Are you rich? If so, how did you get there? - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/d1x9c/are_you_rich_if_so_how_did_you_get_there/ <comment><USER3> People seem to consider it immoral to want to get rich too much. People are answering in a defensive way.

Every other post here preaches the importance of true happiness, family, friends, health, etc vs money.

I find this tiring. Imagine going to a website dedicated to the playing of tennis at a professional level, opening a post called "How do I win?", and having people stress the importance of enjoying the game and protecting your long term health versus focusing on the narrow and shortsighted goal of winning.

I for one think there's more than enough hours in the day to both get filthy rich and be a happy, well adjusted human being, as long as you're smart about how you go about it. Ask yourself: does that idea seem offensive?

<comment><USER4> I'm sorry but your naivety abounds. I have family that have huge houses on acres of land, but make less than me (in my early 20's). Yet here to get that where I live, you literally have to be raking in the money.

The reason so many people have a problem with wanting to get rich is because it is invariably at the expense of all else. This is where the naivety truly is, because those who are rich are there because of all those 'vs money' options. I can't work my job if I'm not healthy, I can't get a promotion if I can't make friends, I wouldn't even have my job if it wasn't for my family, and I wouldn't be happy if it wasn't for all of the above.

You'll never get 'filthy rich' if you don't have people to help you. IIRC Google wouldn't even exist because the founders were _friends_ with their professor, who encouraged them to stick with their method for the PageRank system. AFAIK their university studies appear to have both been paid for by their _family_.

The idea isn't necessarily offensive in a moral nature for me, it's offensive because it's wholly naive.

<comment><USER3> Being smart about trying to get rich includes getting the right people to help you. Obviously.

Think about the richest person you personally know. Was it really "at the expense of all else"? Or did they structure their professional and social lives in such a way that they built upon each other over several decades?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I get the feeling HN has more posts on becoming rich lately and frankly I find it not very relevant for Hackers News. Yes, it's great if your hack/project/application allows you to gain a nice income, but personally I'm more interested in your hack/project/application and the process around it than the possible outcome of being financially independent. If that's your definition of 'rich'.

<comment><USER6> I'm picturing a lot of guys who sold everything they have to move to SF to become a start up founder / rock star. This is not unlike moving to LA and being a waitress to tread water whilst trying to make it big in Hollywood.

A portion of these guys are probably frustrated, burned out, and lost. The only way to reinvigorate in some eyes is to figure out how rich they need to get before they are happy.

Never chase money because it will outrun you. Money is like girls, it only comes in bounds once you stop giving a shit. Ever wonder why you only get hit on by hot girls when you actually have a girlfriend?

There are stories of teenagers making their first million and they're ideas are super-simple. I wonder if its possible some portion of the HN crowd is trying too hard to get rich by being smart.

<comment><USER7> When a million people try X, a few hundred can get really lucky.

Tell a million people to go to take a grand to Vegas and bet their 1,000$ on 7 on a roulette table. Then have them take their winnings and do the same thing until FU money. Some of them would become millionaires, but collectively they would all be worse off. (They started with 1 billion.)

The secret is to look for things where risk > reward. Unfortunately writing generic web apps is probably not it. But, the obvious cost is simply time which people tend to undervalue, so it's not obvious if the game is rigged or not.

<comment><USER8> You want a risk greater than the reward? That seems like a losing strategy to me.

What you want is a reward greater than the risk. Of course, everyone wants that. The way to find it is to have some insight into how to make the market more efficient (ex: a new product that solves a pain point), or to find an under-valued asset (ex: a business that is losing money because it is mismanaged).

Of course, municipal bonds also have a reward greater than the risk, but no one gets rich off municipal bonds. So you do want as much risk as you can tolerate, but you want the potential reward to be worth it.

The risk greater than reward scenario is no different than playing the lottery. You may get rich by chance, but on average, you lose.

<comment><USER7> Yea, I was thinking -> not greater than. see: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1612073>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It seems the theme is business ownership. Of course, Reddit might be populated more by tech-savvy folks, leading to the talk of startups there. But overall, those who seem to make big sums of money are those who have equity in successful businesses. That includes the people who run used tire shops, electrician companies and fast food franchises as well as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Buffet is smart enough to have built a business that buys equity in other businesses (not to mention having the brains to know what equity to buy).

<comment><USER10> Remember selection bias. There is usually a fair amount of luck involved in becoming rich, and asking rich people how they became that way just tells you how _those_ people became rich, not necessarily how you can become rich yourself. It's a little like asking lottery winners how they picked their numbers (obviously becoming rich legitimately requires real work and isn't totally random, but you get my point).

<comment><USER9> There may be some bias in the Reddit thread, which is admittedly slanted toward sofware/tech startups, but I also draw on some other sources. The book "The Millionaire Mind," Thomas Stanley looked at a variety of wealthy people and found that many who accumulated wealth did so through their own (often mundane) businesses. Others were those with high-income jobs and enough sense to invest wisely.

The Forbes list also seems to contain those who largely built or somehow own (through purchase, birth or connections) business equity.

My personal experience confirms this. Those I know who seem to have legitimate wealth are a junkyard owner, a used tire store owner, an owner of an electrician outfit, an owner of a financial services company, and a couple of doctors who've invested well. Oh, and a retired NFL player who also didn't blow his cash while he played.

There is luck in getting a new business to take off, for sure. I'm not trying to downplay the risks, but I am trying to show that there is a key to how those that made it did so.

One could also have born to Sam Walton or a Hilton or something like that. But keep in mind that those parents made their wealth building businesses.

If someone knows of a better way to do it, or other ways, I'm all ears. Winning the lottery works for so few, that I'm inclined to consider it negligible.

<comment><USER11> > _"The book "The Millionaire Mind," Thomas Stanley looked at a variety of > wealthy people and found that..."_

I haven't read that book, but it sounds like survivorship bias. Eg, there were likely many others who also owned businesses who failed to accumulate enough wealth to make it into his sample of the 'wealthy'.

Question is, what is the proportion of those business owners to the ones who end up wealthy?

For example, it could just be that getting rich has more to do with living way below your means and saving alot early in your career, giving you money to invest and long enough horizon for that investment to pay off, regardless whether you invest in your own business, the financial markets, your education, etc.

But research like that will never answer the question correctly if it only looks at sample of 'survivors'.

<comment><USER9> Yes, the survivors are the ones who accumulated wealth. If there are other paths to accumulating wealth, they should have survived as well, but aren't apparent in the sources I've seen so far.

There are many businesses that fail and people who've lost money on equity in businesses. It's by no means a sure-fire way to become wealthy. But from what I've seen it's the main method that makes it to the "wealth" finish line at all.

What other paths have lead to "survivors" on the road to wealth? There may well be paths other than what I've proposed. Feel free to share them with me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was born in North America to a family that lived within its means, above the poverty line.

If you are like me, you were born rich.

</comment><comment><USER13> Not the right question. Human nature works like this: If you think $5mm net worth is enough for you might get $1mm. If the figure is $20mm, you might get to $5mm. If you happen to achieve your goal, the figure will rise. Guaranteed.

If you focus on money exclusively you will be very unhappy. There are other accounts, which don't send monthly statements and don't allow wire deposits. I know plenty of wealthy people that are unhappy because they don't realize this. For some people money is even a poison. A sudden increase in wealth would lead to personal disaster. So you see, nobody is rich, envy is wasted energy.

Lecture over, here's the answer: Land investments, Equity + influence in a business.

</comment><comment><USER14> Define 'rich'.

If you're healthy and you have people to love and that love you in return and you get to write your own ticket in life then you are rich beyond belief.

If you crave money for its own sake you will never be rich.

<comment><USER15> Everyone has their own version of 'rich'. In my experience the ones that are the richest are the most driven and don't consider themselves rich no matter how much they have. Like my grandparents who had a net worth into the $tens of millions and yet I watched my grandma spend a half hour looking for the cheapest can of food on an aisle at the grocery store - anything to save one or two cents.

I think people become wealthy by being somewhat obsessed with saving money, starting businesses, or cutting costs in all aspects of their lives. Once they've achieved a certain amount of money, no matter how much it is, their brain is hardwired to save, so they will probably never spend it in their lifetime.

