with markdown, so classes and ids aren't applicable. If you want the markdown block in a class or id, you just do this:

        #id.class
          :markdown
            [A link](/path)

outputs:

          A link

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The OP does know that HAML supports straight HTML as well right? The following is perfectly valid:

%h2 Heading content

%p This is just some emphatic text. Maybe I'll talk about $BASH_VERSION here.

Personally I'll never go back to writing straight HTML ever again. It's ridiculously verbose, uses characters that are very hard to type, and it's easy to forget to close a tag and not realize it.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't use Haml myself, but I have read that this is not how you are supposed to write long text in it. The recommended way to write paragraphs with a lot of tags is to use a filter, like Markdown or Textile. This is a better way to write the sample paragraph in the article, using Markdown:

      %h2 Heading content
      %p
        :markdown
          This is just some *emphatic* text. Maybe I'll talk about `$BASH_VERSION` here.

Note that Markdown allows you to embed normal HTML tags within itself, in case it doesn't provide syntax for the tag you want. I'm not sure what the Haml stance is on that practice.

</comment><comment><USER7> Haml is great for structure, not for content. Chris Eppstein wrote a great post on this that worth reading:

[http://chriseppstein.github.com/blog/2010/02/08/haml- sucks-f...](http://chriseppstein.github.com/blog/2010/02/08/haml-sucks-for- content/)

<comment><USER8> That's absolutely correct. I think too many people have a misconception of what haml is good for.

Personally, I use haml for all my rails view layouts. Anything more complicated than a wrapper div gets rendered in a separate .erb partial. This makes it _very_ easy to shuffle around different parts of the layout when needed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Haml hits the wrong points for me as well:

\- Too much syntax for a pure writing markup languages, compared to Markdown or Wiki syntaxes

\- Too little syntax compared to even syntax light languages like JSON or [HT|X]ML (when written with zen coding or a tag matching editor)

It's just kind of awkward. Useful when embedded into rails, but not as a general use markup language.

<comment><USER10> Re: your first point, it's not a standalone markup language, it's a 1-to-1 replacement for HTML. Markdown is transformed into HTML, but doesn't have to be -- you could PDF it instead, for instance. It's mostly just a way to use structure to eliminate line noise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Haml isn't really for what the author of this article was doing -- writing actual prose. He has it right in the first paragraph: something like Markdown is great for that sort of thing.

For displaying structured data, as one might do in a view in a web application, Haml shines. Just think about table code.

Nobody with sense has ever said Haml is a great replacement for HTML in all cases. But it's useful and (arguably) more pleasant to use within its domain.

</comment><comment><USER12> Another complaint I have with HAML is its treatment of whitespace. Consider:

        %p
            %span.underlinedText this is underlined
        \.

This will underline " this is underlined ", with the spaces, which looks messy. You can extrapolate this behavior to even messier cases, but you get my point. HAML's solution is:

        %p
            %span.underlinedText><
                this is underlined
            %span><
                \.

Fun, right? However, I still consider HAML to be a beautiful replacement for raw HTML.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've wondered if haml is just a reaction to I don't like XML mindset, so we'll invent a new syntax. Personally I like SASS, since it needed hierarchy defined. But cleanly written HTML gives you that (yes, you need close tags, but I already write closing parenthesis).

<comment><USER14> I resisted haml for a long time because of this; "HTML is good enough, why change it?" and then I found out that it's really, really useful.

I'm currently dual-maintaining a theme in Wordpress and a Rails app; the former is PHP with your standard interpolated HTML, and the latter is haml. Guess which one is harder to maintain? (Hint: It's the Wordpress theme, by about three hundred miles).

<comment><USER13> I personally found HTML + PHP a pain after playing django and it's template model found it removed most of the pain that I was encountering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't "like" it either, but I don't think it sucks technically. A lot of people find it useful and there's clearly value in the abstraction.

Where it fails for me is that I don't (rightly or wrongly) see (or treat) HTML as a tightly structured language. Whereas tight formatting is beneficial for languages with minimal syntax, like CSS, in HTML I appreciate the flexibility of putting spacing and elements where I like or where I feel it makes sense (but I love SASS/SCSS as it merely enhances an _already_ tightly structured language). As ever, different strokes for different folks.

