It's easy to blame minorities - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3455-its-easy-to-blame-minorities

<comment><USER2> > Most estimates put the number of remote workers between 300 and 500.

Which estimates are those?

Overall, this post reeks of victimizing.

> So yes, remote workers are keeping Yahoo from being the "absolute best place > to work".

Stop attacking a strawman! Nobody's arguing that remote workers are the one stumbling block between Yahoo and mountains of glory. But there's clearly a culture that needs to be attacked, and if one of the elements of that culture is that remote workers ARENT LOGGING INTO THE VPN then maybe Yahoo shouldn't have remote workers for the time being.

It's also cute that DHH chose not to disclose that he's releasing a book about remote work (which, you know, might be a slight conflict of interest.)

<comment><USER3> People on HN are very quick to pull the conflict of interest card. People who write books about telecommuting unsurprisingly believe its a good thing and have a negative reaction the a major company cancelling it.

<comment><USER4> What amazes me beyond anything else is that there is anyone at all, aside from upper management, that even attempts to defend the killing of telecommuting. Anyone who isn't an exec at a large company does not have any real data on whether it's better or not. They may have anecdotes, they may even have a few anecdotes, but that's it. And, frankly, for execs there's an inherent conflict of interest. Just take Marissa Mayer :

[http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/28/how-yahoo-ceo- marissa-...](http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/28/how-yahoo-ceo-marissa- mayer-is-building-a-nursery-by-her-office-and-dissing-working-moms/)

This woman is ... I am sorry to use this word, she's disgusting. I have zero respect for someone who asks people to come into the office every morning, and says this makes things better, see she does it herself ... building a nursery into the fucking office, and for all I know she takes a helicopter to avoid the traffic.

This is about as honorable as an army company standing outside an indian encampment, armed to the teeth with automatic weapons, saying how they've "fairly negotiated a transfer of land".

These people are the reason we live in bland, empty inner cities with zero space for anyone and tiny apartments except for the super-rich. Telecommuting could solve that problem, and we should be fighting for it. To be exact, we should be fighting people like Marissa Mayer and other execs to get it.

Why the fuck don't we do that ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't see anywhere that people are blaming remote workers for all of Yahoo's troubles.

People are starting to care about Yahoo now and not just look at them with pity. Mayer is trying to clean up that company. When you are turning around a large institution like Yahoo, you're going to piss off a lot of people. These are all signs that someone is actually trying to turn things around there, instead of continuing the status quo like the previous CEOs did. This is just one of many moves.

I think remote work is great, but reading elsewhere shows that there was a lot of abuse of the policy _at Yahoo_. When a policy is rampantly being abused, you can revoke it until you can figure out how to better measure its effects. I'm sure they will re-institute this policy once they have better control over it, but that probably won't get any press.

I still have a generally favorable opinion of what Mayer's doing so far, and will try to hold my personal judgement to see how Mayer's moves affect Yahoo in the long term.

<comment><USER6> It sounds like you may think that Mayer knows more about running Yahoo than a random person on the Internet does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> One large company with an uncertain future shutting down opportunities to work from home is an opening in the market for several smaller companies with more upside to their futures to offer such opportunities to new hires. In a diverse business ecosystem with free enterprise, customers like you and me decide which companies' products and services will be monetizable, and the companies decide which personnel practices help them meet market challenges. I know of a SaaS company, much smaller than Yahoo but apparently growing and profitable, that has an explicit "results-based management" policy. That means the managers don't care how often their developers come into the office, and as long as developers finish their projects with reasonable quality and speed, and keep up with their support tasks (ALL the developers do rotating shifts on support, to stay near customer concerns), then the managers are happy. Not all companies can organize that way, but then again not all companies have to organize just like Yahoo either. Yahoo is one model of running a company. The 37 Signals model appears to work for 37 Signals, but not everyone wants to follow their model. Each company gets to try something out, and we consumers get to pick the winners.

</comment><comment><USER8>
        Gruber summed up this sentiment as "Yahoo employees have
        been allowed to work remotely, and they have not
        excelled".
            In other words, Yahoo is a rudderless basket case, so
        it must be because of those 2-4% of the work force who are
        "goofing off". Heh.

