Microsoft will 'crush' Google, 'muscle-out' Apple in smartphone/tablet markets - <AUTHOR> http://bgr.com/2012/11/29/microsoft-analysis-google-apple/ <comment><USER3> This guy makes a lot of sense!

When Apple brought out the iPod, Microsoft quickly copied all of the features and released the Zune, which quickly stole the market. Apple then added in the new feature of having your iPod be a phone and released the iPhone. Microsoft quickly copied that feature and released Windows Phone by combining their Windows Mobile offering with Zune to copy all those features and stole the market again! Apple released some nice new hardware Macbook Airs - but not to worry, Microsoft and partners quickly brought out 'ultrabooks' which are beating all sales records and nobody would touch a Macbook Air anymore!

On the Google side, Google gives away their search with some mere advert backing. Google obviously doesn't care too much about search, they just throw it around to everyone! Their maps too. Given away for free. Anybody could easily come and charge money for maps and just take all of Google's maps users away. Users want 24/7 phone support for their maps, and search! Clearly, Microsoft can come into any market Google plays in and quickly beat Google out by offering far superior solutions. Bing is a clear example - it's just about killed off any reason to use Google Search and shows how good Microsoft is at features.

Can't believe how anybody could argue against Microsoft at this point - <USER2> record of success over the last 10 years speaks for itself!

</sarcasm>

<comment><USER4> I am glad you put the end tag, else I had almost misunderstood you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> So a man with - quite literally - a vested interest in Microsoft is... boosting Microsoft? Film at 11.

I would have enjoyed reading a more detailed presentation of Charles Sizemore's analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the three companies he discusses; this soundbite-y stuff is a bit weak and unsatisfying. Why, for example, is end-to-end control of the platform worse than only owning a bit of it? Why is advertising unsustainable as a business model? There isn't enough here to agree or disagree with, it's just an opinion by someone who's (probably unfairly) made to sound like another ex-frat boy with an MBA and a limited supply of non-sporting metaphors.

<comment><USER6> And the depressing thing that these soundbites already say that he didn't (want to) explain more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Given that Google gives most of its products away for free, you have to > question how seriously they take them.

That guy is an idiot.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's difficult to take this article seriously. No claims are corroborated. Interesting to observe that HN took a sensational headline and upvoted. Wish there was a downvote, as it's not worth flagging, but a downvote definitely.

<comment><USER8> Yea really, I can't even believe this was posted.

<comment><USER4> And upvoted. Spam is regularly posted on HN and we flag it. But this one was upvoted, that's troubling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > According to one industry watcher, however, they should all be watching out > for Microsoft (MSFT).

Indeed, just a few years ago an advanced research team at Microsoft found out that any rectangle may be closely approximated by a sufficiently straight parallelogram, thus reopening the door to the World of Innovation.

"You really thought", commented Steve Ballmer, Chief Officer of Plane Geometry, "that all those squares in Metro were _actually_ square? Foo!"

Apple did not comment on the issue. However, rumors about the NeXT cube "not being exactly a cube, either" started to run rampant on the 'net.

</comment><comment><USER10> tl;dr Apple is not building any features that MSFT can't copy, because Google gives it away for free it must be a toy to them.

Sounds more to me like an analyst who either a.) bought a lot of MSFT shares or shorted Google/Apple, or b.) works for a company that bought a lot of MSFT shares or shorted Google/Apple. His 'criticisms' of both are specious at best. To rebut his claims about Apple: "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". And as for Google, RedHat has a $1b a year business case for free software.

This guy doesn't understand mobile at all. It's sad if he's able to move the markets with his comments.

<comment><USER11> If you look at the words on the linked page, the "analysis" is from Charles Sizemore of Sizemore Capital, and Sizemore Capital "holds a long position in Microsoft".

<comment><USER10> A somewhat tangential point. Like how lawyers have to specify that they're not giving legal advice. and how it's 'best practice' in auto-journalism to disclose when a manufacturer has provided you with perks while 'reviewing' their vehicle. I'd like to see 'analysis' which carries a similar disclaimer, Has a long position in Microsoft, in the original article. Not a link to it. that way no one can copy the press release and miss 'the only important point of the article' which as you say is linked.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Funniest title I've read today. Thanks for the LOL's

</comment><comment><USER13> Microsoft can't win with "muscle" or brute force or any back room competitive shenanigans.

Microsoft will win when they design great things that make their users happy. It's that simple. That's the world we live in now.

These guys had to cut component orders for the Surface because they skipped the part where they made a product people would enjoy using. There's too much choice now, the standards have grown too high. Microsoft has to compete on day-to-day ownership happiness. And that's tough because they've been leaning on vendor lock in and Enterprise IT fiats for their success a little too long.

Ballmer's the one who needs muscling out. Microsoft needs a leader with a deep understanding of consumer products if they want a seat at the table for the next generation.

<comment><USER14> >These guys had to cut component orders for the Surface

Reference?

<comment><USER15> [http://www.businessinsider.com/digitimes-microsoft-cut- surfa...](http://www.businessinsider.com/digitimes-microsoft-cut-surface- tablet-orders-in-half-2012-11)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> They can't compete with open source on price, and Apple on marketing. So no, they won't.

</comment><comment><USER17> The 90s called. They want their ecosystem back.

</comment><comment><USER18> Fantasy world, this guy lives in it.

</comment><comment><USER19> haha, laughed my ass off.

</comment><comment><USER20> tr;dr (too rediculous, didn't read)

I hope MSFT does great, not going to make crazy statements like that though.</comment>


Here's who spent their Fourth of July protesting the NSA - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/05/heres-who-spent-their-fourth-of-july-protesting-the-nsa/ <comment><USER2> As somebody who's done a lot of civil liberties activism, I'm pleasantly surprised by how much press the protests got -- including CNN, CBS, NBC, Reuters, the Guardian and more at the national level, as well as dozens of local TV and newspapers.

There's a roundup on the Restore the Fourth reddit at [http://www.reddit.com/r/restorethefourth/comments/1hor8p/rou...](http://www.reddit.com/r/restorethefourth/comments/1hor8p/round_up_news_outlets_across_america_and_the/) and I've also got a bunch of links on the Get FISA Right blog at [https://getfisaright.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/restorethe4th-...](https://getfisaright.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/restorethe4th- grassroots-civil-liberties-activism-is-back-and-better-than-ever/)

<comment><USER3> It's called _Manufactured Dissent_.

You got the air-play because the NSA etc needs to show it's all fluffy bunny and won't stifle white people's aggro. _That 's it._ That's why the NSA read this forum, and posted on their homepage that they were "cool with legal protest". Jesus wept, if you're not getting paid to be this naive, you ain't gonna make it. If you're "surprised" you're either a fool or a tool.

We know who you are, and we can see the ties. Seriously: if this is your best game, you're doomed. You have little or no idea what you're playing with, and it's cringe worthy.

This is _worse_ than the Koch brothers "Tea Party" take over, because at least they spent ~$50,000,000 on it and employed professionals. That's what made them players. Oh, and a small tip: $50 million is pocket change.

This is really pitiful stuff chaps. Ghandi, MLK and so on are spinning in their graves at this. Hint: the fact you have totally ignored the entire decimation of the African-American community is a telling one[1]. There's a reason that "Illuminati" symbolism is so prevalent in modern African-American music[2]: it's not about a secret society, it's about them <REDACTED: COINTELPRO>[3] and being engineered for the last 50 years, deliberately.

 _Wise the fuck up._

Ever wonder why MLK became Ghetto? $ and politics, and CIA running crack- cocaine.

Welcome to the Black Experience, it's Coming Soon[TM]

[1][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PaoLy7PHwk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PaoLy7PHwk)

[2][http://thefeministwire.com/2013/05/the-rise-of-beyonce- the-f...](http://thefeministwire.com/2013/05/the-rise-of-beyonce-the-fall-of- lauryn-hill-a-tale-of-two-icons/)

[3][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was part of the lightly attended Restore the Fourth protest in Minneapolis yesterday. I was also part of a much larger protest in DC that marched from the Lincoln Memorial to the Chinese embassy (which had a total participation of about 3,000 marchers) on 1 October 1989. Most of those marchers, of course, had no reasonable recourse in the political system of China, and at that time were not United States citizens. It is a long, hard slog to solve some problems. China still has neither a free press nor free and fair elections. China has pervasive surveillance of the domestic population of a kind that would appall any American. It's good that people in the United States are standing up for freedom here. It will be good for all of us to stand up for freedom everywhere.

A successful movement for greater freedom requires great courage, and a degree of social trust among the movement participants that is not easy to find. Allow me to repeat advice I have shared here on Hacker News before. If you really want to be an idealistic but hard-headed freedom-fighter, mobilizing an effective popular movement for more freedom wherever you live, I suggest you read deeply in the free, downloadable publications of the Albert Einstein Institution,

[http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html](http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html)

remembering that the transition from dictatorship to democracy described in those publications is an actual historical process with recent examples around the world that we can all learn from. You can find publications in Arabic, Azeri, Belarusian, Burmese, Burma (Chin), Burma (Jing-paw), Burma (Karen), Burma (Mon), Chinese (Mandarin), Dutch, English, Estonian, Farsi, French, German, Hebrew, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Kyrgyz, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Thai, Tibetan, and Ukrainian there to share with your friends around the world.

P.S. Hat tip to the Reddit subreddit that linked to TV news coverage

[http://kstp.com/article/12303/?vid=4128742&v=1](http://kstp.com/article/12303/?vid=4128742&v=1)

of the Minneapolis protest. (I'm visible way off in the distance in a few of the TV shots.)