</comment><comment><USER16> You can use this if you prefer to use html for some stuff:

==
This is just someemphatic text. Maybe I'll talk about  $BASH_VERSION

Also exist 'plain' tag: :plain html stuff here another line easy :)

</comment><comment><USER17> Haml's great for outlining the structure of a document. For static pages with lots of em's strong's and such it's better to use something like markdown. Luckily you can easily embed markdown inside HAML. Just mark off a block with :markdown and you're done, you can put markdown in your HAML now.

No one language can give you everything, but haml's the best I've found AND it makes it easier to mark certain areas as :plain, :erb, or :markdown or whatever custom filter you dream up. So, it lets you switch more easily than any other language when you need to.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't hate Haml, but I think HTML is ok as HTML, especially for those cases where I want someone who is not a developer to work on a template.

</comment><comment><USER19> Wow, it's the second coming of Troff!

</comment><comment><USER20> This article should be titled "I don't understand Haml".

Simple tags for ya buddy:

:plain

:textile

:javascript

</comment><comment><USER21> > I should admit that I've used Haml for a total of about 15 minutes.

C'mon son.

</comment><comment><USER22> Use both.

At Poll Ev we use erb for content and haml for "application" pages.</comment>


Vim plugin for Firefox - <AUTHOR> http://vimperator.org/trac/wiki/Vimperator

<comment><USER2> I was looking for something along these lines, but I really just want the h, j, k, l movement keys. Those combined with the / (search in page) and ' (search links in page) shortcuts would dramatically cut down my use of the mouse when browsing.

<comment><USER3> Hm. I mostly stick to Page Up/Down when scrolling.

<comment><USER4> Have you found a way to make firefox scroll more than one line per key down/up? I find page down/up too coarse and key down/up too fine.

<comment><USER5> This is just a guess, but have you tried ctrl-d and ctrl-u?

<comment><USER4> No that doesn't work

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> can't live without it. now even in Safari, i sub-consciously press "d" to close a tab, "/" to search with regular expression, and most frequently "f" to jump to a link by referencing number on the current screen.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment> hooking up my muscle memory with the web

</comment><comment><USER7> For emacs people <http://conkeror.org/>

</comment><comment><USER8> Annoyingly it removed the menu and toolbar, and I don't know how to get it back...

<comment><USER9> Why do you need them? :D Well if you really need them back, type :help to find out how.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Real web-surfers use the Firemacs extension :p

<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4141>

<comment><USER11> the more emacs-y solution would have been to embed the browser in the editor.

<comment><USER12> <http://www.gnu.org/software/w3/>

<comment><USER13> Or emacs-w3m (<http://emacs-w3m.namazu.org/>), if you're on Unix.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I had a love/hate relationship with Vimperator. I loved using it, but it kept crashing Firefox, so I could not longer use it, which made me hate it.

<comment><USER15> I agree -- my Firefox is better for it, but there are definitely some gotchas that irk me. Among them; incompatibility with other plugins I adore, like Tab Mix Plus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I used Vimperator for a while, but it slowed Firefox down significantly, and made it more prone to crashing. I believe it's a known bug.

</comment><comment><USER17> It's having some trouble with Pandora's interface.

</comment><comment><USER18> vimperator + yubnub = awesome

<comment><USER19> I checked out yubnub based on this comment, is it always this slow?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Now if only there was something like this for Opera!</comment>


Ask HN: Are There Any Virtual Gym / Online Workout Startups? - <AUTHOR> Are there any virtual gyms / online workout program startups working to replace traditional gyms?
My partner's gym is a franchise of a national chain that has had a lousy time trying to take their business online.
They're trying to offer a pretty low quality and poorly customized offering and want $160 a month for it.
Curious if anyone's already using or knows of a newer startup focused on replacing existing in-person gyms, their community type offerings and challenges. <comment><USER2> Are you aware of zwift - pretty big in virtual biking world!

If someone can do something similar for weights - tracking reps, sets etc (even for real), that would be awesome. Metrics go a long way to keep you focused. Strava did wonders to me when I started to run.

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://www.beachbody.com/](https://www.beachbody.com/)

</comment><comment><USER4> my favorite for years has been [https://www.fitnessblender.com/](https://www.fitnessblender.com/)</comment>


Judge Reveals Secret Righthaven Copyright Contract - <AUTHOR> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/04/17/0319255/Judge-Reveals-Secret-Righthaven-Copyright-Contract

<comment><USER2> Here is a link to an article with links to the agreement, the order unsealing it, etc.