How the hell did he contort himself into inferring that from what Gruber wrote?!

<comment><USER9> >How the hell did he contort himself into inferring that from what Gruber wrote?!

It is called dishonesty. It is the entire reason anyone knows who DHH is.

<comment><USER10> _It is called dishonesty. It is the entire reason anyone knows who DHH is._

I understand you may not like the guy, but I'm pretty sure DHH's fame came mostly from creating Ruby on Rails.

<comment><USER9> I don't think it did. What's the name of the guy who created django? I know the only reason I know of DHH and not django-guy is that DHH spent years dishonestly promoting rails/trashing java.

<comment><USER10> _I don't think it did. What's the name of the guy who created django?_

Adrian Holovaty et al.

<comment><USER9> <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rhetorical+question>

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I got what you were trying to do. The rhetorical question you chose didn't support your point.

<comment><USER9> Yes it does. Compare how many people know django guy vs how many people know DHH. One specific individual knowing who django guy is doesn't invalidate the argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can't believe how much coverage this story has gotten, particularly in popular media. I expected lots of dust in the tech community, but CNN has been publishing op-ed's everyday since the announcement.

I just don't get the idea that the remote workers are slacking off so much that they need to make a sweeping policy change. If the remote workers are performing properly, then it's a 100% obvious management issue. Managers aren't properly managing remote workers and the hiring process is unable to properly weed out slackers and lazy people.

<comment><USER8> 1\. A subtle discussion of "work-life balance", i.e. how women aren't suited to have time-consuming careers.

2\. It's an opportunity for linkbaiters to occupy contrarian or coarse viewpoints (Forbes, Slate, etc.)

3\. It's a way for people to pretend like they know anything about managing Silicon Valley tech companies by chiming in on this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Well, the article makes for very interesting rhetoric: poisoning the well for people arguing against telework by equating it with categorism. The heavily- loaded language is a dead giveaway.

But without data to back it up, it's still just rhetoric. The fact is, even a relatively small group of people can ruin something for everyone. Ask anyone who has worked on teams for any length of time, and they'll tell you just how much damage even one person can do.

How do you predict who these people will be, or what kind of damage they'll do? By and large, you don't. That doesn't mean people don't try: the so-called "poisonous people" phenomenon has plagued the open-source community for long enough that entire books have been written on the subject. But the problem remains, and there's still no fair and reliable way to predict who will turn toxic.

Without that, you've basically got two options. You can decide that the costs associated with abuse are worth preserving the privilege, and mitigate the damage as best you can. Or, if the damage is too severe or the problem too persistent, you can declare that the poisonous people have ruined it for everybody. Yahoo took the former approach for a long time, and it hasn't worked out for them. Now they're trying the latter. Is it truly fair to blame them for that?

</comment><comment><USER13> How do we know that the number of people who work remotely are only 300-500? It seems to me that one of the big issues here is that Yahoo! has lumped together three types of workers:

1) Those who work remotely (not near an office) 2) Those who work near an office, and work from home 1-2 days per week 3) Those who work near an office, and have a regularly scheduled day off ("work from home") 1-2 days per week

I suspect that he may be right that there are only 300-500 of category 1. IMO, these are the people that are getting unfairly hit by this particular move.

Categories 2-3 need to be sorted and dealt with as appropriate. This move seems like a reasonable thing to do for Yahoo! to deal with them, under the circumstances.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think this is probably the best point to be made over Yahoo's change in policy -- there just aren't that many remote workers at Yahoo. With the emphasis they'd put on this particular change in policy, it's natural for people to conclude that Yahoo thinks that having everyone come into the office to work is a significant change necessary to right the ship. When so few workers are remote, can that really be the case? Does Yahoo know what they're doing?

I don't know the answers, but those are the questions running through my mind right now.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is not a case of blaming the "minority". To understand, let me digress a little – the case where we can easily get away by blaming a minority is when a school blames a small subset of students for spoiling a school's average test scores. That is called blaming a "minority" and it works.