<comment><USER5> Oh, it's a bunch of Gene Sharp books. I've heard about "Dictatorship to Democracy" before. I suppose now is a good time to actually start reading it. I wonder how applicable his advice would be for "Democracy to Better Democracy", though.

<comment><USER6> It's not a long book. Take a look. Download the PDF (~600KB) at [http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf](http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting coincidence, I just posted a related blog post about why our company isn't joining Fight for the Future's "Internet Defense League".

Fight for the Future attempted to organize online protests similar to the SOPA blackouts, but ended up doing this in a rather deceptive way (which is what the post discusses).

It's floating in [https://news.ycombinator.com/newest](https://news.ycombinator.com/newest) right now: Why we are not joining Fight for the Future's "Internet Defense League"

The blog post itself is here: [http://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2013/07/integrity-internet- def...](http://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2013/07/integrity-internet-defense- league/)</comment>


Under River, Outside Time: The Woolwich Foot Tunnel Anomaly - <AUTHOR> https://portalsoflondon.com/2017/07/02/the-woolwich-anomaly/ <comment><USER2> > When it finally re-opened it was 8 months behind schedule, having been > closed for more than a year and a half.

If time stopped in the tunnel, wouldn't the repairs have been completed remarkably ahead of schedule from the perspective outside the tunnel? After all, the workers would put in a full day of repairs in no (outside) time at all.

<comment><USER3> Two points: 1) Much of the repairs were done to the lift shafts, which judging from the story seems outside the time anomalies zone of influence.

2) If a worker in the tunnel completed a day's work instantly, the worker would have still completed a days work and would need to go home and rest. You could, in theory, have a rolling start time, so the worker has 15 hours rest and then is required to come into work again. Unfortunately, legislation doesn't really account for time anomalies and so this would likely fall foul of Union and EU standards.

<comment><USER4> Hire different/more workers?

Setting aside the implausibility of such a secret remaining a secret (none of the workers had a boffin brother or cousin to show?), and never mind the implications for physics, with the right incentives, foreman could hire additional workers, finish the job faster, get paid for that job, and move onto the next job while looking like they're exceptionally good at things rather than ending up over-budget and behind schedule, as is expected for publics works projects. And all without coming up against per-worker Union/EU standards.

<comment><USER5> I suppose we have two hurdles.

One is getting the outside-tunnel work done - redoing the lifts, trucking in more tiles, and so on. That's happening at real-world time, so it's going to be a bottleneck.

The other is getting approval for what looks like a blatantly dishonest hiring scheme. Sure, the foreman knows he can get 80 hours of work done in that tunnel every day, but a request to hire that much staff looks like pure make- work from the outside.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've experienced something like this programming in a room in the basement of a hospital at a medical imaging device for 8 hours, where notable project progress came in the course of days, not hours. With the absence of light, external stimulation, voices, or people, which would traditionally alert the mind to refocus on another stimuli and contextualize the stimulation against the time of day, the only alert is progress. To be clear, there is no mistaking the long period of time spent during the day whilst performing the mechanics of the task, but at the conclusion of the day, if there was no milestone of progress hit, and were it a day where there were _literally_ zero interruptions, it would feel like I had only been down there _3 hours_.

<comment><USER7> My office at work is on the other side of the building from everyone else and has no windows (I chose no windows over having people nearby). If I don't have a clock displayed on my taskbar the only sign I know it's time to eat or go home is the siren for the people who work in the factory on site.

It's a productive programming environment (for a certain type).

<comment><USER8> That sounds like heaven.

The constant distraction environment of cubicles severely hampers my productivity. I work from home as often as possible, but even then I'm no longer accustomed to being able to focus on one thing for so long that I feel like I'm becoming more ADD.

People complain about the social impacts of social media etc... I wonder if anyone has tried to identify/quantify the impact of cubicles/shared workspaces.

<comment> at-fates-hands I've worked in several "open" office layouts for several large corporations and they're horrible. At one, it was so loud and distracting, I barely could get anything done due to all the interruptions. When one person would get sick, it was a chain reaction. Within days, half our team would be out sick. It was a miserable place to work. Both places abandoned the open office concept and went back to cubicles with additional "collaboration" spaces instead. Needless to say, it was much better.

The funny thing is the company I currently work for went back to this "open office" concept and call it "hoteling" now. They have desks with monitors and a dock everywhere and you just plug in your laptop and go. There are no more assigned seats. It's the same thing with predictable results though. People are constantly sick, they complain about the interruptions (I had a guy doing his kettle bell workout _at his desk_ across from me) and the struggle to maintain concentration. The problem is, they've gone all in on the concept. The company dropped millions of dollars in renovating the building so I don't see a change any time soon. I just work from home now as often as possible.

<comment><USER8> I wonder if I'm using the wrong terms.

I call open offices anything from "just tables" without any real dividers to cubicles like this: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Gu...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Gulf_Worldwide_Sales_%26_Marketing_Team.jpg/300px- Gulf_Worldwide_Sales_%26_Marketing_Team.jpg)

I've seen some cubicles that are higher and appear to provide more privacy, but I've never actually worked in one/for a company that uses them.

The company I work for now has the short cubicles. Noise isn't contained, and a large number of people work with remote teams/employees and are constantly on calls. Its a complete PITA.

I WFH as often as I can get away with, but my previous habits/skills of focus and concentration have significantly deteriorated in all aspects of my life. I'm actively working on ways to combat this, but I fear without a more comprehensive lifestyle change my success will be limited. (thankfully the one thing I can still do is disappear into a book for hours)

<comment> at-fates-hands >> I wonder if I'm using the wrong terms.

Nah, you're using the correct terms.

One company I worked at had a bunch of octagon tables, pushed together and your monitors would face each other. Another one, I had cubicles like the ones you referenced and we were told it was an open office concept as well.

Another company I worked at had super high (like 8' high) cubicle walls for their customer service people and other people (sales team, account managers) who were on the phone constantly, which would be awesome for privacy and noise. Ironically, all the developers sat at long picnic like tables, shoulder to shoulder working, it was the worst. I only last a month before leaving since it felt so much like a sweatshop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Article about/interview with the author of the blog here: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/08/woolwich- foo...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/08/woolwich-foot-tunnel- portals-of-london)

</comment><comment><USER10> I hope the SCP guys don't see this. They'll want to contain it, and I have to walk through the thing about twice a week.

<comment><USER11> On the plus side, they are always short of Class C personnel if you don't mind.

<comment><USER12> Class Cs are practically always criminals. There's never been any shortage of them that I'm aware of, either.

<comment><USER10> I think you're thinking of D-class.

<comment><USER13> "D" for "Disposable", these are supposedly death-row inmates. However, since SCP has hundreds of thousands of D-class personnel, this claim is slightly dubious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Speaking of anomalies, tunnels and London. On the Piccadilly line between Hyde Park Corner and Green Park it feels like the tube train takes forever while going at great speed. Yet the distance is barely half a mile.

Mind you it has been a decade since I've taken the ride, but at the time it puzzled me.

<comment><USER15> There's a handful of stations on the tube where above ground they're but a few minutes walk even though underground the train takes much longer (and I believe I much more circuitous path). IIRC you can actually jump out at the platform and run above ground to the next station before the train arrives.

Edit: Here's a guy racing the Circle Line from Mansion House to Cannon Street [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH_Z8Ghuq6E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH_Z8Ghuq6E)

<comment><USER16> I know than a lot of the lines had to follow weird quirky routes as they are built under the roads, not the houses. This was something to do with the cost of getting permission to build under other people's properties IIRC

<comment><USER17> No eminent domain law in the UK?

<comment><USER18> Eminent domain comes from English common law. The crown ultimately owns everything (i.e. holds eminent domain). Your "fee simple" property allows you to hold rights in the property in perpetuity in exchange for a simple fee (as opposed to a lease). The crown still holds eminent domain, however, and can take it away. The "constitutional" part of "constitutional monarchy" does create a process and establish compensation and such so that your rights can't be taken away arbitrarily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hmm, so first the whizz through very fast -too fast-, then they are "down there all day but is was still morning." Still, perhaps that's what an anomaly about.

Nice story for around a camp fire.. Or a Star Trek episode.

<comment><USER20> While there are some inconsistencies (why are the repairs behind schedule if they can consume more time in the tunnel than passes outside?), the point you brought up is perfectly consistent.

They feel like they're walking for 15 minutes in the tunnel, but pop out the other end after only 1. They feel like they're working all day in the tunnel, but pop out after being in there for less than an hour.

<comment><USER19> Haha, you're right indeed! How un-intuitive time anomalies are. They only seem to whizz through in the time of the others of course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> But let me guess, it stops working once it's open to the public?

<comment><USER22> Last line:

> The tunnel was re-opened in early 2012. No time-discrepancies have been > reported since that date.

Hypothesis:

> There is some anecdotal evidence that temporary spaces, or spaces > temporarily under a different use, lend themselves to time anomalies, and > the Woolwich event would appear to support this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Some people in this thread seem to be taking this story at face value, astoundingly. Let's be clear: "Time working differently inside the tunnel" is, with 100% certainty, not was was going on.

More plausible (not mutually exclusive) explanations:

\- The workers messing with each other (and possibly their bosses) to have a laugh and/or forge work hours

\- There was a bike hidden in the tunnel

\- The workers were coordinating with each other by radio or by phone

\- It didn't take as long to traverse the tunnel as people really thought

\- Without daylight cues, it became very easy to lose track of time

\- The workers were surprised or confused by ultimately ordinary circumstances, and a mystical explanation spread and socially validated itself, bolstered by the power of suggestion.

</comment><comment><USER24> Reminded me of this old classic: [http://www.rioranchomathcamp.com/Topology/SubwayNamedMobius....](http://www.rioranchomathcamp.com/Topology/SubwayNamedMobius.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER25> Only a matter of time before the author gets a job-offer-you-can't-refuse from the Laundry.