I also get a kick out of people responding that they are rich with a net worth of $100K, and also have mortgages, car loans, etc, that they don't count against their savings. This is ridiculous- they brag that they can afford a nice car so they must be rich- no, I'm sorry, you're a poor wage slave who has more debt than savings; you are not rich.

My definition of rich is pretty simple - if you can stop working tomorrow and maintain your present lifestyle - I consider that wealthy. You have the freedom to do what you want with your life. For some people this might be a few million, for some this might be much more.

<comment><USER12> > If you can stop working tomorrow and maintain your present lifestyle - <USER2> > consider that wealthy.

Even for most rich people, stopping work would require some adjustments. Tom Wolfe documented this pretty well in _Bonfire of the Vanities_. A bond trader loses his job and has to live on his savings. He acknowledges that he could still live like a king if he just moved out of his Park Avenue apartment, but "going backwards" is just socially inconceivable. He'd have to quit the club that all his wife's friends are members of, etc. etc.

However, I agree to some extent with your definition of rich. I just note that 'present lifestyle' is also a variable here. This is why adjusting your expectations provides, in a certain sense, the best ROI possible. It costs nothing and you can become fabulously wealthy as a result.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Disappointed that the top voted comment there recommends Rich Dad, Poor Dad and the rest of the Robert Kiyosaki dross.

<comment><USER17> Disappointed that this comment does not recommend an alternative.

<comment><USER16> I've been doing just fine without any self-help books, why do I need to recommend an alternative?

Rich Dad, Poor Dad is particularly terrible by the way. A sampling of the criticism: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_dad_poor_dad#Criticism>

<comment><USER17> Some of us aren't doing so fine.

Knowing not to do something is good, but knowing how to do something is far better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I suspect majority of the people who are technically "rich" as you put it have either inherited wealth or opportunity in life, and though they cloud it with epic stories of hard work, they started out ahead of the game, and with money to burn.

There are very few "rags to riches" stories these days, and little reward and interest in ideas from normal people. The prospect of gaining financial stability [through even magnificent short term gains] is decreasing daily in the US. just look at foreclosures to see that people who though their lives were successful had the success rug pulled out from under them.

We need to stop supporting mega-companies and bring development and even retail back to the mom&pop era. Your privacy is threatened BECAUSE Google has become a giant company, if small businesses ran individual development projects, they wouldn't have enough time to worry about collecting personal data on every human in the world.

We are turning into a lottery society, and the ideal of being able to be successful is as much a myth as Santa Claus, even with hard work. Net neutrality and measures that mega companies will take to suppress competition will kill the possibilities for common folk to succeed even deeper into the "unobtainable/impossible" category.

Get used to failed dreams...

Sorry to be so grim.

<comment><USER19> There's a lot of truth to this, but you'll soon be shouted down by the very people you describe. Successful people--however they got there--only like to attribute it to their own very hard work.

<comment><USER18> Agreed, so many hide behind the veil of hard work and its a lie, most got to their successful points in life based on the wealth opportunity provided by finances or friends. Society needs to begin to look at and understand wealth in this manner. Dynasties always manage to preserve wealth in the world because of their inner-associations, rules, plans and initiations and they rarely recruit total outsiders.Its no tin-foil hat conspiracy, its reality.

Opportunity in life is just as beneficial as inherited wealth. You can work for years in an industry and never gain upward mobility because of a lack of personal connections that foster your growth and the insider information and support that you get from those sources, such as being fraternity brothers with a CEO, or knowing/mentoring with someone who has deeper political or financial influence since you were a child, or by having a rich mommy and daddy. Its so much about who you know, and how you start.

There have been several people with lots of money who failed by trying to buy their way into high society, without first making friends, we have all witnessed many brilliant meltdowns from Paris Hilton and others who didn't get the memo.

We need to start looking into wealth and financial stability and creating opportunities for the best ideas to succeed, not just the ideas with the best marketing campaigns. Mom and Pop is where we need to go, in terms of our future business and development outlook support to end the threats to net neutrality and shoddy/arbitrarily wrong/and unethical big businesses dominating our social landscape...

<comment><USER20> "Mom and Pop is where we need to go, in terms of our future business and development outlook support to end the threats to net neutrality and shoddy/arbitrarily wrong/and unethical big businesses dominating our social landscape..."

Many mom and pop shops turn into big businesses. Are we going to also have a law that prevents a business from growing to a certain size?

I also don't think I want a mom and pop store running something like cable. I don't think they would be able to keep up with service calls/support

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Those tips for joining startups seems to be interesting:

"For your first startup:

You want a place with >10 folks but less than 200. I say this under the theory that you are mostly working there to find challenging work and smart people. A startup with >200 people is too close to becoming a big company (or a failure) soon.

Be very strong in your field, if you are not yet that good practice until you are. Try to work on the hardest projects you can find at your current employer.

You will probably not get rich at your first startup, but you will learn at least 3x more per week than you would at a big company. Don't obsess too much on how many options etc... - it really doesn't matter - you are mostly going there to do good work, learn and find folks who will make successful startups."

</comment><comment><USER22> Based on years of research,observations and trials, the most effective, legitimate and simply way i have identified to becoming wealthy is rather simply, straight forward and with little risk to your existing routine. And it is no other than leveraging. leveraging is the age old proven strategy of gaining wealth that has been and is still in practice from over 2,000 years ago. Even Jesus used leveraging to execute his successful ministry. Leveraging when understood and properly engaged can make you wealthy in no time. And I mean in as little as a few years

<comment><USER22> firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is money a good _measure_ of wealth?

</comment><comment><USER24> My wife claims I have "value"... does that count?</comment>


Ask HN: Which programming languages for mobile apps? - <AUTHOR>

Which programming languages should I learn if I want to do mobile apps?
Which can you use for each platform?

  * iPhone: Objective C(only?)
  * Symbian-phones(Ericsson, Nokia etc): Java and C, Python on some Nokia? Correct?
  * Android: Java? Or any language since it is open source? Or it only has to compile to the Dalvik VM? According to:
 http://www.scala-lang.org/downloads/targets/android.html Scala can be used. What about Clojure?
Other platforms? <comment><USER2> _Android: Java? Or any language?_

The bad news is that the vast majority of the "other" languages for the JVM - and this includes Clojure, JRuby, Jython, and rest - are dynamic. This means that they are either interpreted or compile to Java bytecode at run-time. Pure interpreters are fearsome slow, so these days everybody does runtime compilation.

Runtime compilation, however, won't work with Android. For licensing reasons, they use their own funky Dalvik VM, with a different instruction set to the JVM. Although you write Android code in Java, all the code in your .class files is translated into Dalvik bytecode as part of the packaging process. This is naturally incompatible with generating JVM bytecode at runtime.

The upshot, then, is that none of the big dynamic languages will run on Android, which is a big pain. Scala is an exception among the "other JVM languages". Because it is very static and doesn't have "eval" functionality, it can be completely compiled (and translated) ahead of time.

Unfortunately, even Scala has problems with Android development: For starters, the runtime libraries are over 3MB (compressed!), which is going to tax if not completely blow the memory of any phone. All that extra code between you and the VM is also going to take its toll in CPU and extra garbage collection - and on an embedded device, that's battery life you can't afford to spend.

For my money, then, the only sensible choice for Android development is native Java. This sucks, relatively speaking, but think about it as a progression: For most embedded development, C is still more or less the only sensible choice. Java is still velvet cushions and hand-holding by comparison.

</comment><comment><USER3> It all depends. If you want to get your programs on carrier decks you are either going to have to learn J2ME (Java) or Brew. Java powered phones are by far the most popular, including all Nokias, S-E, and RIM Blackberry models.

However, I think the iPhone platform is the future. You have a distribution model that bypasses the carrier decks with iTunes. Which is huge because it's a pain in the ass to get on carrier decks, seeing how most NA phones are locked from installing software unless you download it directly from the carrier's portal. Then you have the fact that Apple users tend to open their wallets more for software.

</comment><comment><USER4> I can answer the Symbian part since i've been there before.

You can use JavaME on it with some specific extensions, you can also use Python(at least on S60), and you can use C++(not C, if i remember correctly).

But note that the languages on this platform do not all have equal capabilities with respect to access to the underlying platform. There are some things that are just not possible...Except for the C++ part, which is the native language and thus has almost complete access to the system.