However, what has been done here is purely for work optimisation. Mayer is clearly trying to change the culture of Yahoo, and in the attempts of doing so she has found that remote workers don't fit in the type of culture of strong collaboration and unity she wants Yahoo to become. And therefore, she has decided to change that. Simply stated.

There can't be any way for us to understand whether these remote workers under performed at Yahoo or not! However, when you try to make a defining culture, even the smallest of things matter. And perhaps, remote workers are not in line with the culture Yahoo is building. Regardless of how small the workforce is.

What will be interesting to me is how many of these remote workers are truly remote? As in, how many of them work in a completely different location than Yahoo HQ? To be honest, going down to work when you're living 5 blocks away from the office isn't particularly characterised as remote, knowing that the boss can call you in any second.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't get the sense that Yahoo was attempting to blame all it's ailments on remote work. DHH is reading that into this. Is it a component? Perhaps. But not the root cause.

</comment><comment><USER17> "But that's exactly why it's been so easy to place the blame on them for Yahoo's ails. "

One thing is shutting down telecommuting because it is believed it's not working, another is "blaming" it for Yahoo ails, a statement that I haven't seen anywhere else apart from this article.

It's probably part of a larger set of measure that the new CEO has been undertaking to revive a stagnating company, talking about "blaming minorities" is plain exaggerating.

<comment><USER6> It's not like this is the first or only change that Mayer has done as CEO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think the most important aspect in remote working is not only whether the company believes in a result oriented culture or not. What gets ignored, is that a lot of knowledge is embedded in the culture. Like a random conversation in the hallway or how someone reacts to a crisis. What remote workers also miss is the level of energy and the optimism/pessimism that is going around.

Without high fidelity feedback, a remote worker may be totally mislead about certain issues, including his or her own performance. Hence the onus is always on the remote worker to stay in deep contact with her or his peers. And companies that allow remote working should also make this explicit.

Will be interesting to read how 37signals works around these issues.

</comment><comment><USER19> This post wasn't very well thought-out.

"Gruber summed up this sentiment as "Yahoo employees have been allowed to work remotely, and they have not excelled". In other words, Yahoo is a rudderless basket case, so it must be because of those 2-4% of the work force who are "goofing off". Heh."

That was a leap of logic, for sure. What this really says is: if 2-4% of your workforce isn't working out because they're remote, then 2-4% of your workforce should not be working remote. It does not place the blame entirely on those remote workers, though.

I imagine this is a small move in a larger, company-wide shift. It just seems to be getting the most press for some reason.

<comment><USER20> It's clear to me that he didn't parse that Gruber sentence correctly and his misinterpretation invalidates the entire post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why does every one think they know better than Yahoo's CEO about how to manage Yahoo itself?

<comment><USER22> it's a common problem in the tech press. back in the day, everyone knew how to solve sun's problems too.

<comment><USER23> Did Sun's CEO know better?

<comment><USER24> The idea that CEOs always know how to run their company better than outsiders is suspect argument. If this were the case, CEOs would never get fired and replaced by outsiders. And if this were the case, CEOs wouldn't drive companies into the ground.

But this isn't the case. CEOs are just like everyone else. Some of them have bad ideas. Some of them make gambles that don't pay off. Some of them don't really understand their competitors that well.

I'm not making a judgement as to Mayer's ability to run Yahoo, but the idea that an outsider can't have good suggestions for a company and CEO is crazy. Yes, a lot of people in the tech press like to make recommendations to companies that aren't well thought out and are perhaps done for linkbait reasons, but there is a lot of data on the merits of remote work, especially when done part time. I don't see any harm in pointing that out, and a debate about working environments and work-life balance is important.

Mayer is not like most employees. Most people can't afford to hire help and to have a nursery built next to their office at work. She can, and she doesn't have to deal with the same issues that most of her employees do.