</comment><comment><USER26> I guess I'll take the ferry next time ;) See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73X6pur0rEk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73X6pur0rEk) for more context.

</comment><comment><USER27> On a related note I was glad to see this strange artefact of the internet was still in existence. I contributed a small amendment probably nearly 10 years ago: [http://www.entrances2hell.co.uk/](http://www.entrances2hell.co.uk/)

<comment><USER27> Found it: [http://entrances2hell.co.uk/page322.html](http://entrances2hell.co.uk/page322.html)

Sadly the comments have vanished but I pointed out the photo was actually taken in Crystal Palace (I know that spot well as it's where the old derelict High Level Railway Station used to be - a place I explored in my youth: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/see-inside-the- se...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/see-inside-the-secret- victorian-station-left-abandoned-in-london/)

I sent in a comment pointing out the anomaly and offered an explanation in keeping with the back story such as it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I now intend to get desk and some CAT-5e down there.

<comment><USER29> Careful with the NTP syncing...

<comment><USER30> Or 50Hz power, or power at all, for that matter.

Or mobile signal.

<comment><USER28> I'll get a small rack and be completely self sufficient down there. I'll just make code deployments by CD-ROM via the lift.

Like a binary dumb-waiter.

<comment><USER31> Considering that thing come up before they leave, there are some fascinating opportunities for new models of computing.

Wanna win every Bitcoin block?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is a wonderful example of slipstream fiction, similar to weird fiction.

</comment><comment><USER33> Would explain why the clock is always wrong in those damn lifts.

</comment><comment><USER34> But who was phone?</comment>


Sitting continously for long periods is very harmful to our health - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2012/05/09/152336802/stand-up-walk-around-even-just-for-20-minutes

<comment><USER2> I can personally attest to this. 25 years of software development has blown my L5 disc, causing unbelievable pain and sciatica-like symptoms.</comment>


Oracle Sues Lodsys - <AUTHOR> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120604161143147

<comment><USER2> Mirror mirror on the wall, what's the most hated company of them all?

<comment><USER3> Intellectual Ventures!

<comment><USER4> Isn't there speculation that Lodesys is a derivative of IV?

<comment><USER5> It's still speculation. Lodsys has come out to flat out deny any partnership or involvement in any way[1], but the #078 patent was originally assigned to Ferrera Etherial LLC in 2004, and then Webvention LLC in 2009, and then finally to Lodsys in 2010. A 2009 Law.com article [2] cites Ferrara Ethereal LLC as a shell company of IV. There is no knowledge of who or what Webvention is, except that it holds a ghost office in the same area as many other known or speculated shell companies IV operates.

Useful trivia: #7,222,078 [3] also happens to be the main patent behind Lodsys v. (independent iOS and Android developers), with #7,620,565 [4] backing it up. Lodsys only holds 4 patents, all four are cited as

[1] [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/441/w...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack)

[2] [http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?i...](http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202436141846&slreturn=1)

[3] <http://www.google.com/patents?vid=7222078>

[4] <http://www.google.com/patents?vid=7620565>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm reminded of Henry Kissinger's quip on the Iran-Iraq war:

"It's too bad they both can't lose."

<comment><USER7> Is it just me or does that sentence mean that both can only win?

Are you sure it is not: "It's too bad they can't both lose."

<comment><USER8> You are correct, but English is not as strict as math. You can read it as "It's too bad"->"It's not possible" "they both"->"for both of them" "can't lose."->"to loose".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Fascinating suit. I am wondering about the impact of cases like Bilski v. Kappos (cannot patent hedge fund algorithms), Prometheus v. Mayo (you can patent a method of testing, but not now to interpret the results), and Caraco v. Novo Nordisk (not really on scope of patent act but another indicator of hostility against abuse of our patent system, essentially using another act to strike down method of use patents as a method to keep exclusive access to a drug market in the US) on this one.

Basically it seems to me that in the last few years, the Supreme Court has tightened up criteria on what can be patented and how those patents can be used, so as to prevent abuses aimed at overly broad patents.

Anyway, it's strange to be rooting for Oracle here. BRB while I grab the popcorn.

</comment><comment><USER10> Heel Face Turn? <http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeelFaceTurn>

<comment><USER11> If we are looking for fictional analogies, the one that strikes me is "It was evil against evil in the ruins of Shadar Logoth ... foul fighting vile." <http://www.dragonmount.com/forums/topic/56250-mordeth/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Great PR move from Oracle. Playing bad cop, good cop. I think this is purely about getting some love from the crowd that critized them for the Google suit.

<comment><USER13> Nah. They don't care what that crowd thinks. I think PJ got it right in the article. Lodsys is probably threatening Oracle customers with patents that cover Oracle software. If that's true, Oracle is suing to take away the threat from Lodsys. They also get to signal to customers and trolls that they won't put up with this sort of thing. Makes a lot of sense.

[edit for grammar]

<comment><USER14> See Bryan Cantrill's talk from LISA: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&feature=player_detailpage#t=2136s) , where he has a good comparison of not anthromorpizing Larry Ellison and Oracle. Paraphrased, "Think of him of as a lawnmower. The lawnmower doesn't care about opensourcing Solaris. The lawnmower _can't_ care about it, it's a lawnmower".

Oracle cares about making money and protecting their revenue stream. Getting Lodsys of the backs of their customers is one way of doing that.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, I saw that - some great stuff in there, particularly on the history of Solaris. It's great context for understanding what's going on in the Illumos world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Has Oracle pivoted to become a law firm?

<comment><USER16> This is pretty much business as usual for the enterprise space. Threatening a company's customers tends to illicit a response.

<comment><USER17> > illicit

Or elicit, if it's legal.

<comment><USER16> I swear I typed the e - autocorrect is not my friend (heck, most times I type "the" it keeps changing to "he").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There's no content in the article about which four patents are at issue or what their significance is. Anyone recognize these?

       5,999,908 "Customer-Based Product Design Module"
       7,133,834 "Product Value Information Interchange Server"
       7,222,078 "Methods and System for Gathering Information from Units of a Commodity"
       7,620,565 "Customer-Based Product Design Module"

<comment><USER19> The patents share a common inventor (Daniel H. Abelow).

The patents all descend from the '998 patent ( <http://imgur.com/dJT7o> ): the '834 patent is a continuation of the '908, the '565 is a continuation of the '834, and the '078 is a continuation of a different continuation of the '908.

The patents have been in ~15 to 25 suits, depending on the patent and including declaratory judgment actions, since 2011.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I get the impression that Oracle's antics the last couple of months could have been moves done on behalf of Apple.

It's no secret that Larry and Steve were good friends, and purchasing Sun, just so Oracle could sue Google seems like something that could plausibly happen.

Similarly, Oracle suing a patent troll that was previously hounding Apple and their developers sounds just as likely.

<comment><USER21> For others who are slow: He means Larry Ellison, not Larry Page.

<comment><USER22> If Apple wanted to buy Sun's patents to sue Google, why didn't Apple just do it themselves? Jobs already declared "thermonuclear war" on Android, after all.

<comment><USER23> Oracle wanted Java more than Apple wanted Sun's patents, at a guess, and Java+Patents in a friendly Oracle's hands doesn't do Apple any harm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It would have been nice if apple could have done this months ago when Lodsys started going after mobile app developers. Nice move by Oracle.

<comment><USER4> Apple _did_ step in...

[http://gamepolitics.com/2012/04/13/apple-wins-motion- lodsys-...](http://gamepolitics.com/2012/04/13/apple-wins-motion-lodsys- patent-fight)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> And just like that, from being disrespected and the world wanting them to lose, they will now be immensely popular with the world cheering for them!

On a serious note, I think if Oracle wins this, maybe there can be a system that can be setup that is cost effective to invalidate most patents.</comment>


Show HN: Text-to-Speech service - <AUTHOR> https://www.innoetics.com/ <comment><USER2> According to Linkedin, the company was founded in 2006.

[https://www.linkedin.com/company/innoetics- ltd](https://www.linkedin.com/company/innoetics-ltd)</comment>


General formula for bi-aspheric singlet lens design free of spherical aberration - <AUTHOR> https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-57-31-9341 <comment><AUTHOR> Gizmodo provides some context on this discovery: [https://gizmodo.com/a-mexican-physicist- solved-a-2-000-year-...](https://gizmodo.com/a-mexican-physicist- solved-a-2-000-year-old-problem-tha-1837031984)

I'm not a physicist, so I take their claims with a grain of salt, but this seems like an important find.</comment>


Python vs. PHP: Supply-side question - <AUTHOR>

Considering moving to Python for a new project.  In listing plusses in minuses one that came-up was "good programmer supply".
I know that there are tons of PHP programmers out there.  Good programmers is a different matter.  I have no clue as to what the scenario might be like in the Python world.  If it matters, I'm in Los Angeles, although I am completely open to working with a remote team.
Any thoughts? <comment><USER2> You can find good php programmers (if you accept the premise that good php programmers can exist... some won't.) I don't think that's necessarily a limiting factor if you're willing to fish for them.

You've probably already considered this but it might help filtering to require experience with a proper framework like symfony or laravel, which will have handled most of the "good programming" work for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> For PHP I was looking at Yii</comment></comment>


Ask HN: "Doing Business, where?": My state or the clients? - <AUTHOR> If I work with remote clients, selling my services online, where does the law consider me to be doing business at?<p>Do I have to register my company in each state where I have a client, or can I gain the benefits of registering in Nevada for instance, while living in Illinois, doing work for a client in Georgia? <comment><USER2> I am not a lawyer. If your concerns are serious then it is worth paying one. The internet is not a substitute but is a useful proxy for how serious one's concerns actually are.