<comment><USER5> Right, native S60 apps are C++. You can use use java as well but there are tons of limitations.

<comment><USER6> C++ with just a couple added limitations. Exceptions and static data are only now (in v9) starting to be supported. Assume that you'll use Symbian's app frameworks exclusively and not Boost, STL, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would say find a problem you want to solve and build for that rather than worrying about mobile languages.

If you alreay have an iPhone, go with that, if you use a HTC/Nokia smartphone, build for that.

After you have built a few initial apps, you'll find things become much clearer and be better able to find the answers you seek.</comment>


High-tech tracking reveals 'secret world of birds' - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/high-tech-tracking-reveals-birds-movement-beyond-migration-180975673/ <comment><USER2> Turns out a male bird has to fly farther to mate because the females think he looks ridiculous with the antenna fanny pack hanging off his rear end.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hang on, these radio tags actually transmit? They're so tiny! $200 for each¹. Damn, radio transmitters are way lower-energy than I thought. This is fascinating.

¹ [https://motus.org/selection- guide#selectionGuide_section_hdt...](https://motus.org/selection- guide#selectionGuide_section_hdtdtc)

<comment><USER4> Only run for 12h a day, transmitting every few seconds, and transmitting _very_ few bytes.

Even so! I thought I was moderately familiar with battery powered radios, but Lotek claims the NTQB2-1, which masses 0.26 grams, can last for _103 days_ at a 29 second interval. Their product photo shows it attached to a dragonfly!

None of their documentation says what the EIRP is. I wonder about the effective radius. If you miss a transmission, that data is gone forever, of course. No way can it afford the power budget for acknowledgement packets.

<comment><USER5> > Their product photo shows it attached to a dragonfly!

That's pretty cool! Do you have a link? I couldn't find it.

<comment><USER6> The product page had an embed of this: [https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/07/04/dragonflies-w...](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/07/04/dragonflies- with-tiny-fanny-packs-show-migration-patterns-in-new-study.html)

<comment><USER5> Awesome, thanks :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> tl;dr radio tracking reveals migratory birds have larger ranges at the breeding endpoint than we'd thought.</comment>


Cache deduplication and the SHA1 collision attack - <AUTHOR> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168774#c27 <comment><USER2> Duplicate [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13725093](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13725093) . (Yes, this one was first, but the other picked up votes and comments.)</comment>


Tesla signs $9B agreement to build factory in China - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2016/06/24/tesla-factory-china-9-billion/ <comment><USER2> "We haven't signed anything for a factory in China" -Elon Musk

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/747298731691696130](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/747298731691696130)</comment>


Show HN: curl-to-shell russian roulette - <AUTHOR> http://russianroulette.sh

<comment><USER2> If you're unlucky, it prints "bang". If you're really unlucky it uploads your personal files to his server.

<comment><AUTHOR> I might add that as a level, but before the one that rm -rf's your homedir ;).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > Welcome to level 2. If you're unlucky, the script will delete a random file > from your homedir.

Game over then</comment>


Tips to Find and Validate Potential Customers - <AUTHOR> http://lukethomas.com/tools-tips-to-find-potential-customers/

<comment><USER2> Read your first post and checked out the Noah Kagan vids, thanks to this post. Awesome stuff, you've got a new fan.

<comment><USER2> Just subscribed, and thanks for the Yesware tip, just installed

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool! Glad you enjoyed the post.</comment></comment></comment>


The Ruthless Overlords Of Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/11/the-robber-barons-of-silicon-valley.html <comment><USER2> Heh, he criticizes silicon valley for "indifference to copyright" for being actively against SOPA/PIPA? I think it's more like "acutely aware of how overzealous copyright law extension will doom the world."

The only issues which are legitimate are corporate governance -- the dual class share and other voting structures of Google, Facebook, etc. In practice, they're that way because public market investors (and boards of public companies) are basically incompetent at exercising effective oversight, so a smart CEO/founder is a lot less objectionable than a random selection of pension fund representatives. I'd prefer a world with working boards.

It's also kind of indefensible for boards to keep such huge piles of cash (>$100b at Apple alone), and for some kinds of executive compensation decisions (at failing companies, or in the form of golden parachutes). Defective corporate governance is not a silicon valley specific problem, though.</comment>


Insights on Data Science at Twitter - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@rchang/my-two-year-journey-as-a-data-scientist-at-twitter-f0c13298aee6 <comment><USER2> It's been submitted less than 2 weeks ago: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=https:%2F%2Fmedium.com%2F@rcha...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=https:%2F%2Fmedium.com%2F@rchang%2Fmy- two-year-journey-as-a-data-scientist-at- twitter-f0c13298aee6&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)</comment>


From yay to nay in 16 minutes [Arc] - <AUTHOR> http://madbean.com/2008/from-yay-to-nay-in-16-minutes/

<comment><USER2> boring. don't read.</comment>


What My 11 Year Old's Stanford Course Taught Me About Online Education - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuagans/2012/05/07/what-my-11-year-olds-stanford-course-taught-me-about-online-education/

<comment><USER2> I believe that in the next few years, we will see many professors bringing their courses online, and this will hopefully result in significant improvement in the way the material is presented. Even dry material can be made substantially more palatable by a gifted lecturer.

I'm disappointed with the current production quality and style of Coursera lectures. Andrew and Daphne should realize that flipping the classroom is not enough. The whole point of flipping the classroom is that most learning happens _outside_ the lecture hall. In an online context, this means that the emphasis must be on creating engaging and useful exercises and a vibrant online community. It also means that lectures have to be _far better_ than those delivered in the classroom. Taking your old powerpoints and inking over them while running screen-capture software just doesn't cut it. Ask Vi Hart.

When Udacity completely separated itself from Stanford a few months back, I thought it was an insane move, and had all my bets on Coursera. Right now, Udacity is producing better content. When we come to a point that it is the quality of education that matters and not the branding, they might have significant advantage.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think online education is under-utilizing the scale of the internet for course creation. With Stanford, Harvard, and MIT putting classes online, you just have a handful of professors giving lectures to a much bigger audience. But there are millions of professors around the world, and if just the top 1% all put their courses online, we'd have more styles of presenting the same material so students could pick the one that suits them. Imagine being able to take that game theory course but choose a Stanford professor, or a professor from a small college in the Midwest, or a superstar from IIT in India. Or being able to select a professor with a more academic tone, or a comedic tone, or one who uses sports analogies. This is where I think the real power of online learning is.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Completely agree with his review of the course material. It's very informative but also dry. I find myself skipping through the videos since they just read over the slides and underline important topics mostly.

It would be great if Coursera or the professors including tags on the video timeline that corresponded to new topics they discuss during the lecture.

Overall though I've been really happy with the material and thankful for the opportunity to learn through Coursera and Professors Jackson and Shoham. Looking forward to see how Coursera progresses

</comment><comment><USER4> Lecture courses are boring because they go through a body of knowledge systematically. Some background is necessary before you get to the "good stuff", and much of that is not exciting. Animations and fancy graphics won't be able to change that.</comment>


Ask HN: What is a useful, minimal app that doesn't exist yet? - <AUTHOR> I am curious about this community's ideas about minimal single-purpose apps or services that can be implemented in theory, but haven't been done yet. <comment><USER2> To quote an old book: "That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done.

So there is nothing new under the sun."

More than likely, there is no app that hasn't been done. There are only ones we don't know about.

An idea on the front page of ideaswatch.com looks pretty easy and useful -- bill splitting for roommates.

It has of course, already been done. It's too obvious to have slipped through the cracks. But if you want to build something small that'll help lots of people who need help -- that would be a good one to tackle.

There are plenty of other good ideas at [http://www.ideaswatch.com](http://www.ideaswatch.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the link. I've been looking through these subreddits too, there's some neat stuff there:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Lightbulb/top/?sort=top&t=year](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lightbulb/top/?sort=top&t=year)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/SomebodyMakeThis/top/?sort=top&t=ye...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SomebodyMakeThis/top/?sort=top&t=year)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AppIdeas/top/?sort=top&t=year](https://www.reddit.com/r/AppIdeas/top/?sort=top&t=year)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> In general: another interesting spot to look for ideas are features of bigger applications, that either are badly implemented, to hard to reach, ... and make optimized standalones. E.g. even though Photoshop can crop images, there still is a market for tools that can do that and be done before Photoshop has finished loading.