[http://paidcontent.org/article/419-righthavens-secret- contra...](http://paidcontent.org/article/419-righthavens-secret-contract-is- revealedwill-its-strategy-collapse/)

Upon a quick read, I notice that the Defendants' brief argues, on page 9, section III, that "it appears indisputable that Righthaven's assignment of the cause of action is unvalid under Silvers, rendering Righthaven's claim objectively unreasonable," thus opening the door Righthaven having to pay attorneys fees.

EDIT: Here is a quote from the order, regarding Righthaven's arguments:

 _The use of phrases, in the Motion to Strike, such as "underhanded," "a ruse," "blatantly ignored," "brazen attempt," "fumbling attempt," "purposefully muddle," and "Defendants' complaint reeks of hypocrisy," is a very unprofessional attempt to attack counsel rather than address the issues. There is an old adage in the law that, if the facts are on your side, you pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, you pound on the law. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, you pound on the table. It appears there is a lot of table pounding going on here._</comment>


'My mum didn't vaccinate me – this is what happened next' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-48667811 <comment><USER2> > They tend to believe that the body naturally heals itself. If I had a cold, > growing up in New Zealand, I was told, "Eat a cucumber," or, "Have a drink > of what the neighbour made."

Well, the body _does_ heal itself, most of the time. But her description of a cold puzzles me - is it normal to take medicine (as opposed to just tea or soup) for an ordinary cold? Because taking drugs for something as minor as a cold is utterly alien to me.

<comment><USER3> DayQuil/NyQuil (acetaminophen, antihistamine, cough suppressant) are fairly commonly used to address common cold symptoms.

<comment><USER2> I have to say this reeks of overmedication.

<comment><USER4> Having a cold sucks. These medicines make it suck less. Why not take advantage?

<comment><USER5> Erik Naggum used to say something along the lines of "if you dull your ability to feel sick, you also dull your joy of feeling well, and your ability to spot the difference".

<comment><USER4> Does Erik Naggum go lick the armrests in the local clinic if he hasn't had a cold in a while?

<comment><USER5> No. He's dead. Ten years ago, and there were five obituary threads on HN, with about 200 comments.

He knew a lot about being ill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Prevention makes problems and their solution invisible. People then start believing that the problem never existed in the first place and that the solution is actually harmful or wasteful.

</comment><comment><USER7> If you ever find yourself arguing with an anti-vaxer, point them at this page. One personal story beats a thousand medical statistics.

<comment><USER8> _Good luck with that._ \--Georges St. Pierre

When someone has a closed reasoning system, even an emotional story will not sway them. It will be waved away as a rare outlier, or something God wanted to happen to that person, or fake news ginned up by Big Pharma, &c.

People like anti-vaxxxers don't just have strong beliefes, strongly held, they have integrated their beliefs into their personal identity, they have integrated their beliefs into their tribal membership, and they have converted them into a persecution complex.

Those three things--personal identity, tribal membership, and persecution complex--brush truth aside like chaff in the breeze.

<comment><USER9> Basically like a person following a religious ideology?

<comment><USER8> Yes, except I am not "just" talking about someone following an ideology, I am talking about someone who engages with others who follow the same ideology, and thus gets emotional support from "belonging to the tribe."

This is why the internet changes everything about radicalization: It makes it nearly frictionless to find a critical mass of other people who share your ideology and engage with them all day long.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Society owes it to children for laws to be made protecting children from parents being medically negligent. Children should be able to communicate freely to medical professionals and receive treatment if healthcare favours the outcome. Humanity is failing when it comes to morals if we cannot even have a child reach adulthood in good health because of negligent parents.

</comment><comment><USER10> Sorry, but if you're 36 years old and you don't have a tetanus vaccination, you don't get to blame your mother anymore. You're supposed to get a dip-tet or TDAT booster every ten years, and if you're 36 you've only failed yourself. This article is full of examples of failure by the subject. Contracting whooping cough in her 30s as well? And that wasn't enough motivation to get the tetanus vaccine?

It's fine as a cautionary tale, but the subject is still a walking disease vector as she is taking her time getting vaccinated.