1\. Context aside, it depends on the business and the state and the scale of the business...and also the locality because local business taxes are also a thing in many places. Probably the biggest factor is scale. Someone doing $10k of turnover a year probably isn't worth pursuing even if they are technically violating a the tax code of some state and/or locality. Doing $10 million might be another matter.

2\. To me, energy spent on avoiding taxes is often misdirected. Getting more clients -- or even better -- better clients will usually provide much more bang on the bottom line. It's just that those things are hard and following rules and filing paper work is easy and avoiding taxes has warm fuzzies and lets someone brag over beers. But taxes are just a cost of doing business and profits are a better proxy for success than tax rate...I mean if you want to pay zero taxes, just don't make any money.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not a lawyer, but my understanding is:

1\. "can I gain the benefits of registering in Nevada for instance, while living in Illinois" \- no. If you have an employee in a state, or work there, you have a legal nexus there. At minimum this means registering as "foreign" corporation. So it doesn't save you fees in Illinois.

2\. As far as "client is in Georgia" \- mostly you're not considered as having a nexus in Georgia. _But_ California says "if you make more than 25% of revenue in California you have to pay some tax here" IIRC.

Nolo has good resources by people who actually know something: [https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-income-tax- an-...](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-income-tax-an-overview- state-business-tax-laws.html)</comment>


About.me Buys Itself Back from AOL - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/about-me-buys-itself-back-from-aol/ <comment><USER2> It was curious when AOL bought About.me four days after About.me launched. 4 days. That's insanely fast. Tony Conrad must have friends at AOL.

What's curious is buying the company back. Maybe Conrad is returning a favor?

In the end, what About.me brings to the table is pretty boring. You want a personal site? There are 10,000 ways to do that. I don't see the value in it personally...and maybe AOL doesn't either, but the host of VC's lining up for About.me's $5.7 million financing round must.

<comment><USER3> Conrad's company previous to About.me, Sphere, was purchased by AOL in 2008:

[http://techcrunch.com/2008/04/14/aol-buys-sphere-content- eng...](http://techcrunch.com/2008/04/14/aol-buys-sphere-content-engine/)

<comment><USER4> And Tony stayed at AOL for something close to two years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Anyone interested what we had to say when it was purchased in the first place:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2025764>

Still, bubble's been going a while now hasn't it! I think this was when a lot of people here started saying 'bubble!'. Me included. If it's a bubble, it's becoming a big old one.

<comment><USER6> A bubble can brew and stew for years, the original dotcom bubble did for example. No two bubbles ever act the same either of course. This one might rumble longer but be more shallow, and it might constantly shift focus as all the cheap money hops from hype to hype (until the cheap money goes away that is).

Not to mention I think it's necessary to account for people jumping the gun early due to a reflex from fallout of the last bubble.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > _"People shouldn't leave it to Google to define who they are based on an > algorithm," Mr. Conrad said, adding that there is not one place that defines > a person's identity online._

I know this is just marketing speak, but it is still deliciously ironic...Isn't about.me's success dependent on Google rewarding it for its SEO friendly title,h1 tags and short links?

<comment><USER8> The statement isn't anti-Google or anti-SEO for businesses or individual websites. It's just pointing out that googling someone isn't useful if their online identity is spread over a bunch of websites.

<comment><USER9> The business of reputation management is becoming more and more challenging for regular folk, business owners and professional services providers. Site like about.me give people the opportunity to list their official profiles and places where the comments should be considered to be the true word of the author. I can't tell you how many times I have found either twitter accounts or facebook pages that are not the "official" version for a person or company. I still like the concept of saying - these site are directly connected to .me

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From the co-founder quotation in the article: "There's no obvious leverage in being part of the AOL media network, and there's no synergy and integration." That's the rub. AOL used to have more "network effects" than everyone else in the online business, and that didn't help them figure out how to provide value for their business partners. My prediction for Facebook corresponds to this: "Facebook will go the way of AOL, still being a factor in the industry years from now, but also serving as an example of a company that could never monetize up to the level of the hype surrounding it." Gathering millions of pairs of eyeballs is a wonderful achievement, but helping business partners for your network find value by how they are able to reach users through your network is even more wonderful.

AFTER EDIT: The submission of the story here did more to prompt me to interact with About.me than anything I've done on an AOL property in the last two years, so I guess it is a good move for About.me to go independent again.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think About.me should go after the work networking space in some manner that gets them out of the 'personal page' business. It's a huge space that LinkedIn isn't going to own all of. Just like there's room for Pinterest and Twitter (among others) along with Facebook, there's room for other large LinkedIn variations.

</comment><comment><USER11> I find About.me interesting. It strikes the right balance of being easy to use, useful, and providing value. I certainly _could_ build my own similar profile page, but it would not be nearly as simple. And it's something of a social network, one I could actually see paying (a small fee) for.

As opposed to, say, App.net.

</comment><comment><USER12> just want to mention that flavors.me, stared by a former Vimeo employee, does the same thing as about.me, has been around longer, and has a better UX. I'm not getting paid, I just like the service and get annoyed when it's not acknowledged as an obvious competitior to about.me

</comment><comment><USER13> Not the first time this has happened!

Fleaflicker sold to AOL April 2008, bought back July 2011.

</comment><comment><USER14> Congratulations to Tony, he's managed to follow one of those rare startup journeys and buy-back his start-up at a profit, and escape the fate that Brizzly encountered.

</comment><comment><USER15> I still respect Conrad for making the initial sale (supposedly) for the benefit of his team, who, unlike Conrad himself, hadn't experienced a startup exit yet.

<comment><USER16> Before founding About.me he was a Co-Founder and CEO of Sphere, when it sold to Aol in 2008 for $25M[1]

He's also a founding member and partner at True Ventures which he has seen exits such as: Oddpost (acquired by Yahoo!), Iconoculture (acquired by Corporate Executive Board), MusicNow (acquired by Circuit City), and Centive (acquired by Xactly)[2]

[1] <http://gigaom.com/2008/04/14/aol-buys-sphere/>

[2] <http://www.trueventures.com/member/tony-conrad/>

<comment><USER4> It's not like we made all that much at sphere. Beats a kick in the ass tho, but none of us got rich.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What do you guys think about using about.me as a personal business card? My personal homepage design is getting really long in the tooth and don't really have time for at redesign.

Would you prefer the about page at about.me or using your own domain and design?

<comment><USER18> If you're not a web designer, I don't really care that you've designed your own webpage. If an about.me page (or similar template profile) presents you better, then absolutely rely on that for your first impression.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> So who here uses about.me?

<comment><USER20> I would have used it, but it always said the username I wanted was unavailable (despite the page saying "This name is available!").

Then last month it suddenly became the page of a SF-based developer, which seems to happen all the time for 'unavailable', but unused, names. Pretty annoying.

<comment><USER21> Hey pidg - sorry about that. It was probably an early reserved username. If anyone else runs into this we can help at help(@)about.me.

<comment><USER20> Hey, thanks for responding!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why are all the startups in SF? - <AUTHOR>

There are so many startups in SF. What is the advantage for a startup being in SF? The rent is crazy high, salaries need to be higher due to rent, lot of competition for a skilled developer, etc. <comment><USER2> Firstly, SF != Bay Area (some people on this thread seem to conflate the two). SF is only part of the Bay Area.

Despite what mchannon and deadfall say, the concentration of startups in SF, versus other areas in the Bay Area, actually does not have to do with money. SF is actually relatively far from venture capital than other places in Silicon Valley. Most venture capital firms are based out of the peninsula (1 hour south of SF), in suburbian cities like Mountain View (YC and 500 Startups), Palo Alto, and Menlo Park (pretty much every VC firm, like KPCB, Sequoia, A16z, Greylock).

Most people live in SF because 1) Young engineers/designers/others prefer living there, and 2) the density of startups/entrepreneurship is greater. The chances of you serendipitously running into someone "useful" is much higher - the sheer quantity of networking events, technology events, social events, etc. is mind-boggling. Compared to SF, there is literally nothing going on in Mountain View/Palo Alto/Menlo Park.

</comment><comment><USER3> Being here for 2.5 years and knowing a pretty good amount of people in the startup world all I can say is money. There is money to be had here. It is the new gold rust. I came from North Carolina with nothing to lose and everything to gain. I am not looking for capitol. I want knowledge. There are so many amazing engineers here in a verity of fields. I love the inspiration and the conversations I have. You never know who you will meet or what VC's house you will end up having a few drinks at. I love the bay and I have no plan to move anytime soon.

On a side note, the weather is not bad. The beach and mountain hiking in the redwoods is a short drive away. A little further and you have some of the best snowboarding and ski in the winter.

</comment><comment><USER4> Startups (ones that will eventually grow) need funding. There's arguably more startup-accessible funding available in the bay area than the rest of the world combined.

There's a half dozen other factors, but most of them end up relating closely to funding sources.

</comment><comment><USER5> Industries tend to cluster. Automakers in Detroit, investment banks in New York, country record labels in Nashville, movie studios in Hollywood. If you start a startup in SF, you get a built-in talent pool that you wouldn't necessarily get in Miami. Yes you pay higher salaries due to the cost of living, but you get a bigger selection of candidates (to whom you'd have to pay relocation fees to move them elsewhere). Plus, SF is just a cool place...walkable, great nightlife, culture. You don't get these things in a place like Phoenix.

</comment><comment><USER6> Having lived in the Bay Area for more than half a decade, I can confidently say it has a lot to do with the fact that many people prefer to live in SF than in the suburbs (night life, etc) and building a company in SF is an attractive thing compare to asking people to commute (even if there are people doing it).