2 random ideas:

Probably exists, but I don't know about it yet: Something that automatically or as-easy-as-possible deals with timezones (possibly as a browser plugin), showing me the time in my local zone. I can copy-paste to Wolfram Alpha, but that isn't perfectly smooth.

A YouTube frontend that can filter subscriptions, even better if it can split series automatically. E.g. many channels have multiple running series, posting them alternating, I'd love to see them as separate channels/ignore ones I'm not interested in. Identify common title prefixes/numbering schemes, break them out into separate displays. Solves the issue that not all channels provide playlists, and I can't subscribe to only playlists or "evrything except those 3 playlists".</comment>


Hachi Combines LinkedIn, FB, Twit, Google; Searches All Your Connections - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/04/hachi-combines-linkedin-facebook-twitter-google-into-one-lets-you-search-all-your-connections-at-once/ <comment><USER2> Simply Awesome...</comment>


Newsweek publishes exposé about itself after staff firings - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/21/newsweek-staffers-say-they-were-fired-for-reporting-on-the-companys-finances-their-story-just-published/ <comment><USER2> "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."

― George Orwell</comment>


Isn't it strange that TFOOT must be placed between THEAD and TBODY? - <AUTHOR>

In an HTML <table>, the TFOOT element must be placed between THEAD And TBODY. http://htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/tables/tfoot.html. What could be the reason behind this? <comment><USER2> No, because it enables the user-agent to paginate content before the entire page has even loaded.

And presumably the page author knows a priori what the header and footer for the table are going to be, so why not transmit that information to the user- agent as soon as possible?

If you examine XSL-FO, they have similar constructs for what I am guessing are similar reasons.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmmm... makes sense. Thanks!</comment></comment>


Hulu back on Boxee, sort of. Boxee also launches "app box" - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/hulu-back-on-boxee-without-hulus-help-2009-3

<comment><USER2> A bit offtopic, I know.

I am a European 18-49 male with good income. Why is so difficult to find European sponsors to allow profitable in Europe (Or Canada, or rest of the world)?

I would like to use Hulu. Or use Amazon on demand. But I cannot pay for contents even if I would be glad to.

Until this companies open their content. I would need to get my Lost episodes with Bittorrent.</comment>


Android Bootstrap - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/donnfelker/android-bootstrap

<comment><AUTHOR> No relation to Twitter's obviously, but includes many of the commonly used Android libraries like ActionbarSherlock, Google GSON, etc.</comment>


Female Engineers: Too Fit For The Role - <AUTHOR> http://vagendamag.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/female-engineers-too-fit-for-role.html

<comment><USER2> For non UK readers Fit = "hot"

It might not be immediately clear but the article is talking about Civil Engineering which is a little unreconstructed when compared to IT.

And to progress to Chartered status for civil engineers you must have experience working on site bossing the navvies around.

When I worked for Dar Al Hadnasha (one of the big civil consultacies) we had to send out female engineers to Italy on an exchange as in the middle east it woudl have been impossible for a woman to go on site.

</comment><comment><USER3> Misogyny is, in my experience, a function of the power dynamic in a situation. As an engineer working on site the author is placed in a position of authority, but one with no direct power over the workers that she is encountering on site. She is at the same time both threatening, due to her high status, and powerless, because her influence over the work is indirect.

I find this behavior disgusting but it is, I feel, the answer to the question posed by the author: "But they must leave at some point and see wives/daughters/sisters/mothers/random women in the street.. Is the point less about novelty or even sex, and much more about straightforward intimidation?"

It is pretty much about intimidation and resentment by some and a group dynamic that forces others to play along or ignore the situation. I can't speak to the situation in Britain but in my part of the world I can say that things have improved substantially in the last 15 or so years but there is still a long way to go. Contrary to what anyone might tell you though, it is not a case of "boys will be boys" - the fact of the matter is that the management and foremen can change the culture if they want to, I have seen it happen, someone in charge just needs to have the resolve to say it won't be tolerated and actually act on it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Kind of puts the "sexism in tech" discussion in perspective. These guys make the Mad Men lot sound respectful.

Here's a simple way they could deal with that - create a new company (or even just a new department within the company), hire only civilised people, fire anyone who proves to be an uncivilised jerk, and slowly grow that department/company to take over the company/industry because it's not full of retards...

<comment><USER5> > _hire only civilised people, fire anyone who proves to be an uncivilised > jerk ... because it's not full of retards..._

Complaining about sexism then using "retards" as a pejorative is just too ironic.

<comment><USER6> That caught me off guard too. I didn't realise anyone used the term anymore.

Maybe the OP used it to make a point?

<comment><USER4> I don't call mentally handicapped people retards, I call them mentally handicapped people.

Retards, in my vocabulary, means someone who is not mentally handicapped but is a cretin. I could have used the word "cretin", in fact.

<comment><USER6> So you'd happily use the N' word, "fag," "gay," and similar since you can re- define them in your head to be just general insults, rather than associating negativity with the groups for which these words were originally used?

Sorry but we both know the reason you're using that word is because you want to paint them as being mentally handicapped which you perceive as "bad." You can pretend that isn't what you're doing but even if that is true that is how others perceive it, because when they hear the word "retard" they think mentally handicapped and you're using it as a derogative.

<comment><USER4> Retard does not have the same "inappropriate" connotations in the UK as in the US (certainly it's nothing like using nigger or fag(got) in conversation as a pejorative).

But yes, I do think being mentally handicapped is "bad". Are you arguing that it's "good"?

<comment><USER6> I live here. Yes it does.

<comment><USER4> Well, I live here too. Maybe you live in an alternate reality.

You didn't answer my question. Do you think being mentally handicapped is good?

<comment><USER6> It is neither good nor bad. Neutral.

But regardless of your opinion, using it as an insult is uncalled for. Since essentially you're lumping people who already have problems in with whatever it is you're trying to insult.

<comment><USER4> I think by now we're really arguing semantics, but I would argue that I do not lump anyone in with the people I call retards.

I would never call a mentally handicapped person a "retard". To me, that would be an incredibly insulting and inappropriate thing to do. The only people I'd call retards are people who are not mentally handicapped.

Similarly, if I call someone a dick head, I do not consider that to be insulting, or even related, to physical dick heads... it's just an insulting term. If I call someone (a guy, usually) a bitch (e.g "Yo, bitch, pass me the beer"), that does not imply any connection with female dogs.

Btw, I don't see how you can argue that being mentally handicapped (which by definition means having mental issues) can be neutral. It's clearly a net negative. It doesn't mean the person is more or less good, much like missing a leg or an arm (aka physically handicapped) doesn't make the person more or less good, but it's definitely a "bad" thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I will probably get shunned to death for asking this, but I must ask.

The described behaviour of men in the article is pretty damn sexist, true. But how is it any different from how men in groups behave towards one another? Just replace all the sexist jokes with gay jokes or sissy jokes or just about any other type of jokes men direct at one another to establish pecking orders within groups.

Reading this, it doesn't feel so much like the terrible sexism it's portrayed as, but more like reading about a clash of cultures. This is how groups of men organise themselves. I understand it's jarring for women and that women do it differently, but still, all I see here are men treating a woman _exactly_ like they treat other men.

By the sound of it, she's actually being accepted into the group. Hazing is always the first step.

<comment><USER8> > Just replace all the sexist jokes with gay jokes or sissy jokes or just > about any other type of jokes men direct at one another to establish pecking > orders within groups.

You may want to consider hanging out with a different crowd...

Also, this is not "hanging out", this is the workplace. Different standards should apply. Bullying and intimidation in the workplace is unacceptable for any reason, and in this case it's _both_ bullying and sexism.

Yes, I know this is how certain groups of men behave. It also happens to be the same men who's jobs are in danger of permanently disappearing, and this is exactly one of the main reasons nobody gives a shit.

<comment><USER9> By the sounds of the article this is British construction workers we are talking about. They have their own culture which is equally as strange as ours, they literally rip on each other _all_ of the time.

They _must_ find something to tease you about, whether it's being "gay" , your nationality or just the football team you follow.

Unfortunately in this case in the absence of anything else they chose to pick up on her being a woman.