<comment><USER6> This person was taught to fail herself by her mother. Only when the problems actually start did she realize that her mother was the one who failed her.

<comment><USER11> I also think 'poorly attached' to healthcare. Which is in part a system failure. Healthcare in the US tends to fail the single point of responsibility principal.

If you want tasks accomplished coherently then someone has to be in charge and have authority. In US healthcare we've decided that person is the 'patient' despite their lack of knowledge, skill, training and authority.

FA's experience is the direct result of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I agree that the author's mom did a horrible thing to him by not getting vaccinated. But the whooping cough and tetanus are on him -- he describes being aware of the importance and need for vaccines well before he contracted those diseases. And even after contracting whooping cough, he _still_ failed to get his tetanus vaccine, which would have saved him from his painful and life-threatening case of tetanus he contracted soon afterwards.

<comment> Digit-Al > but eventually Meredith (not her real name)

The subject is a she not a he.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> We all have to survive our parents to grow up. And our schools. And even our own government.

As great as vaccines are, they are not perfect. I've had a few conversations with people who are frightened of vaccines or don't trust them. One perception I've come away from those conversations is that vaccines are touted in a way that is too good to be true. This actually lessens the ability of many people to trust the authority doing the touting. It makes them wonder what other agenda the authority has.

<comment><USER14> Vaccines actually work in a way that seems too good to be true. And yet they still work, imagine that!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This article is a bit all over the place.

>When I was 11, the school gave us MMR vaccinations. When any injections happened, the school typically sent out paperwork and parents would fill in the permission slips. Mum would always send back, "No, choosing not to."

MMR vaccination is for young children. At 11 it's probably TB?

> Despite the pain, I felt angry towards my mother, because she deliberately > didn't get me vaccinated.

Tetanus isn't a routine vaccination. You have it if you need it.

<comment><USER12> > MMR vaccination is for young children. At 11 it's probably TB?

If the child hadn't had any of his/her MMR series, a doctor would absolutely want to get the child started on the series if possible, regardless of the age.

> At 11 it's probably TB?

Few countries routinely administer the TB vaccine. It's too low efficacy.

> Tetanus isn't a routine vaccination. You have it if you need it.

In the US, and in most western countries, a series tetanus vaccines is _absolutely_ given as part of the TDaP/DTaP childhood combo series, and then boosters are administered later as needed. In the US, it's a series of 5.

And indeed, it appears as it's given routinely to children in the UK, as well:

[https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/)

In New Zealand as well:

[https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health- well...](https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health- wellness/immunisation/new-zealand-immunisation-schedule)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wrd

</comment><comment><USER17> my mom told me about clickbait titles - this is what happened next</comment>


Ask HN: Accepted job offer, then investor offered funding, what to do? - <AUTHOR>

Posting for a friend (who doesn't use HN). We are debating this, and I don't want to give bad advice...
He is about to graduate from a university, and they have worked three years solo on a startup. As it is their senior year, they accepted a job offer at the last possible day, received the sign on bonus (but didn't spend it), and start in 4 months.
Then, the same day they received their sign on bonus, they get an offer from an investor that was pitched to several months prior. They're offering a few hundred thousand dollars, the money they needed to finish the product (and then some).
The startup is really where they want to go, but the company is a big name company, has been really good to them, and they feel torn about what to do.
I am concerned that if my friend returns the sign on bonus, and takes the investors money that will tarnish their reputation/career.
Will that big company forever put him on a blacklist, perhaps shared between companies?
Is this a valid fear?
How would you handle it? <comment><USER2> Assuming this is the US, you are an at-will employee, and if the company you work for wanted to end your employment, they could, for any reason whatsoever. If they had a unforeseen circumstance -- they would do it.

You should adopt the same stance. Take the best opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Tarnish their career"?

Your friend doesn't need to list "reneged on job offer" on their resume. No- one will even know, nor care whether or not they got a better offer after accepting a different job offer.

How do you see it might tarnish their career?

The startup will likely fail but there's more experience and fun to be had in the startup.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's very likely that neither the job nor the startup will have amounted to much in 10 years, but they'll each have contributed different experiences. So it's ultimately up to your friend and whether they've got more interest in earning a years or three of startup experience, or more interest in learning in a more structured way as a recent-grad hire at the employer.