</comment><comment><USER7> Startups need people. People need to have a life. SF offers precisely that!</comment>


Unfortunately-Named Programming Terms - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jab/unfortunately-named-programming-terms <comment><USER2> Yes, this is an issue. Couple of thoughts:

(A) The second and third definitions of "key" are not different. We talk about "private key" and "public key". A _key_ in this sense is information provided to a transformation algorithm to tell it how to do the transformation. If we do not wish others to be able to do the transformation, then we keep the key secret. The secrecy should not be part of the definition of "key".

(B) What about _key_ as in "sorting key"? That's a bit like definition 1, but not quite.

(C) An issue that feels related to me is when all synonyms for a particular concept are defined as technical terms, and we run out of words to use. Say I want to talk about what "type of thing" something is. I can't use "type"; that means something very specific. So does "sort". So does "category". So does "class". I used to use "kind", but then somebody made a technical term out of that, too.[1] What's left? "Breed"? "Ilk"?

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kind_%28type_theory%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kind_%28type_theory%29)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't agree with the 'difficult to google' label, because you can easily find relevant results on all of these terms through Google.

<comment><USER4> Maybe if you know the right incantations to whisper to your search engine, but remember that beginners often won't. And even then, overloaded terms like "set" and "map" routinely yield bogus results for non-beginners too. The point is realizing you have to jump through these hoops, when Stockholm Syndrome may be preventing you from even noticing. See also [https://twitter.com/dakami/status/593325912663326720](https://twitter.com/dakami/status/593325912663326720)</comment></comment>


Maybe Americans aren't dumb enough to keep buying houses? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2011/05/13/soft-housing-prices-maybe-americans-just-arent-dumb-enough-to-keep-buying-houses/ <comment><USER3> Five years ago, I thought about buying a home, and everyone around me was saying "You HAVE to buy a home. Don't THROW AWAY YOUR MONEY by renting. Houses NEVER lose value."

While it's obvious that this flawed logic existed five years ago before the bubble burst, I'm surprised at how much of it still remains. I'm surprised that consumers are still trying to play numbers games to justify purchasing homes, but perhaps as the OP suggests, the supply of buyers is less than before. If you want to buy a home for lifestyle reasons, great, but make sure that's clear; there are so many people who are stuck in their homes without a job because they thought they were clever at math.

When my wife and I were figuring out what to do with our lives, we decided to put my finding a good job above owning a home. Because of this, I was able to accept a job in NYC and move from the suburbs of Atlanta without worrying about selling a home in a horrible real estate market.

We'll consider buying a home after I feel more rooted in the tech industry, but for now, we appreciate the flexibility that renting affords.

<comment><USER4> A very valid point. As others have stated, buying a home should be more about quality of life and living than making a buck and that has to be on your time schedule; not someone else's. The worst thing you can ever do is buy a home when you're not ready for a home -- and you know better than anyone else if you're ready.

When you start waking up in the morning and thinking "god damn, I wish I had a home, so I could . . ." then it might be time to start giving it consideration. For me, I had dealt with a home invasion. I'd lived in my apartment for five years and someone walked in while I was asleep and stole everything (the layout of the apartment was such that I wasn't disturbed by the intruder - if you were in the back bedroom, you couldn't even hear someone banging on the front door). I lived alone. Nobody else had keys . . . except the leasing and maintenance offices. Took $30k worth of stuff.

So, I started waking up in the mornings feeling a bit unsafe, wishing I had a sweet surveillance/alarm system, and also thinking about how great it would be to have room for my entertainment system (and get to blast it as loud as I wanted). Also, I kind of still want to get a dog and that wouldn't have worked in the apartment. Enough things started to bug me that I just sat up one day and said "let's go look at houses".

Until you are home shopping for those reasons (or similar reasons of your own), then you may be doing it for all the wrong reasons. Maybe because friends are all buying homes. Maybe because you feel like you're still a "kid" as long as you keep renting. Who knows?

In the mean time, definitely don't buy into the idea that you have to go for it because people around you are talking about it and you feel like you're missing out. You might be the sanest of them all. I didn't buy a home until I was starting into my 30s. I could have done it a decade before and went so far as to check out homes and even get approved for loans. It just never felt quite right, until last year. And I have been happy that I finally did so, when I did.

Well-being accounts for a lot, too. Whatever you may be losing "on paper" with renting, you may be compensated for in peace of mind, right now. You can focus on work and savings and family rather than finding a trustworthy and affordable lawn service, worrying if your boiler is going to make it another year, wondering why in the hell that sink is draining slowly, when it isn't clogged up, wondering how much it would cost to turn that spare room into a sex dungeon. . .

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's really difficult to make general statements about the wisdom of buying versus renting across an entire country with extremely diverse local real estate markets. We made an up-to-date heat map of US rent ratios here: <http://hotpads.com/search/rent-ratio-heat-maps> that demonstrates how some markets, even at the state level, are still tilted toward the buyer while others favor renters.

<comment><USER6> I think that it's not just an issue of region but also of price range. I am a life long renter and I've seen that rents tend to stay within a certain band - they only go so low or so high generally. So a small apartment might be still $1200 to rent vs. a mortgage of $1100 whereas for a high end home, rents might only get to say $5k or $6k vs. a mortgage of $12k on the same home. I rent a house for $4500 per month that would cost me a $7500 mortgage if I bought it.

Another issue is the fact that not everyone can buy a house that they're going to realistically want to live in for 30 years. Your family grows, you change cities due to job opportunities, etc.

So for the guy who knows he's going to be single and stay put, it may make sense for him to buy a $200k house instead of paying $1200 in rent for an apartment. But for many others, buying makes absolutely no sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are a few defensive home owners in this thread who seem to be missing the point:

The main problem is that the general public sees renting as throwing money away, and that owning a home is unconditionally "better".

I'll make the assumption that this community has higher-than-average financial literacy, and hence there are people who have made the right decision with respect to rent/buy. However, I don't think this is true in general, and often times the rent/buy choice is much, MUCH closer than people assume.

</comment><comment><USER8> The rent vs buy index is misleading. I used to live in Ann Arbor where rent is mediocre, but home prices are ridiculous. On paper the ratio still looks pretty good because the median rental property is downtown while the median home for sale is in the suburban neighborhoods. I was on the board of a downtown housing cooperative and the ROI on properties in the downtown area was nonexistent. I moved 5 miles to the east to rough around the edges Ypsilanti and the situation was completely reversed. You can have a house downtown paid off with 5 years of rent payments. Further out you go into the surrounding farmland, the lower rent becomes and the higher sale prices get.

<comment><USER9> Interesting. The perception when I was in school was that the rent was too damn high. I never really looked at house prices, but I knew someone who got into a 2 bedroom off Main near Stadium for around $190k (in 2005 or so), which seemed reasonable considering its location.

related: Ann Arbor/Detroit HN group <http://groups.google.com/group/hn-ann- arbor-detroit>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Can we just all agree that owning a business is the real American dream and whatever you choose to do (rent or buy) after that has significantly less affect on your situation than owning your own business?

I would certainly rather own a business that generates whatever my rent or mortgage would be, than to own a house that costs me that mortgage.

</comment><comment><USER11> Referencing Zillow is the first indication you have no clue about the real estate market.

Two examples: The house I live in has a carriage house behind it. It's zoned as a rental, has a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and about 800 sq ft of studio type space with about a 15 ft ceiling. Does this information appear on my Zillow page? Nope. Zillow has no way to enter that type of information and its valuation is missing this very crucial bit of info.

Secondly, where I used to live (in the mountains above Boulder), there was a house for sale next door. It was on one acre and was a modified single wide trailer. Zillow said it was worth $350,000. They said the property I was living on next to it (5 acres, a main house twice the size of our neighbor and a detached cabin) was worth $420,000. Seemed way off to me. Well, the house next door went for sale and sold for $149,000.

After that, I don't trust Zillow at all. They have a lot of work to do before someone could take any statistics they provide seriously.

</comment><comment><USER12> Perspectives obviously vary by market and circumstance. In mine I'm fine with renting. I tend to stick around the 1700/mo range in NYC. For that, I don't have to own a car or the maintenance and depreciation associated with it. I still pay transit, but it is significantly less than the cost I paid in Ohio to drive 40-60 miles to work.

My income mirrors my actual worth. I've seen people shortchanged because companies know that person is chained to a mortgage. I'm not paying maintenance, insurance, or front loaded interest on a home. (Tax deductible not that impressive)

After rent is subtracted from my net pay I still have enough to turn around and invest in a diverse array of investment options. A home is a savings account with a maintenance fee. Viewing it as anything else IMHO is wishful thinking. An apartment is that same service fee condensed. Remember, in my situation both the house and a car have costs I don't have to worry about.

Having freed myself of those problems I have much more spare time, more investment options, and flexibility. I'm perfectly ok with not having a lawn, neighbors degrading property values, or surprise expenses. To other people those negatives are perfectly acceptable, they cite the lack of space, public transit, and neighbors as negatives. I don't mind any of them.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think it's interesting to compare Greenspun's attitude to Mike Rowe's recent Senate testimony about the lack of skilled workers in the trades in the US. Greenspun thinks that going to Home Depot and pulling weeds clutters the mind and prevents us from writing novels and building empires. Mike Rowe wishes that we weren't a nation of people who just left a check on the counter for the plumber.

I rented for years, and not being able to fix stuff when it broke (without losing the investment when we moved) drove me crazy. I feel a strong desire to maintain my own home, even though I know I'd do better financially hiring cheap labor to do the work while I go make money faster building an empire.

</comment><comment><USER14> Wrong, Americans aren't dumb enough to buy houses until prices drop to pre- bubble prices.