<comment><USER10> That's not really much of a defence though, is it? British construction workers have decided for themselves which jokes are normal, which are funny, which jokes cross the line. Their tastes are biased in a very sexist way (probably more to do with subjective bias than actual misogyny, but still sexist in content).

Think about your list of things to joke about. If you're not a straight, masculine, white, English man then they joke about whatever makes you different. Which means sexist, homophobic or racist jokes. If you are a straight, masculine, white, English man, then, ha, ha, you like Manchester United. It's not ha, ha, your mum's got cancer, or ha, ha, you lost your wife in a car accident. No, hurtful jokes only get made to people who are different. People who are like the majority get made fun off for having different taste with regards being a sports fan.

Just because it's a tradition, and they don't mean it, doesn't mean it's okay.

<comment><USER9> They'd probably call you gay even if you weren't, whether or not you actually are is probably not that important to them.

You'd also probably get made fun of more for being say Irish or Scottish than for being black.

Whether or not it's "okay" it is not something you could reasonably expect to be changed for one person.

I would think that really her employer should have managed her expectations better.

<comment><USER11> Using "gay" as an insult is very problematic and homophobic.

Calling someone who is gay "gay" is generally not a problem. (Depending on context it obviously can be, but that's then more dependent on the context, not the word.)

The implication of calling someone who isn't "gay" is that being gay is somehow bad or something to be offended about. That is as clear a homophobic statement as there can be.

It is homophobic, by the way, even if the intent of the speaker isn't there.

<comment><USER9> Perhaps, but construction workers tend not to spend much time considering the implications of language in the way that people who are college educated might. So what you have is more a clash of the cultures than real homophobia.

The way I've always thought of the word "gay" being used in that way was not so much that it was bad to be gay (as in the sexuality) so much, but that you are associating the person with certain stereotypical gay traits such as effeminacy which would be somewhat insulting to a stereotypical macho construction worker.

<comment><USER11> As I already said, that's also sexist. Gender policing is not ok. (And you cannot ignore what gay usually means.)

<comment><USER9> That depends, if you are in an environment the person on the receiving end doesn't take offence and will happily give insults back then it doesn't really matter.

The difficulty is when you put people not used to that environment into it, the real issue is a conflict in expectations rather than the exact language used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I know this is a little off-topic but I spent a while wondering why the article ("I'm not scared of you any more") bore no resemblance to the title ("Too fit for the role").

Turns out I dismissed the popup window automatically because 100% of popup windows are trying to sell social media experience extravaganzas and must be removed to see the actual content.

Turns out this blogging software shows its main content as a superimposed popup/lightbox thing.

So, if you end up reading the wrong article, perhaps you clicked close on the popup before it loaded.

</comment><comment><USER13> Anyone else notice that 'The Vagenda' has a lot of articles that are aimed at men being jerks? I think any man reading this site will not have an accurate understanding as to what any writer is trying to convey. - My opinion on this article: If you don't like it leave; there are plenty of establishments that'll treat you the way you want to be treated. You just have to go through all the BS to figure out what you like and it obviously isn't this.

<comment><USER14> > Anyone else notice that 'The Vagenda' has a lot of articles that are aimed > at men being jerks?

I knew immediately by reading the domain that it was going to be a feminist leaning blog, and that's totally fine. Perhaps that's what their content is based on. Unfortunately there's lots of examples of men being jerks, so they have a massive grab bag to pull content from.

> If you don't like it leave

That's always the easy answer, and it's unrealistic and unfair. You don't know the conditions of the author. Maybe they have a boatload of debt or are in a situation where they need stability. Moving jobs is always a risk because there are things like probation periods. Even if you are good at what you do, a probation period is still scary, even more so if you have dependents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sexism, bad. But let's keep our heads on straight here.

Just because someone treats you like shit, and you're a woman, doesn't mean it's sexism.

1\. Maybe they treat her like shit because she's new, and the feminine stuff is just one reason to rag on her. If she was a tall guy, they'd probably make fun of that too.

2\. Maybe they treat her like shit because, for some reason, despite all this, she hasn't actually asked them to stop -- just complained about it on the Internet

A lot of people will get angry at me for this, because sexism is a very real problem.

But not everything is fucking sexism.

</comment><comment><USER16> Damn, I was just wondering about this the other day. I.e., how the software world compares to the engineering world. Seems my guesses were right in this case.

</comment><comment><USER17> "Get your rat out"? Seriously? That's got to be one of the most foul things I've ever heard. Real life is so much more disgusting than fiction.

</comment><comment><USER18> Yep. Sounds like shop talk--amazing how things at machine shops, oil rigs, and construction sites can be very similar at times. The women I know that work in any of those fields tend to either ignore it or join in--depending on their mood.

One wonders how things would be different were roles reversed--indeed, what sort of talk was common on factory floors during the world wars?

<comment><USER7> When a man walks into a predominantly female group, the behaviour is exactly the same, just the words are different.

At least in my experience.

<comment><USER19> I would be interested in hearing about your experience.

<comment><USER7> Well there are two.

1\. I was out with a group of female friends. Them being 3 to 4 females who have known each other for ages, me being the newcomer. I got the distinct feeling that men are walking penises. (granted they were all in their early twenties)

2\. Living with my mum and sister (and female cat). Every day I am reminded that a man is incapable of tying his own shoes without a woman's help. We are these helpless sort of creatures you know, women only put up with us out of the kindness of their hearts and because we're good for a lay now and then.

<comment><USER20> You seem to be all over this thread saying "oh well this is bad but men also have it equally bad sexism is exaggerated etc etc".

I agree that women can be shitty to men. But men, in general, can be far shittier to women. Being patronised by your female relatives is a completely different league to having sexual abuse shouted at you by strangers (strangers who should be subordinate to your professional expertise).

And yes, I've worked in blue collar jobs (factories, as a cleaner, as a binman), and I too found it hard to fit in with that culture. But I had it nowhere near as bad as this woman did.

<comment><USER7> I'm saying this isn't a gender issue. This is a basic human psychology issue. This is the way humans behave, regardless of gender. Gender doesn't even have anything to do with it, gender just defines the specific words used in the overall pattern.

In the article men are making fun of a woman. Here on HN startups are making fun of lifestyle businesses. On r/programming Scala developers are making fun of Java developers. On imgur people are making fun of 9gag. The internet is making fun of Bieber fans. Bieber fans are making fun of old people. Old people make fun of young people. Young people make fun of old people.

People poke fun at each other. It's how we establish groups. It's how we operate. We pick a trait and converge around it, as soon as we see a member of the species who does not have that trait, we make fun of them and maybe, just maybe, we eventually let them join the group.

If you want to fight sexism, go to a country that hasn't given women the vote, or women are still treated as property. _that_ 's sexism.

<comment><USER20> "People poke fun at each other. It's how we establish groups. It's how we operate. We pick a trait and converge around it, as soon as we see a member of the species who does not have that trait, we make fun of them and maybe, just maybe, we eventually let them join the group."

That's true. But the traits chosen are not arbitrary. There are some traits which are consistently used to exclude people from certain groups. As a lifestyle entrepreneur, people on HN look down on me. 99% of the population don't care. Whereas if I was female, or black, or whatever, suddenly I find myself excluded from a lot more groups.

Yes, there is much worse sexism in the world, but I can't think of many people who would think shouting sexual abuse at your manager as anything other than sexism. You seem like an intelligent guy, but you seem to have already reached the conclusion that this isn't sexism and are now trying to justify that conclusion.

<comment><USER7> I have reached the conclusion that this is a deeper issue that in this particular instance manifests itself as sexism.

Why treat the symptoms, let's fix the problem eh?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Sounds like a company of bellends.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm trying to understand the "anthropomorphic chin" reference.

<comment><USER23> I think she means "shaven" as there is a reference to him having a badger on his chin a few lines up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> You are a sexually attractive woman in a place where sexually attractive women are scarce. In almost any other context you would get substancial benefits for that like more promotions, job opportunities and more invitations to events than the average woman. But we will not see you complaining about that when it happens, don't we?

<comment><USER25> You are rude, offensive, and delusional. Please try to sort out these problems before attempting to contribute to HN.