On the downside risk -- there's no blacklist. They _might_ not see another offer from the hiring company, and if it's a small industry or city, they _might_ have some unexpected doors closed on them. On the other hand, it's also possible that the hiring manager will be very sympathetic to a recent grad that's run into a tough situation and might even encourage him to go on his way.

</comment><comment><USER5> First, find out from the investor how much of the money he can take as salary. That can make a big difference.

Second, realize there's no global "blacklist", just people, friends, and long memories. It can be a small world sometimes.

</comment><comment><USER6> Go for the startup! When you're young you have the luxury of taking risks.

</comment><comment><USER7> If they got money from the company they probably signed something. Probably no big deal, but might want to talk to a lawyer. Especially, if the job is directly related to what the start up is doing.

</comment><comment><USER8> Has the investor signed documents binding them to provide the funds? If not then it's still just talking about investing.</comment>


The Downward Ramp - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/opinion/the-downward-ramp.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0 <comment><USER2> This is a key quote, and anecdotally I've seen it playing out with people I know: "[T]he drying up of cognitively demanding jobs is having a cascade effect. College graduates are forced to take jobs beneath their level of educational training, moving into clerical and service positions instead of into finance and high tech. This cascade eliminates opportunities for those without college degrees who would otherwise fill those service and clerical jobs. These displaced workers are then forced to take even less demanding, less well-paying jobs, in a process that pushes everyone down. At the bottom, the unskilled are pushed out of the job market altogether."

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't say this is necessarily a bad thing, but more like the effects of market correction as our entire workforce transitions to a higher level putting pressure on people to operate at a higher cognitive level. And, I think we would want as much of our population as possible in cognitively demanding positions, and having the ability to outsource labor to other countries helps that happen. Now the next question I see is- 'Is our education system ready for that?' and I don't know a lot about the inner workings of it, but my gut feeling says we're not there yet.

<comment><USER4> "we would want as much of our population as possible in cognitively demanding positions, and having the ability to outsource labor to other countries helps that happen"

1) What if you had a brother with an IQ of 98. Would you rather he had a respectable factory job, or become homeless?

2) Are you aware that many of the least-tradable services are the least "cognitively demanding"? So I guess you want to tailor the bell curve of the population so that everyone is either > 120 so that they can do very highly cognitive work, or < 80 (so that they are content doing extremely menial work). Isn't it a little _inconvenient_ that around 68% of the population is 85-115 IQ?

<comment><USER5> I would rather that the respectable factory job is done by a robot. I don't think we should force humans to do repetitive work that can be automated just so that they can somehow justify their existence in a society that is obsessed with work. Our goal should be as little employment as necessary paired with a basic income.

<comment><USER6> Marshall Brain's Manna which has been mentioned before on HN is an interesting take on where automation and robots will take us.

[http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm](http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm)

<comment><USER7> "will"?

<comment><USER6> s/will/may

Rereading it again. He basically foreshadowed Amazon warehouse workers. Though he may fall short on the leap from Amazon to the rest of the working class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Since about 1990 I have been acutely that only a minority of my high school cohort has lives as comfortable and financially secure as their parents. A disturbingly large number of my university cohort have fallen off the upward ramp.

If you graduate from an elite university, and you are sharp enough to find the next wave to surf, America is still a fine place to be. But the cost of that education is crazy now. Your parents have to among the fortunate to afford it. The ladder has been cut off under, and in a few cases, above many of the people reading this.

<comment><USER9> > If you graduate from an elite university, and you are sharp enough to find > the next wave to surf, America is still a fine place to be. But the cost of > that education is crazy now. Your parents have to among the fortunate to > afford it.

Not really. That's a pernicious myth. The elite universities have amazing financial aid which actually makes it easiest to attend for those who can least afford it. The hurdle is getting in, which by definition is impossible for the vast majority of Americans.

Not that any of this matters. The continued success of the elite is irrelevant to the continued struggles of the 99.5%.

<comment><USER8> Elite universities can offer a hand up to those extraordinary cases of highly intelligent kids coming up from poverty. But they are MUCH less affordable for and admit far fewer kids from ordinary educational backgrounds with middle class parents. I doubt my own trajectory is repeatable without an added couple $100k in debt.

<comment><USER9> > But they are MUCH less affordable for and admit far fewer kids from ordinary > educational backgrounds with middle class parents.