Prices are still kinda crazy and unjustified compared to 2005.

Also, the average person can probably not get credit anymore and the wealthy desire only so many 2nd homes.

<comment><USER15> One data point, we just bought our house (Berkeley CA) in January for the exact same price the previous owners purchased it on 2003.

My sister closed 5 days ago on a house in a very desirable part of Mountain View CA. Through their process they had houses with up to 25 bids.

I'm seeing (anecdotally, in the SF Bay Area) a lot of people buying right now. These are generally savvy folks too, they're putting 20%+ down getting awesome fixed rates, and staying well within their means . We may still see a slight dip in prices but my feeling is that we've bottomed out a bit here and on the way up. We think we'll be able to sell our house in 5-10 years and make a profit. That may be wishful thinking, but I'm fairly confident in that position, especially as the tech sector heats up.

The tricky thing about the SF Bay Area however is its very resistent to outside pressures, it was one of the last places hit and will likely be on of the first to recover. Its very hard to time a bottom in the housing market here.

<comment><USER16> _Through their process they had houses with up to 25 bids._

Can you please clarify what these means?

<comment><USER4> I think he just means that there were 25 offers on the house.

<comment><USER16> But he said houses plural.

<comment><USER17> They were looking to buy a house and some of the houses they were looking at were in such high demand that up to 25 different people had put offers on them.

<comment><USER16> Thanks for clarifying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One of the things that he's critically missed is that it's unfair to only compare the price of buying vs. the price of renting _today_. When you purchase a house, your mortgage is set for the term of the mortgage. Rent is usually only set for a year at a time and does go up.

The NY Times buy vs. rent calculator in the article that he links, uses 3% as a baseline rent increase per year. So, after 5 years, a $1500 rent could be expected to cost $1740. That's not too impressive if you assume it's a place worth $375k and at his 2% taxes and maintenance price, you'd have $625 in costs in addition to the mortgage - well over the $240 that the rent had risen. However, after 15 years, that theoretical rent would have risen to $2300 and eclipsed the cost of taxes and maintenance. Now, as home values rise, taxes would rise with it, but then you own something that you can sell for more money and have made a good investment so it isn't a good argument to say, "well, one's home could go up in value a lot every year which would mean more taxes."

It depends on what you're buying a property for. Frankly, the NY Times calculator ([http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent- calcula...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent- calculator.html)) is going to be a lot better than my crude calculations. However, if you're buying a property to stay in for a good while, it can be a better idea to buy. The costs of selling don't matter that much when you've stayed in a place for a long time. It also depends on your market. I've priced things out in the Boston area against rent (more urban than Greenspun), and it really depends on how long you're going to stay in that place. Most of the cities here offer you a homestead exemption on your property taxes if you live there and it's usually around 200k - meaning that if you buy a place for $400k to live in rather than rent, you're actually only paying half the property tax rate. The towns tend not to have that exemption. So, if you want to be in one place for a decade, the calculator shows that buying can be a nice option.

Buying a house isn't something to go in for like buying an iPhone and getting a two-year cell phone contract. It requires a careful look at the costs and that you're relatively settled in life. It isn't a panacea of money, but it can be cheaper and can be stabilizing. While it isn't everyone, there are people who really like an area, have a job that won't see them have to move, and would stay in that house for 20-30 years.

\--

Plus, if you look at Trulia's rent-vs-buy index (<http://trulia.movity.com/rentvsbuy/>), you'll see that Greenspun has cherry- picked the worst cities to buy to do his calculations. Trulia notes that in 36 out of its 50 cities studied, it is "much less expensive to buy than rent". That includes real cities like Chicago, Wahsington DC, San Diego, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and Atlanta. He's used a buy-to-rent ratio of 30:1, but the average for the 50 cities shown is 14.22. So, we live in the Boston area and buying here is an expensive proposition that might not make sense. However, there are many places that have much more favorable ownership conditions. If you're in a market where the buy-to-rent ratio is below 15:1, the NY Times calculator will show you how favorable buying is. And, frankly, that's most of the country. Where Greenspun and I live seems to be the exception, not the rule and his calculations are based on data that doesn't apply to most people. It applies to him and it applies to me based on where we live, but it probably isn't something that one should generalize to the country.

<comment><USER19> Additionally the 3% rent increase theory may be true in aggregate, but doesn't take into account the real world practices of landlords. It's exceedingly common to list a property for a low lease then jack it up after the first lease term. They understand the friction of moving puts them in a better bargaining position the second year vs. first move in.

As a whole rates may increase 3% per year, but individually it will look more like a 7-10% increase the first year followed by 3% increases thereafter, unless you move.

<comment><USER20> I've rented for most of my life, and never seen that happen. In fact most leases I've signed switch to month-to-month after the first year, thus decreasing the friction.

<comment><USER4> When I rented last, my lease switched to month-to-month if you didn't sign up for a new term, too. It went from (at the last number) $1,200/mo under lease to something like $1,900/mo without a lease.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The real property inflation is in New Delhi and Mumbai, India. Real estate in Delhi is more expensive than New York. A house built on a 500 yards lot will set you back $6 million. Moreover, the real estate prices are growing @ 50% every year and high as 100% in some areas.

Compared to that, I would say houses in America are affordable. I hope India's real estate bubble gets burst.

</comment><comment><USER22> If you play around with the rent vs. buy calculator at the NY Times for a while, you will come to two conclusions:

1) The rent vs. buy decision is almost entirely based on your expectation of future house price changes versus rental prices changes. Everything else is around the edges.

2) Regardless of your opinion on the first question, you should never buy a house when you think there is a significant chance you will leave in less than five years.

I think housing will go down another 20-40% from here (causing widespread bank failures and eventually the dissolution of the Federal Reserve) and rents will be stable to down due to the deflationary pressures we are facing. Therefore, I will not buy a house.

YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm glad I bought a house, because paying $1,100/mo (including tax and insurance) for a 3,000sqft home with a yard where I can mostly do what I want and have control over my living environment and get a tax break on about half of that monthly payment sure beats the $1,200/mo I was paying for a 1,000sqft apartment in which I had been robbed of $30,000 during a home invasion where the person had a key (maintenance crew, surely, who had access to the keys) and let themselves in while I was sleeping.

The rent/own ratio may be different in San Francisco (where I've lived) and New York, but there's a lot of other country out there that exists besides those two and Seattle. There's Portland, Denver, Chicago. Plenty of places. I live in a fairly expensive city (on par with Portland, where I lived most of my life). Still, my house didn't cost a lot more than the mount I'd already paid in rent during my adult life. I did the math and I have paid about $170,000 in rent. That includes apartments I've lived in in Portland, San Francisco and Denver since 1999 and is not adjusted for inflation. It includes the 400sqft hellhole in San Jose that I paid $1,200/mo for in 2000 and the 400sqft studio and 585 sqft 1bdrm in Portland, and the 1,000sqft 2 bdrm in Denver. The house I bought last year was only $25,000 more than that. Even if my home loses a ton of value (and it probably has and will), at least at the end of paying $200k into it, I'll have something worth _something_ , versus what I have after about thirteen years of renting for $170,000 . . . which is _nothing_.

The real problem with the home market is that it's being artificially buoyed, to keep current home owners happy at the expense of houses dropping even more in price, so someone can reasonably eventually buy a home even if they're making an average income. After all, isn't that how the market is supposed to work? Stuff drops in price, other people get an opportunity to own that stuff who previously may have been priced out of participation.

Also, the article states that someone who just bought a house and lost 10% due to decrease in value plus commissions when selling is unlikely to enter the market again any time soon. Well, why are you buying a house just to sell it a few years later?

I bought my house so I could live in it. I would like it to increase in value, eventually, too. I'm not counting on it, but it would be nice. If it doesn't, at least I have a home to live in and will eventually own it (because I didn't buy the maximum house that my credit score and loanability would have allowed).

I don't know a lot about the housing market and I'm not an economist, but I do know that I'm glad I bought a house last year (with a rate under 5%) and wish I would have done so many years ago, instead of putting it off for a decade. (On the other hand, if I had done it a decade earlier, I probably would have taken a big hit over the last few years, so whatever).

Also, the other nice thing is that I'll be paying the same amount (except for tax changes) for the next 15-30 years that it takes me to pay off the house. In my apartment, I'd gone from paying $900 to $1,200/mo in only four years for the same unit. Oh, and I don't have people stomping on the floor above me 24x7, so I can't sleep. And I don't have to allow someone from the maintenance/leasing office come into my home nearly any time they want with a 24hr notice. And I can (and did) run ethernet in the walls. And I can (and did) setup my home theater and run it at 50% power instead of having neighbors complain when I ran it at 5%, before. And when I have a guest that stays for more than three days per year, total, I don't have to register them with the leasing office. And I know my neighbors and they have lived here for a couple decades and are friendly and helpful. I never even _saw_ the neighbors at my apartment.

So, yeah. I guess I'm dumb enough.

<comment><USER23> _Well, why are you buying a house just to sell it a few years later?_

Your post mentioned at least four different cities where you lived in an apartment. How would owning a house have changed your mobility? What would it have done to your overall cost of housing if you needed to sell one house and buy another?

<comment><USER24> I'd probably just rent my house out. Over the years I've purchased enough of the principle (by overpaying on the mortgage, the difference buys down the principle) that my monthly payment is about the same as the rental rate for a home this size in my area. Even if I lose a little bit every month, I'm just buying more of my own place with somebody else's money.

Something the parent mismentioned is not that he'll be paying $1000/mo 5 years from now while rental rates will simply go up, but you can actually reduce that rate now and free up more of your income for later. It's actually the sole reason I've been able to fund my co-founder to work on our startup full- time while I work a regular boring old day job, I've paid down so much of the principle the past few years that, along with pay raises from my day job, I have enough cash on hand to float another person for the foreseeable future.