<comment><USER24> Perhaps rude and offensive. Delusional never:

[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates- play/2012...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates- play/201203/the-truth-about-why-beautiful-people-are-more-successful)

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/19/the- beauty-...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/19/the-beauty- advantage.html)

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/07495978859...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0749597885900354)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Oh god, another article about gender equality on HN. You would have better luck selling Bieber tickets on a death metal forum.</comment>


Flipping Out (Flickr doesn't branch) - <AUTHOR> http://code.flickr.com/blog/2009/12/02/flipping-out/

<comment><USER2> _Also, after launching a feature, we have to go back in the code base and remove the old version (maintaining separate versions of all features on Flickr would be a nightmare). But overall, we find it helps us develop new features faster and with fewer bugs._

Its crazy to me to think that a high profile site like flickr would push impure code into production with the promise of "we'll clean it up after launch". I guess if you've got the right culture and discipline, it can work. Just seems so fragile.</comment>


Get alerts when apps access your private info and remove them all in one click - <AUTHOR> http://mypermissions.org/clean2015/

<comment><USER2> Sockpuppet voting and commenting are not allowed on Hacker News.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great to be in control!</comment>


Show HN: Simple way to share state using React Hooks and Context - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/diegohaz/constate <comment><USER2> Well, that's nice. I guess the React community is aiming to try every permutation within potential state management solution space, I mean something have to work after all.

<comment><USER3> I remember when you had to choose between flux, redux, alt, reflux, flummox, fluxible, fluxxor, marty.js, fynx, MacFly, DeLorean.js, fluxify, fluxury, exim, fluxtore, Redx, fluxx... (no I'm not making those names up: [https://github.com/kriasoft/react-starter- kit/issues/22](https://github.com/kriasoft/react-starter-kit/issues/22))

Every single time somethings come up, in the JS word, they try to repeat one of the mistakes from the past and completly ignore everyone else solutions and experience. It's like a compulsion.

In a year or two, your dependancies will be a representative sample of all permutations of those solutions, and will have to be maintained in that state forever, incompatible, or abandonned. You'll open some of them, trying to fix it, but you'll notice they all use different coding style, best practices, libs, and tooling. The dev that fought you in comments saying it would be fine is nowhere to be found now.

Most JS devs don't care. They don't maintain their stuff. Appart from the stuff that get famous because made by great coders (no matter the language), most projects die silently. There is a terrible graveyard hidden behind the corporate wall. Java, C++, Python and even Ruby projects are standing well and alive, next to the countless bodies of the last generation of JS frankeinstein monsters that were hype-sold to upper management to create something that could have been done in PHP 3.

Then a new stuff will arrive in the JS space, with again the potential of creating more confusion, more technical debt. You will raise your voice, and the JS community will scream back at you that you don't know what's good, you want to live with cavemen, and everything is great. They will get angry, and never see any problem.

Then rince and repeat.

<comment><USER4> That, or you can continue to use redux, which has existed since 2015, is mature, and still by far the most widely used state management system for react.

<comment> black-alert Redux, made for very large scale applications. Most companies shouldn't use redux at all, just as Dan Abramov said several times that you probably don't need it.

For unknown reasons most front-end developers don't wanna hear that and love to start with mega complexity and boilerplate where just a simple flux store or a library like 'unstated' would suffice. Anything leaner than redux is very welcome for the average companies web app imao.

<comment><USER3> > Redux, made for very large scale applications. Most companies shouldn't use > redux at all, just as Dan Abramov said several times that you probably don't > need it.

As per my own comments, I agree strongly.

> For unknown reasons most front-end developers don't wanna hear that and love > to start with mega complexity and boilerplate where just a simple flux store > or a library like 'unstated' would suffice.

Not unknown, no. Because FB promoted Flux like it was something magical and never seen before, talked about store without providing best practices or reference implementations, and so many store implementations came out at the same time. And most tutorials, not knowing exactly what to recommand to provide some state to your tiny app, started all to promote one store or another. So people though it was mandatory.

It's like with react tutorials.

When I teach react, I make sure people start by just dropping a script tag, and use createElement. No JSX. No webpack. Most of the page is even static HTML.

Only once they got the basics covered, I build on that up to abstractions, tooling, best practices, etc.

That's not what you read online. Online, people drop some magic lines and say "see how this todo list example is easy ?", then let you die here.

<comment><USER4> I agree with you in terms of learning React. Not sure I agree in terms of app size. Yes, there's some boilerplate associated with Redux. But it's pretty simple, and I find the "one way data flow" model really does simplify thinking about how state transitions work, in a way that is beneficial even for small apps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hey Diego!

Nice idea and examples! Let me know if I'm wrong, but the main difference between `createContainer` and a `React.createContext` call is that you memoize inputs, correct?

The way this interacts with Hooks to enable state sharing is pretty cool. Hopefully someone builds a complete i18n lib on top of something like this.

</comment><comment><USER6> Also check out react-atom: [https://github.com/derrickbeining/react- atom](https://github.com/derrickbeining/react-atom)

I stumbled across it earlier this week and it's a joy to use so far. The api is inspired by clojure atoms, and typescript inference works great out of the box.

<comment><USER7> Thank you, this looks really interesting. I've enjoyed using reagent and re- frame on personal projects but ClojureScript was too much for my team to swallow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Honestly I think I'm done with state management libraries. There's no longer anything I can't write cleanly with React.Context and hooks. The overhead of adding an dependency is no longer worth it.

<comment><USER9> That's great for simple stuff, but without implementing some extremely hairy bitmasking logic via the callback to createContext, if you have any kind of complex state, how do you prevent rerenders of vast chunks of the UI, and the performance hits that causes? Context is really nice, and works fantastically for simple stuff where it's fine to just redraw the world (authorization or theming for example), but it's not a replacement at this time

<comment><USER10> How does using a state management library prevent rerender of vast chunks of UI? Isn't that the responsibility of the react's reconciliation algorithm? Is there any way of fine-tuning the rendering, purely from a state-management perspective (I know about Pure Components and shouldComponentUpdate lifecycle hooks)? I am genuinely curious.

<comment><USER11> In the case of React-Redux, we do a _lot_ of work to check the derived values you've extracted from the Redux store, and prevent your own component from re- rendering unless those values have changed.

See my post "The History and Implementation of React-Redux" for more details:

[https://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2018/11/react-redux- histor...](https://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2018/11/react-redux-history- implementation/)

<comment><USER12> Somehow the codebase I recently took over has managed to mess this up. Every time any part of the state tree anywhere changes, the whole app re-renders.

I'm trying to track down why this is an issue, but so far I haven't had much luck. Do you know of any tools that can assist with this specific kind of debugging?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there a way to use the React hook stuff without having to put the backend logic _inside_ of your UI generation code?

It really feels like if there was some way to put this really dirt-simple counter code into a plain-Jane Javascript object then a lot of this hand- wringing about state management in React goes away (contexts are an interesting little solution to things though)

<comment><USER14> Sounds like you are looking for something like MobX? [http://mobx.js.org](http://mobx.js.org)

<comment> crooked-v There's also Redux, which is harder to wrap your head around starting out, but has great edge case debugging capabilities (you can "time travel" forward and back with changes) and really efficient-and-seamless cached derived data with selectors.

<comment><USER15> Rematch[1] makes it really easy to get started with Redux.

1: [https://github.com/rematch/rematch](https://github.com/rematch/rematch)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I dont get hooks. How is this simpler than something like this?

[https://jsfiddle.net/xv7y9eoz/](https://jsfiddle.net/xv7y9eoz/)

<comment><USER17> I don't buy the way things are done in this library (constate). I wouldn't import a library just for doing this. It is not very hard to achieve the same with plain `useContext` and `useState` directly.

That being said, I don't agree that hooks are futile, because, using hooks, your state logic can be reused. For example, if your app uses 10 independent counters (with different render logic and different styling), hooks are definitely useful to reuse the state logic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Seems to solve a similar issue as [https://github.com/jamiebuilds/unstated](https://github.com/jamiebuilds/unstated)

<comment><USER19> Both solve state management issues, but really different goals.

Unstated has state containers as separate entities. This one is about seamlessly switching from a local useState hook to a context-based one with minimal code changes.