That's just false. Huge numbers of middle class students enroll in elite institutions.

My family is decidedly middle class and, in line with their standard financial aid policies, every elite university I applied to offered an aid package which would make it affordable. The total debt required would have been around $5k over 4 years (just books).

Obviously this is just anecdotal, but I do elite education's unaffordability is a pernicious myth which keeps great students from applying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Beaudry, Green and Sand make the case that the technology bubble that burst in 2000 was far more significant than generally recognized."

As I see it, there have been two milestones in corporate IT history.

The first was around getting things into databases that could be shared by multiple users. A good example of this is stuff that used to run on the VAX.

Then there was a desktop revolution triggered by the combination of the internet, and Windows NT/2000\. You could now push a computer around without being a hobbyist, and microsoft office brought various kinds of productivity.

The mindsets created by the previous revolutions are holding us back now.

* IT departments suffer from the architectural mistake of creating vast databases with multiple dependent systems on them, making maintenance and quality very hard. How many times have you asked your gas company to make one change that has resulted in some bizarre side-effect on your account?

* The dominance of single-user document-centric systems like Microsoft Office hampers effective collaboration.

This narrative explains why we're bogged at the moment. It's similar to much of what was written in the 90s - at the time, writers complained that that return on investment in IT was very low, and wealth was shifting to Japan not China.

</comment><comment><USER11> "the upscale Democratic elite – a constituency historically more concerned with social and cultural issues than economic ones. [...] If their children begin to face hurdles similar to those confronting manual and semi-skilled workers, interest in a more activist government may grow"

Yeah, right. This flies in the face of everything we have learned about human nature. When faced with economic shortages and crises the first to be thrown overboard are the poor.

<comment><USER12> If you read the sentence you quoted, you'll see that you agree with it : It says that Democratic elites (even those that are more concerned with social and cultural issues) don't really care about an issue until it affects their own children. Assuming the elites aren't poor, then the poor (by that stage) have already gone by the way-side.

<comment><USER11> If you read my answerer you've replied to, you'll see that I disagree: the economic game of musical chairs will always corrode social progress and cohesion, see the Depression, neoclasical reforms of the 80s etc. Poor people (and their parents) can't afford to be anything but individualistic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I hate when journalists lump all college graduates together. Going to college can be detrimental or highly advantageous to your future employment prospects compared to entering labor force immediately after high school.

It depends on the subject.

</comment><comment><USER14> If fewer people got philosophy degrees or other majors of questionable utility in the work force and instead focused on getting an education in marketable skills with job openings maybe the story might be different. This trajectory of being an undecided major and then just kind of getting some degree or other with the hopes just having that paper will land you a job somewhere never struck me as realistic.

For the United States, there is even a site where you can help plan your next ten years, find something that's high growth:

[http://www.bls.gov/ooh/](http://www.bls.gov/ooh/)

You can sort occupations by projected growth rate:

[http://www.bls.gov/ooh/occupation- finder.htm?pay=&education=...](http://www.bls.gov/ooh/occupation- finder.htm?pay=&education=&training=&newjobs=&growth=30+percent+or+faster&submit=GO)

<comment><USER15> Because, yeah, it's individuals making dumb choices that is the problem -- it could never be the social systems around us that is the problem.

Maybe I don't care if my degree (philosophy) has questionable utility in the work force. Maybe I don't want to be "employable". Maybe I chose to study philosophy and didn't fall into into because I was undecided.

For you realism is adapting to the world. For me realism is making sense of the world, figuring out if perhaps there could be a better world, and constructing the world that I would like to live in and that I would like my kids to live in.

You don't get to decide for me what I should study in the same way I don't get to decide for you what you should study. If you'd studied philosophy you'd be able to see stuff like that easily.

<comment><USER14> Maybe you have a responsibility to your society to the same degree that society has a responsibility to take care of you. How's that fit in with your philosophy? Maybe the best way to live your life isn't what you might want for yourself.

It's interesting to see my views kind of in parallel in this instance with polar ideological opposites. One the one hand you have libertarians who don't want to pick up the tab for your life, and on the other you got social justice warriors like me who think that with social security comes social responsibility.

<comment><USER15> I disagree that with social security comes social responsibility.

If a person wants to get as much from the state as they can and put nothing back in then big deal I say.