<comment><USER25> "I'm just buying more of my own place with somebody else's money."

At the cost of incurring risks including but not limited to:

      - Property damage by renters and others.
      - Property damage by acts of god (flooding/fire/subsidence).
      - Default on payments & long eviction periods.
      - Low occupancy/months without rent.
      - Downward price movements in the market as a whole.
      - Downward price movements in your location due to ghettoization, tax increases, service/school decline, structural unemployment or other factors.

Could be worth it for the gain in equity, but it's something to think about - especially as some of these risks can't be insured against.

You are also forgoing returns on your existing equity if you invested it elsewhere. Risk free interest rates for retail deposits here in the UK are currently above 3% for example.

In addition to that you also have the costs (in time and money) of:

      - Management time/effort.
      - Time to deal with renters and searches.
      - Organizing maintenance.
      - Costs of credit scoring etc.

<comment><USER24> All good points. You have to figure in costs of use when renting. As it turns out in my locale, you can reduce your taxes when renting under the assumption that renters are beating your place up and thus reducing the property value.

I'm fortunate enough to live in an area where finding renters will never be a problem should I end up that route, but you make an excellent point about that.

Also, eviction periods are not too bad in most parts of the U.S., you can write terms into the lease that also help short fuse eviction on non-payment if many places.

The biggest concern I have above all others is just managing the renters. There are services you can hire to handle all that and maintenance, but they consume some not insignificant part of the rent as payment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> You have to pay something to have a place to live. If you rent a little townhome for $1700/month for just 5 years, that's over $100k gone with nothing tangible in return. Even if your house will depreciate $50k between buying and selling it, are you worse off than renting?

<comment><USER27> I think the point of the post is that, yes, often you _are_ worse off than renting. There are extra costs and responsibilities that come with owning, plus the substantial financial risk in case your home does drop in value.

Check the NYT rent calculator ([http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent- calcula...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent- calculator.html)) and see what the situation is if it costs you 30 years rent to buy a place. If the value does not appreciate, you have to rent go up at a rate comparable to mortgage interest and property taxes to even have a chance of breaking even after 30 years.

<comment><USER28> If you _buy_ a home, market fluctuations don't matter. It's your home, you are going to live in it. If you were in the business of flipping properties for a living, it would matter, but not if you buy.

If you toss a mortgage into the mix, which is what I gather most people mean when they say "buy" a house - then yes, market fluctuations can matter a lot - but these are two very distinct things.

<comment><USER4> Market fluctuations should only impact you when it comes time to sell. Unless your mortgage is an adjustable rate, which is part of the reason we're in this whole mess in the first place. Put enough payment down up front so that you can lock in a good rate that you can tolerate and don't play the ARM game. That seems like lose-lose, to me. Maybe things go really wonky and I find in five years that I could have locked in an even better rate if I just waited? Well, that sucks, I suppose -- but I locked my rate in at an amount that I was willing to commit to (and I bought far less house than I could afford, so that I had some long term wiggle room).

Unless I'm missing another aspect of potential impact, which is totally possible. I can barely tie my own shoes, sometimes. :)

<comment><USER28> Just curious (because I've never honestly looked) - can you really lock in a rate for the entire, say, 25 year length of the mortgage?

When I asked a mortgage broker friend (Canadian) about this not too long ago, it was explained to me that yes you could lock in a rate for the "term" - <USER2> the "term" was 5 years, and after 5 years it would be adjusted depending on the prime rate, etc..... so from what I gathered you coudln't actually just get a plain old "25 years, x%" mortgage.

<comment><USER29> In the US, it's standard to have a fixed rate for the entire life of the mortgage. It's my understanding that this state of affairs is due to US laws and that most other countries tend to have floating rate mortgages.

<comment><USER4> That may explain why renting is the norm in a lot of other countries and owning a home isn't considered a big deal (while, in America, it's almost an obligation before you can feel like you've made it). Shifting terms is unsettling. I don't know the history of loans in the states, but I wonder how much of the 30yr fixed was established in response to everyone returning from service after WWII and starting families and buying property?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Relevant:[http://www.khanacademy.org/video/renting-vs--buying-a- home?p...](http://www.khanacademy.org/video/renting-vs--buying-a- home?playlist=Finance)

</comment><comment><USER31> In my area at least, buying makes a lot of sense. Prices are at an all-time low, but rent hasn't gone down at all. The same type of house renting for $900/month can be had with a mortgage of $350/month. As long as you are comfortable with renting the place out when you want to move, it's had to imagine why buying would be 'stupid' right now.

</comment><comment><USER32> Its interesting to me and a testament to how the topic of housing impacts the psyche of Americans that even on Hacker News the emotional arguments take on a stronger conviction than the logical ones.

<comment><USER33> It is interesting, but it reminds me of the TV vs no TV argument. Very strange division here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> This thread reminds of those articles about how people without children are happier. Then a bunch of parents post how giving birth was the best decision they made.

</comment><comment><USER35> A bit off topic, but what justifies paying a realtor 5-6 percent in real estate commission anymore? Actually last time I talked to an agent about listing a property they quoted 7.5% but obviously that's negotiable.

Before the internet, realtors were the gatekeepers of "for sale" property information. But that's all online now. What do they really do to justify such a large cut on the transaction?

The times I have bought and sold a house with a realtor they actually did very little. They helped prepare the offer (using boilerplate that can be easily found online now, or you can pay a real-estate attorney a couple of hundred to prepare one) and introduced me to a couple of lenders, then showed up at the closing to get their check.

</comment><comment><USER36> _[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/business/economy/11leonhar...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/business/economy/11leonhardt.html) has some data on the price-to-rent ratio in various markets._

From a grammar perspective, I think this sentence is interesting. It is literally the first time I've ever seen a URL as the subject and first word of a sentence.

Of course, this violates everything I know about a) link sharing [0] and b) good writing, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[0] [http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/01/dont-say-click- here-o...](http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/01/dont-say-click-here-on-link- text/)

</comment><comment><USER37> Decades of personal experience shows that unless you can switch jobs without moving owning a house is a good way to lose money. It can also act as an anchor, preventing or delaying job changes that should be made.

</comment><comment><USER38> Khan Academy has a great series on renting vs buying

Part 1 [http://www.khanacademy.org/#/v/renting-vs--buying-a- home?p=F...](http://www.khanacademy.org/#/v/renting-vs--buying-a- home?p=Finance)

Part 2 [http://www.khanacademy.org/#/v/renting-vs--buying-a-home-- pa...](http://www.khanacademy.org/#/v/renting-vs--buying-a-home-- part-2?p=Finance)

Detailed analysis [http://www.khanacademy.org/#/v/renting-vs--buying-- detailed-...](http://www.khanacademy.org/#/v/renting-vs--buying--detailed- analysis?p=Finance)

</comment><comment><USER39> <http://patrick.net/housing/crash3.html> Analysis to help you decide whether to buy or rent.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Case-Shiller index chart showing home value fluctuation over the past 100+ years: [http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2011/04/2011...](http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2011/04/2011-Case-SHiller-updated.png)

It's pretty telling what you should do regarding buy or rent (beyond the NYT calculator).

</comment><comment><USER41> I have always wondered how the housing/renting market would be if mortgages were not tax deductible (or rents were also tax deductible).

<comment><USER42> The Realtor lobbying group (the National Association of Realtors) is bigger than Exxon's, number 4 on the list: <http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A>

Getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction would probably be the best thing to happen to the US since the Constitution. Especially for people in less than desirable neighborhoods. Slumlords wouldn't be able to function. Housing prices would go down, rents would go down, people who wanted to own could own affordably, and renting would be insanely affordable.

The U.S. Tax Code is one giant game that steals short-term investment power from the majority people (low to medium income people) and gives it to the wealthiest people for them to write new rules of the game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Well, if true, this is good news for cash flowing investment real estate purchases, on both sides...

Property Owners may have a better chance at returns, if they are able to raise rents to match inflation. And Property Managers (people to buffer the owner from the tenants) are typically charging 10% of rent. There is income to be made...

</comment><comment><USER44> If you think US rent-vs-own ratios is expensive than you have to check other countries. Every country from the developed western europe/canada/australia to the developing india/china to the thirdworld african countries have worst rent-vs-own ratio than US, yet the prices are still appreciating there.

</comment><comment><USER45> tl;dr: author feeling unhappy, unexcited and trapped, fears becoming boring, blames house ownership.

 _More and more Americans will be conditioned to the idea that home ownership is a waste of time and money, not to mention the inflexibility that it imposes on a person [..] That would barely pay for property tax, maintenance (winters are harsh), and landscaping (weeds are aggressive). [..] Another advantage for renters is that they can free their minds from the clutter that prevents homeowners from doing or thinking anything interesting. [..] The rest of us go to Home Depot every few days and pull weeds. [..] They withdraw themselves from the market of potential buyers, at least for 10 years or so until they forget what wounds they suffered and how boring they were when they owned._

</comment><comment><USER46> Why not? Americans, like most humans, are dumb enough to keep doing a long list of stupid things that would exceed a reasonable comment length if listed here. Usually the only time they stop a stupid activity is when it's impossible to continue.

</comment><comment><USER33> Those of you renting and hating on home ownership should ask yourself where you'd live if someone hadn't bought a home and allowed you to rent it from them.

<comment><USER47> Wrong argument.

Firstly, rented homes are not only from homeowners. Second and more importantly, for people that already have a home through say inheritance, or ability to pay outright cash, it makes sense for them to use it as a source of income. Not saying those are the only people for whom home-ownership makes sense, but the cases above are the easiest non-subjective examples to cite in favor of home-ownership.