I'm not convinced it's worth the hassle vs just creating your own contexts though. Here is the full source: [https://github.com/diegohaz/constate/blob/master/src/index.t...](https://github.com/diegohaz/constate/blob/master/src/index.tsx)

<comment><USER20> > I'm not convinced it's worth the hassle vs just creating your own contexts > though

This is what I was thinking when running through the source. The problem to solve, I think, is to get rid of the providers. Or rather, make it less jsxy. For application-level contexts, you can easily have 10+ providers at the root of the application. You could make them HOCs, but that's still super ugly. Hooks made the consumer side a lot cleaner, now it's time to do something about the provider.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I guess I'm still in a minority who likes Redux.

<comment><USER22> Nope. plenty do. I do. granted its verbose, but it gets the job done nicely. easy to follow, plain functions all the way down.

<comment><USER23> And what about those `reselect` wires? And that `connect` and `mapStoP / mapDtoP` stuff? Doesn't that "bother" you? Or you just mentally "pack" it into the verbosity basket and ignore it?

<comment><USER24> `reselect` is an option that you don't have to use.

The mapStoP and mapDtoP are just plain functions that do what they say on the tin. Easy to read/write once you understand the pattern.

The connect HOC like all HOCs is a bit of a smell, but easy enough to use without understanding much about HOCs.

Likely soon hook replacements for connect will make all that "verbosity" even simpler and easier to work with.

For instance, useMapState and useActionCreators from this proposal for redux hooks: [https://github.com/epeli/redux-hooks](https://github.com/epeli/redux- hooks)

<comment><USER23> > `reselect` is an option that you don't have to use.

Of course.

It just happens that for my real life needs I've needed state that was derived from redux state: filtering, selections, pagination, normalizing / denormalizing state, relations between entities (classic library data model problem) etc.

So I kinda can't "imagine" any "serious" work with redux without helpers like reselect etc.

> Easy to read/write once you understand the pattern.

Sure, there is nothing "complex" about any of that.

And I am genuinely asking how people deal with that.

It is just way too verbose for me. So I am wondering, how other people approach it.

Close their eyes and plow through? Don't really care?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Maintaining state is an easily solved problem severely over engineered by frameworks. The central issue why this becomes so complicated is because developers who aren't comfortable writing original code would rather deal with an ocean of configurations than a few architectural decisions.

That is problematic because configurations are settings not decisions, which means you need work arounds for edge cases and work arounds for the work arounds. If instead you treat everything as a requirement instead of anything as an edge case then you are forced to make decisions and write the corresponding code. New requirements may necessitate refactoring of current decisions down the road, but the code stays clean, small, and deliberate.

At the most simple you only need three things: a central consolidated point of settings (object), storage (localStorage), and interactions isolated to their respective purpose (handlers).

<comment><USER26> This is such a gross oversimplification of the problem I can't help but doubt you've ever actually written a complicated frontend application using today's modern frameworks.

I have explored this space from nearly every angle. I've tried a multitude of languages and technologies, and there is no place where this has been solved completely and there are always drawbacks to any solution. But that doesn't mean those solutions just exist because their authors were bored. They exist because they actually solve a problem.

I would very much like to see you write a large react application using only the concepts you mentioned. How are you going to deal with side effects? You realize you can't just fire those off willy nilly, right? How are you going to pass information upwards or across the component hierarchy? Callbacks? Have fun with writing that and reasoning about it afterwards.

People love to bash on the JavaScript ecosystem and rarely do I see anyone praising it as it deserves. There are some incredibly ingenious solutions and architectures that have been invented in that space, and anyone who isn't just a troll trying to fit in with the other cool kids and has actually tried to write a complicated frontend application today appreciates the hard work that is happening there, and understands why new solutions keep being invented.

<comment><USER25> tldr; everything is too hard

I have been writing code for more than 20 years and writing JavaScript for more than 11 years full time. The UI, accessibility included, is not the challenge. I have been doing this long enough at enough employers to watch people fail the same ways over and over and consistently qualify bad decisions with the same repeated excuses.

> This is such a gross oversimplification of the problem

It is not an oversimplification if proven in practice more than once.

> rarely do I see anyone praising it as it deserves

I love JavaScript/TypeScript. Some of the complaints against JS are absolutely justified and some aren't. The unjustified complaints are typically from insecure developers of other languages that loathe the completely foreign expressiveness and flexibility allowed by JS. The mountains of code some developers require to perform trivial tasks is absolutely worthy of ridicule though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> How many times does the React community plan on skinning the same cat?

<comment><USER28> It's a mean cat. In the last few years I've ended up going through cycles of doing a react project, moving on for some months then another react project. Each time I've come back I've been impressed with the changes and they've often improved parts of react I'd previously found wanting.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Web forms normalizer - <AUTHOR>

I remember a link being submitted a while ago on HN, it was an useful resource providing a way to "normalize" the aspect of web forms among different browsers (OSes).
It was some sort of a framework for web forms.<p>I found different other solutions but I'm not able to find this specific tool. Any hint? <comment><USER2> If you mean the rendering of form fields across browsers and OS, you're probably looking for Uniform: <http://uniformjs.com/>.

<comment><AUTHOR> I remember a slightly different resource but this one helps aswell, thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> <http://formalize.me/> ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep! That's it, thanks!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does HN move too fast for 'Ask HN'? - J-dawg 'Ask HN' questions have only a few minutes to gain traction before they fall off the front page of 'new', otherwise they never make it to 'ask' and basically disappear.
I feel like this sink-or-swim system works just fine for regular posts, but for 'Ask HN' posts it can be frustrating to see them disappear so quickly. Especially when you consider that more time is invested into asking a question than posting a link.
Should 'Ask HN' posts be allowed to stick around a little longer somehow? One solution would be to give them their own separate 'new' page. <comment><AUTHOR> My understanding is that "Ask HN" questions have a different "gravity" and sink more slowly. That said, I suspect that the average quality of an "Ask HN" question is not much better than the average non-spam submission...maybe worse since meta-discussions are fairly common and lead to dull comments like mine here.

Even non-meta questions can be rather lazy...I mean a couple of throw away sentences that don't provide much context suggest that it's probably not that important.

For example: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11160872](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11160872)

Versus: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11149361](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11149361)

While I don't think of "Ask HN" as StackOverflow, there's something to the response "What  have you tried?" and the idea that a two sentence question doesn't necessarily deserve a long detailed comprehensive answer.

</comment><comment><USER2> While I agree they do get lost quickly, there is an "ask" link in the header. I check there every so often, but maybe I am in the minority.

<comment><USER3> Only questions that are upvoted make it to "ask".

<comment><AUTHOR> I suspect that is because submissions with both a link and editorial content get classified as "Ask HN" by default and that tends to correlate with PR type submissions.

But really, the only sure fire way to surface good overlooked content is through the "New" page.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ask HN is probably my favorite part of HN and I check it every time I visit. I wish it was more active. I love hearing the opinions of all of you smart people.

</comment><comment><USER5> The overall quality of Ask HN questions is pretty hit or miss compared with other submissions in the News section. Often times there are Ask HN questions with no context, that border on spam, really aren't asking a question, or would be better served on Stack Overflow.

so I guess what I"m saying is that I'm not particularly surprised by its speed, because a lot of the stories submitted to deserve to decline quickly

</comment><comment><USER6> Will this Ask HN become its own self fulfilling prophecy?

<comment> J-dawg Ha, I expect so!

EDIT: I guess I lose either way, if it makes it to the 'ask' page it will disprove its own argument!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> >One solution would be to give them their own separate 'new' page.

It's not exactly that but [https://news.ycombinator.com/ask](https://news.ycombinator.com/ask) exists.

<comment><USER8> There could be an equivalent like

[https://news.ycombinator.com/shownew](https://news.ycombinator.com/shownew)

I'm not sure why some of these pages aren't linked from the main page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Yes, absolutely 100% yes.</comment>


You only get rock star engineers if you treat your engineers like rock stars - <AUTHOR>

simple rule and a thought of the day <comment><USER2> Stop with the stupid rock star thing already. Rock stars are front men and quintessentially style over substance, and only become rock stars by being surrounded by a great team of talented musicians and promoters. Turning pretty faces with a modicum of talent into super stars is the bread and butter of the music industry.

Do you really want your top paid engineers doing coke in a hotel room while your army of minions do the heavy lifting, clean up after them and run damage control to sure the public still think the 'star' is the great talent he probably isn't.

Sure some rock stars are genuinely really talented, but that is almost incidental to the rock stardom.