Why?

1) Because there are very few people like that anyway. This group of people, so-called welfare scroungers, are always trotted out in these arguments. I've never met one of them in all my days, I'd like to see actual proper percentages regarding this. I'm betting these people are < 1% of the population.

2) Besides there are all sorts of consumption taxes and what have you that funnel the money back into the state anyway.

3) Most people want meaningful work. What you find meaningful may not be what I find meaningful of course. And failing being able to find meaningful work most people choose to work at _anything_ at all rather than be idle. The one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how many people work at jobs they don't like because that's the only work they could get.

4) Society didn't wake up one morning and decide to take care of me. Social security has been and continues to be a continual struggle to redistribute the wealth from the have-a-lots to the have-very-littles and it's a struggle I identify with. Vigilance is needed as we have seen because all the gains are slowly rolled back when we're not paying attention.

\---

This is all beside the original bone of contention I had with you. It was with your questionable statement "If fewer people got philosophy degrees or other majors of questionable utility in the work force and instead focused on getting an education in marketable skills with job openings maybe the story might be different." Did you ever stop to think why someone would want to study philosophy before you came out with that? You're full of what people ought to do, may I suggest you ought not think like that.

edit: grammar n stuff

<comment> FLUX-YOU >The one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how many people work at jobs they don't like because that's the only work they could get.

People paying their bills amazes you?

There are very few 'career transition' positions that are entry level and only require a positive attitude and a willingness to show up. Those were 'upgraded' to require a degree and a few years of experience for complete strangers.

Also, some people try to avoid gaps of unemployment, and that means slinging pizzas with a couple of katanas for the Mafia when there's nothing else.

<comment><USER15> I read Snow Crash ages ago but didn't get the reference.

I've been thinking about how to respond to you. I realize how it must sound for me to say that it amazes me that people will take on whatever is available to them at a particular stage in their life to pay their bills. I didn't mean it in a disparaging way. I meant it more in a, "wow, I would find it very hard, I don't think I'd be cut out for that". I'm not suggesting I'm better or worse. I've had plenty of jobs that didn't inspire me at all but they were still decent jobs by anybody's standards: software testing, software development ... though many people I'm sure couldn't imagine being stuck in front of a monitor 8+ hours a day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I tried to understand the original paper but it's way over my head. So the decrease in demand of cognitively demanding jobs is an temporal economic situation or a long-term trend?

It seems the theory was always that less cognitively demanding jobs would be replaced by automation/robots but more demanding ones would be safe. How to place this article in that perspective?

</comment><comment><USER17> US Presidents during The "Upward" Ramps:

      John F. Kennedy - January 20, 1961 - November 22, 1963
      Lyndon Johnson - November 22, 1963 - January 20, 1969
      Jimmy Carter - January 20, 1977 - January 20, 1981
      Bill Clinton - January 20, 1993 - January 20, 2001

<comment><USER18> As a non-American, I have no allegience to either party... but couldn't you be mixing up cause and effect here? Perhaps instead of one party creating the economic effects, perhaps that party is voted in when the country is doing economically well?

<comment><USER19> "As a non-American, I have no allegiance to either party." \- this does not follow. Just because you are not the citizen of a country does not mean you do not have political biases that lead you to look on certain politicians/parties with favor.

Or did you mean - "I have no knowledge of US politics and have no opinion of these politicians"

<comment><USER20> I take "political bias" to mean "how will this affect me". Even someone with some understanding of US politics will typically not be able to immediately understand the worldwide implications of a certain leader over another. For example, take a platform of cutting taxes: How is that going to affect a random guy who lives in Australia?

I suppose some people can say "I'm a democrat and will always vote democrat", but don't I follow that kind of thinking. I think I've voted for almost every party in my country at one time or another, depending on who I feel is best suited for representation at that time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you like reading charts, check out some of the detail in this article [1]. In particular, the second of the market graphs (with the red lines) that goes much further back than this story. It concurs with the flatness since 2000, but rather than predicting a downward ramp, is suggesting the timing is right for a new period of growth to commence.

[1] [http://www.shirlawscoaching.com/_blog/Driving_business_perfo...](http://www.shirlawscoaching.com/_blog/Driving_business_performance/post/thrive- to-innovation-first-understand-market-trends/)

<comment><USER22> Or it could be part of a sigmoid. How to interpret depends on whether you're an optimist or a skeptic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It seems like every other article I see talks about squeezing of the middle class, inequality, etc.