And neither homeowners nor renters need be indebted to each other.

<comment><USER33> Personally, I don't understand the anti-mortgage sentiment at all. I can buy a home at 5%, and then use the money I'm saving to build something else in order to make a higher return. Point being is that it's not always black and white (banks bad, cash good).

Also, though homeowners aren't the only source of rental properties, outside of city life, they are the most prominent. Either way though, the same argument applies. Without someone buying a property and renting it, there would be no place to rent. The house I'm renting to someone in NC is being paid off because of my renters. It's not income now, but when it's paid off, that's $1k/month free to me.

<comment><USER47> This might be going off the main topic here, but I'll address it: For someone who has the ability to pay outright, I agree that paying a monthly amount might give some flexibility. If someone is making a monthly payment because thats all they can do, its basically debt and holds you down. I agree though, that its not always black and white.

Back to the main topic: Should renters be indebted to home owners? Its all a case of supply/demand. I dont see renters having a shortage. Which means that more people are willing to rent out their home, than renters wanting to find a place to rent. In this market, homeowners need renters more than renters need homeowners. If say in a hypothetical situation all homeowners stopped putting out their houses for rent, more people will gravitate towards other sources of rentals like rental properties owned by companies. These rental property companies do not have an emotionally-vested interest in their home. They see it just as a service.

I agree when you pay off the money for your house, the renters give you free money. But this is close to the end-game and by this time you would have to factor in also opportunity costs. I am not saying the opportunity cost is huge, but usually a mortgage holds you down for 30 years (in most cases), and its too long a time to just consider what happens at the end of it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Test Report Points to F-35's Combat Limits - <AUTHOR> http://aviationweek.com/defense/test-report-points-f-35-s-combat-limits-0 <comment><AUTHOR> "the F-35B Block 2B aircraft would need to avoid threat engagement… in an opposed combat scenario,.."

So it's the world's first pacifist warplane...a fighter that can't fight.

</comment><comment><USER2> Honestly the F-35 fiasco reminds me more and more of the last days of the USSR : nothing works as expected, it never will, but everybody puts on a brave face and acts like if you forget about the problems they don't exist.

The degree of cognitive dissonance going on in this project is staggering !

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think this is a particularly surprising or controversial report. Isn't it generally accepted that the F-35 Block 2B is still in development mode and the military has no plans to actually use it until the 2018-2020 time frame?

</comment><comment><USER4> Regwall.</comment>


Thinking, Fast and Slow: Efforts to Reduce Youthful Crime in Chicago - <AUTHOR> http://www.nber.org/digest/jul15/w21178.html <comment><USER2> Teaching people to stop and consciously think in tense situations help reduce their arrests rate.

Sounds kind of obvious, but very nice to see it actually applied in practice.</comment>


Lost Cat - <AUTHOR> https://granta.com/lost-cat/ <comment><USER2> I've consumed more words from RFCs, hacker news, emails and chat this last month or two, than from reading books.

This is a strong reminder as the writing is beautiful.

When we read our writing and world view takes on a small part of what we read. If all we read are fragments designed to communicate without ambiguity to the highly logical them we lose a lot of romance in the world.

Thank you for posting this on here.

</comment><comment><USER3> This essay is more thought-provoking than I expected, I read it 2 hours ago and am still thinking about it.

</comment><comment><USER4> I really, really enjoyed this. Also I cried a little.

</comment><comment><USER5> This writing is a triumph of words in the exaltation of symbolism. Deep compassion is all I could feel with the power of her words.

"Oh, that is your trauma."

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm not sure why you've linked this, what I'm supposed to see here.

Can you elaborate on that?

<comment><USER7> Not OP but this is a wonderful essay by Mary Gaitskill, one of the most interesting writers at work today. This is probably my favourite Gaitskill essay, but I am a cat person so I'm biased.

<comment><USER8> I'm not really a cat person but I enjoyed it anyway (even if it got me in the feels). I am glad it was posted as I doubt I would have ever come across it otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Love Mary Gaitskill -- believe this essay was included in her collection "Somebody with a Little Hammer".

Would recommend along with "Bad Behavior" and "The Mare."

</comment><comment><USER10> Is it just me, or is something screwy going on with this post? I feel like I've seen it every day for the past week, with the same comments getting forward-dated each time.

<comment><USER11> You're probably seeing the effect of the second-chance pool (described at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380)). But that should only have happened once, so I'm not sure what accounts for the "every day for the past week" part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> What a lovely piece of writing, thank you for posting it.

</comment><comment><USER13> This article reminds me of a Russian novel. Too intense for me.

<comment><USER14> I know, right? Especially this part:

> Finally her mother said that if Natalia behaved herself for three months > straight, stopped violating curfew and went to school, she could return > home. Natalia did it, for the entire three months. The court date was set. > It was expected to be a walk-through. Formally, the judge asked Natalia's > mother if she would allow her to return home. And her mother laughed. She > laughed and said, 'I would never let that girl come live with me again.' The > social worker told me Natalia screamed like an animal. She said she had to > be held back by court officers.

This reads like something out of Dostoevsky. I like how simion314 puts it. "It is an interesting real life story, with real life problems, for me it showed me some new things, showed me how other people think and react." This is what is appealing about Dostoevsky too. For example, the following passage was illuminating to me:

> I asked why. I don't remember what he said. I came away with the impression > that my friend found the language I used too corny or therapeutic. And it > was. Certainly my father would've found it so. But I don't think that's the > only reason he walked away. If my language was a cliché, it was also > heartfelt and naked. That kind of sudden nakedness, without even a posture > of elegance, would've been a kind of violence to my father. It would've > touched him forcefully in a place he had spent his life guarding. To say > 'yes' would've allowed too much of that force in too deeply. Saying 'no' was > a way of being faithful to the guarded place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Enjoyed reading this.

</comment><comment><USER16> Can someone explain why some links appear on first HN page while the others end up laying unnoticed on second page?

<comment><USER17> Algorithms.

Don't know if this is the case here, but if a mod notices something interesting and it doesn't gain traction, they will invite the submitter to submit it again at a later date and add a bump to keep it up a little longer to see if it gains traction then.

It's nice that there is some variety of interesting things here so that it's not all tech-related. Most hackers love cats I think.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Automation; Increased consumption or more human redundancy? - <AUTHOR>

Sure, the Luddites broke looms not realizing that the industrial revolution would create more work for them through increasing consumption, but surely there is a tipping point where computers allow us to automate so much that what the luddites feared actually comes true?<p>I am currently working for a company who's focus is automation of washing heavy vehicles. This has benefits in regards to health and safety, environment and of course the efficiency of companies that own and maintain heavy vehicles. However, am I just automating people out of their jobs or will our capacity to consume increase as we automate more? <comment><USER2> I think in the near term you take someone's job. But soon, even for that person, their work will be re-allocated to something that's not automated. Human desire is not just increased consumption; it's exploration, invention, entertainment, etc. People will never stop wanting to do new things and start companies that require manual work.

However, I do think a basic annual income will eventually be introduced as the owners of the automation technology amass endless wealth.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is that not the curse of capitalism? Its the double edged sword of encouraging people to be innovative but for that same reason you can't stop them from amassing wealth/power.</comment></comment>


Geocities just won't die - advice? - <AUTHOR>

In the last 6 months, I've had to send two separate requests to sites cloning the original Geocities, asking them to take down my content (and another one a few months before that).  This includes things that I really shouldn't have put on the open internet (resume, etc), but I was young, and sites like google and pipl weren't yet that good at tracking down arbitrary bits of information.
While I understand that there is some merit in reconstructing the Geocities sites (either for otherwise lost bits of arbitrary information, or for nostalgia's sake), my questions are:
1] How long will these sites keep on popping up? 2] Is it really legal for them to mirror expired (and copyrighted) information in the way they're doing?
3] Is there a way to flag my information as 'not to be rehosted', and require potential mirrors to check this list first (think do-not-call register)?
4] Has anyone else run into this problem at all?
For reference, the two most recent ones are geocities.ws and reocities.com.  I cannot recall the first one's name, unfortunately. <comment><USER2> Not the advice you're looking for but in all honesty, its not worth bothering or caring about this. As its been said a million times over, once something is on the internet, its there forever. I wouldn't worry about clones or old info or anything like that, no matter how much you hate for that to be out there. Its not worth your time.

Old stuff, new stuff, literally everything on the internet gets reposted somewhere (sometimes thousands upon thousands of times over again) and there will always be clones of something. Its a losing war and one not even worth thinking about in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER3> 1:

Forever. Assume anything posted online is there forever.

2:

Not really. But then, most people don't care, and the only culture we'll have in the future is the stuff people copy now, don't be angry at them for your mistakes. In the grand scheme of things they're doing a good thing.

3:

If geocities was still up I'd say robots.txt. At this point however, I don't think there's any service that can help you.

4:

Yes. (I have.) I think most of generation Z will have this problem. But it won't become obvious to the mainstream for a few more years.

Oh, and in case your wondering how to solve it. Your only real options as far as I know are to SEO yourself to death to get the geocities crap off the front page of google. Or ignore it.</comment>


The addictive hobby of customizing mechanical keyboards - <AUTHOR> http://brettterpstra.com//2019/02/05/the-addictive-hobby-of-customizing-mechanical-keyboards/ <comment><USER2> Are you a da. Of collecting custom key caps?</comment>


Optimizely Launches Mobile View, Mixpanel Integration, and More - <AUTHOR> http://blog.optimizely.com/optimizely-launches-mobile-view-mixpanel-inte

<comment><AUTHOR> What other integrations would you guys like to see?

<comment><USER2> Just dropped you an e-mail!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>