</comment><comment><USER3> You only keep really good and skilled engineers if you pay them like really good and skilled engineers.

</comment><comment><USER4> Sure, whatever--but if you want to get _really good and skilled engineers_ you don't treat them like rockstars.

You treat them like professionals who are well-compensated and given interesting problems to solve, and then supported as human beings deserving of understanding and respect. Oh, and you give them a real economic stake in the outcome of the project.

This "rockstar" business is bullshit.

</comment><comment><USER5> Simple yet untrue. Great engineers don't necessarily know or care to obtain their market value. H1B indentured servitude also helps.

<comment><USER2> Technically he said "treat" them like rock stars, not "pay" them like rock stars. Lots of evidence points towards the fact that people respond much more favorably towards being given $500 worth of perks than they would being given a $1000 pay rise.

<comment><USER5> fair enough, however you can also treat some people like crap and they won't do anything about it. (I'm not suggesting you should.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Paying them well is mandatory.

Rock star treatment is optional.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I put up with a lot more than I normally would because I keep getting raises. It's funny how I look for jobs with a better title offering quite a bit less than I make...Good problem to have I guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Last I checked, "rock stars" didn't have the attributes you look for in a good engineer.

</comment><comment><USER9> File under /r/Showerthoughts.</comment>


Are there any cheap but good Cloud Servers for students? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Alibaba Cloud student and educator program: Students and educators apply online at [https://www.alibabacloud.com/campaign/education?spm=a2c41.23...](https://www.alibabacloud.com/campaign/education?spm=a2c41.236080.12584627.5.48435a6eeoZPPh) can get: • 10 free learning courses with Alibaba Cloud Apsara Clouder Certification • ECS cloud server for $0.99/year (savings up to $687.93) • 50GB/month data transfer for 12 months (a total of 600GB) Cloud Resources and Free Courses on Cloud Computing for Students

AWS student and educator program: Students and educators apply online at www.awseducate.com can get: • Grants for free usage of AWS services • Labs, tutorials and training on AWS products • Open source course content provided by top professors and AWS • Collaboration tools and a community of cloud experts

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your suggestion. Seems good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Check out [https://lowendbox.com/](https://lowendbox.com/) \-- you can find some a VPS options for something in the range of $1/month.

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://education.github.com/pack](https://education.github.com/pack)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the information. But some of them seem a bit expensive.

<comment><USER5> well, DigitalOcean provides some credit in that pack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Depending what you need, I've been happy with the lowest RamNode server, about $15/year.

</comment><comment><USER7> maybe you might take a look at: [https://cloudatcost.com/developer- cloud](https://cloudatcost.com/developer-cloud)

</comment><comment> tony-allan [https://repl.it/](https://repl.it/)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is not Cloud Server.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Please help to suggest.

<comment><USER8> Google has a free tier for Compute Engine. It's good enough for a light dev server or hosting personal stuff. That's what I've been using lately.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, will have a look later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> scaleway.com it's very cheap.</comment>


Widescreen Monitors Can Save Companies $8,600 Per Employee, Per Year - <AUTHOR> http://www.cio.com/article/194501

<comment><AUTHOR> The study that came up with these findings was commissioned by a company that makes widescreen monitors so that's a bit weird. But I have a widescreen and I am significantly more productive using it than I was in the past with my tiny 15 inch standard format display.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, NEC funded it, but the study was vetted by the University's research board, so it theoretically shouldn't be too biased.

<comment><USER3> NEC also make standard monitors, I really don't think they'd give a crap which one you buy. It isn't a study of NEC performance versus Acer or anything, it's just Standard Vs Widescreen and they make both in the same factories so I don't see the bonus.

Perhaps they make more profit on a widescreen than a standard, but if widescreen sales were actually boosted then market competivity would wipe anything like that out. So I really see no possible benefit from biasing the results.

<comment><USER4> One benefit of a study showing that one monitor configuration is better than another is that it encourages people with the worse configuration to buy new monitors.

Another benefit is an article on the CIO website featuring an illustration of an NEC monitor as an example of widescreen monitors.

...Which is not necessarily a reason to bias results in one direction or another, but it is a reason to emphasize the results enough to be statistically significant and hence reportable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can't seem to find a description of what the text or spreadsheet tasks were that were used to evaluate the efficiency of the users. Judging from the screenshots in the PDF linked to the story, though, they significantly involved moving things between two documents or pages.

Granted, it is useful to know the relative efficiency of doing such tasks on different monitor configurations. But, unless this is the only thing all of your employees do all day, it's highly misleading to turn the efficiency improvement into a dollar amount based on percentage of employee salary.

</comment><comment><USER5> "All three groups were significantly more productive using 24-inch-or-larger widescreen monitors (1920x1200 resolution, or larger) compared to 18-inch displays (1280x1024 resolution), according to the research."

They're not comparing 2 displays with the same real estate (in area or total pixel count). Well of course the _larger_ monitor will make you more productive. I'm still dubious about the benefit of widescreen over standard- format.

Widescreen's popularity has more to do with playing DVDs than with increased productivity.

<comment><USER6> True, I always choose standard size. I want vertical space much more badly than horizontal, especially for browsing, editing source code and reading PDFs.

<comment><USER7> At work I have two 20.5" monitors hooked to a laptop. The main one is horizontal, while the other is rotated vertically (NVDIA drivers let you do that). I use the horizontal for everything, while the vertical one is for code and code only.

It helps a lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> This sounds like the article from yesterday (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=133356>), but the conclusions this one draws are a lot more detailed.

They both reference the same study.

<comment><USER8> That's why not all duplicate submissions are bad. Sometimes Submission A is what drives people to seek out and post New and Improved Submission B.

Of course, if news stories would _link to the freakin' primary sources_ , already, instead of acting like it's still 1972 and hypertext hasn't been invented yet, we might not have to dig quite so deeply.

(Of course, half the time the primary sources are proprietary dead-trees publications, so it's not always the fault of the journalists...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Study sponsored by monitor company says to buy new monitors? No way!</comment>


How Amazon counterfeits put this man's business on brink of collapse - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/24/how-amazon-counterfeits-put-this-mans-business-on-brink-of-collapse.html <comment><USER2> yadayada, China, Mexico, Trump</comment>


How CNN found the Reddit user behind the Trump wrestling GIF - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/ <comment><USER2> We're in the twilight zone.

What's worse, the president peddling memes on his twitter or CNN going on a witch hunt after it got 'bullied' by a Reddit User.

</comment><comment><USER3> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14699713](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14699713)</comment>


Guido van Rossum responds to Bruce Eckel: Why explicit self has to stay - <AUTHOR> http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay.html <comment><USER2> I see where Bruce is coming from.

But I quite like self: it's an explicit reminder every time you write OOP in Python about the idea of classes & instances.

Incidentally I'm one of those annoying people that often will use this instead of self (because I find it more readable.. at work I am famed for my efforts of trying to write code in "english" :D).

Self is also useful when your passing the class around. It's easy to see where it is heading all the time.

It will be nice to see the "you forgot self, you fool" error made explicit. When you switch languages a couple of times a day it can be easy to forget :) (PHP to Python switch is the hardest!)

<comment><USER3> `my' is also an alternative, can make the code look less cluttered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The

      def self.foo(arg): ...

variant GvR mentions reminds me of one of the many ways you can implement OO- style in Lua:

      function object.method(arg) ... end

<comment><USER5> I think you mean function object:method(arg) ... end, if you're assuming that object will be passed (as "self") implicitly. The colon is the difference from normal map indexing.

I much prefer Lua's solution for this over Python's (and I'm also coming to strongly prefer prototype-style OO, in general).

<comment><USER4> Indeed, you are correct.

      function obj:method(arg) .. end

is the same as

      function obj.method(obj,arg) .. end

I think the reason I mentioned the latter is I generally use Lua closures to code the way Eckel preferrs.

"Objects are a poor man's closures" -- Norman Adams

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There are two reasons why i don't mind 'self'. The first one is that python was my first language, so i didn't know anything else. I didn't find it strange, as a person with a different background might. The second reason is that i don't do that much OOP any way, so i don't get frustrated with having to type self all the time. But when i do actually write OO code, i can see how self might annoy someone writing classes and methods all day.</comment>