At least in my area, I don't really see it happening. The majority of the people I know went to a public state school, aren't abnormally intelligent, didn't work abnormally hard, or do particularly well in school (2.5-3.5 GPAs), and all have little problems getting jobs paying 75k+ (only 25% are in software). In fact, most of us have little problems finding jobs paying 125+ in the midwest.

Companies can't find enough qualified talent. People who are always learning and adapting. It's a supply and demand problem. If you get a degree with no demand, you shouldn't expect to find employment.

In the past, the limit to economic growth was knowledge workers and a simple college degree guaranteed a middle class lifestyle. Today, the limit is entrepreneurs and companies creating value. We need to hold up guys like Elon Musk as heroes. They're the ones creating the jobs and industries of tomorrow. The government needs to stimulate entrepreneurship - not necessarily provide more grants for college educations in useless degrees.

<comment><USER24> > In fact, most of us have little problems finding jobs paying 125+ in the > midwest.

Wow. Please elaborate, with some detail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think the "Four Turnings" model of Strauss and Howe might be accurate. Their hypothesis is that American society (actually, Anglo-American) experiences crises about every 80-90 years (Armada, Glorious Revolution, American Revolution, Civil War, World War II). The First Turning is the post-crisis high (for the past 500 years, we've emerged successfully from each, although that's not guaranteed to continue. The Second is the peak, the Third Turning is a cynical, chaotic unraveling period, and the Fourth is the crisis. (For the past 100 years, most of the world has been on the Anglo-American cycle.)

In the recent First Turning (1945-65) we saw broad-based improvements for all social classes, and progress on civil rights. In the Second (1965-85) Turning, technological progress continued but the working class was thrown under the bus, while the middle class continued to do well. The Third Turning (1985-2007) saw the middle class get hit as well, but the upper-middle-class did OK. In the first half of the Fourth Turning (2008-) the upper-middle class ("the 9 percent") is getting smashed and, later on, it will start to affect the upper class.

It seems to be a pattern whereby the rot travels up the social ladder. The disintegration is finally recognized as a problem only when it starts taking out the elite (as it did, last, in 1929). It's not clear what our "crisis" looks like or even whether we're in one, but I think that will be more clear in a few years.

In this light, none of this news surprises me.

</comment><comment><USER26> Isn't it a cognitively-demanding task to create a new product, or to start a new company?

<comment><USER27> How many founders can one nation really have though? At some point you just run out of useful things to build companies around.

Entrepreneurs are extreme outliers for any of this discussion, I think.

<comment><USER28> > _At some point you just run out of useful things to build companies around._

Given how many non-product are there, both physical and virtual, I think we've reached that point some time ago.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Shotstack – A cloud video editing API to create videos at scale - <AUTHOR> http://shotstack.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hello, I worked on this project for a long time. I've finally launched a business around it and got in to an accelerator.

You can sign up and I'll send you keys as soon as a I can (still a manual process): [https://forms.gle/6RFwxFarHoNXV3mj6](https://forms.gle/6RFwxFarHoNXV3mj6)

Or check out the demo to see a sample application of what you could build (source code on Github): [http://shotstack.io/demo/pexels/](http://shotstack.io/demo/pexels/)

I welcome any feedback, positive or negative.

</comment><comment><USER2> What are the use cases? I can see companies like Buzzfeed getting a kick out of it as they produce so many videos with the same branded outros. Presuming they don't have an internal tool for adding their logo/outro to all their videos in batches, this would come in handy?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's certainly something this could be used for. The main use cases we are seeing right now are those kids of batch operations (intros, outtros, lower thirds, titles, captions) and re-purposing user generated content; for example turning photos in slideshows, or uploaded footage in to an edit.

It's aimed at businesses who are building apps and services that handle large amounts of videos per day and they want automate repetitive tasks or build some kind of that needs a more refined, creative video to be output without the user needing to do anything.</comment></comment>


Show HN: AB Rocket – simple, rocket fast and affordable AB Testing - <AUTHOR> https://abrocket.io <comment><USER2> How does it work?

Do users create experiments though writing JS and CSS themselves? Who's your target audience?</comment>