Saying that we can't have a debate about this because we're not the CEO of Yahoo is crazy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> While his claims certainly aren't airtight, ie the cynical idea that Yahoo is blaming its remote workers for the trouble, I do think there is some truth to the general sentiment; failing companies often grasp for any action they can take to stop the bleeding, and these actions, undertaken in haste or amidst great anxiety, can yield very little value or even cause harm. I'm not sure if that is what is happening at Yahoo, but I've definitely seen it happen before.

</comment><comment><USER26> Lets be honest here, 37signals is being a wolf in sheep's clothes here with their recent Yahoo posts.

Yahoo just ended their remote workforce program because they need better collaboration to occur which they believe can only happen face to face.

37signals sells colloborarion software for remote employees.

People seem to miss that it's in 37signals best interest to bash Yahoo for this move.

</comment><comment><USER27> To be fair to Yahoo, nowhere do they mention that the remote workers are at fault for the company or the workforce struggles. They only want them performing better.

I'm pro remote working, but I can't see the fault in that.

</comment><comment><USER28> DHH is leaning toward looking obsessed with this, at this point. But, I think Yahoo, no matter the reason for original attempt has received so much negative press that this will in the long run end up costing them.

</comment><comment><USER29> Why are people still posting and upvoting these articles? DHH has made it clear that he doesn't want his articles on Hackernews, which he described as a "cesspool".

</comment><comment><USER30> It's easy to make asinine generalizations about things.</comment>


As of Today, We Have Used Up All the Earth's Resources for 2016 - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/753603/as-of-today-we-have-used-up-all-the-earths-resources-for-2016?q=qz <comment><USER2> What about wind power? Are we out of wind?</comment>


Ask HN: How do I find out whether something was submitted? - <AUTHOR>

I'd like to be able to find out whether a specific Webpage was already submitted without having to submit it myself in the process.  Is there some mechanism for doing that here? <comment><USER2> It's not perfect, but you can go to <http://searchyc.com/> and (on the results page) choose "submissions". Sometimes a domain-only search is good (if the topic you're looking for has a unique domain), other times you'll need to come up with some combination of domain and title keywords.

Or you can do a Google search with "site:" and "link:" like [http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+l...](http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fpaulgraham.com%2Fwealth.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> there's a 'HNSearch' icon at the bottom-right of your screen :o)

<comment><AUTHOR> Does it somehow allow me to search by target URL for the headline link?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> HN automatically redirects you to the page if the link was already submitted. This works most of the time. If you really want to be certain you can try searching in searchyc.com.

<comment><AUTHOR> I said I'd like to know _without_ having to submit it -- in short, without a submission showing up if it _doesn't_ already exist on HN. Sometimes, I just want to know if something has already been submitted, and am not trying to submit it.

<comment><USER5> why ? All it does is count your submission as a vote towards the original, that's ok isn't it ?

<comment><AUTHOR> So -- are you saying that I'm doing things in the wrong order? Should I always know for sure whether I want to submit something before I check to see if it has already been submitted? What if I want to check whether it has been submitted before I finish reading it, and don't want to submit something without reading it in full?

Are you saying this capability doesn't exist, but unwilling to just come out and say so because you fear I'll dislike the lack of such a feature? I'm confused about the reason for questions without answers in response to my own question.

<comment><USER5> I'm afraid I don't follow you.

If you want to submit something but you're not sure if it has been submitted or not the dupe filter will tell you so clearly.

If you don't want so submit something before you've read it in full then simply read it first, then submit it.

anyway, the easiest way to search any site is simply like this:

go to google.com

type:

site:news.ycombinator.com your search keywords

the space between the .com and the first keywords is crucial.

<comment><AUTHOR> In other words, yes -- you're saying I'm doing things in the wrong order, and I shouldn't care whether something's on HN before I decide whether I want to submit it, dammit.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Coolest DOS games of all time [txt list] - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/steakknife/6750480/raw/gistfile1.txt

<comment><USER2> There are some enormous, gaping holes in your list - Sierra, Origin, Microprose, Epic, Apogee (lots of games before Jazz Jackrabbit), iD, Bullfrog (I think was DOS, may have been Win95) and lots more!

Many of the games on [http://gog.com/](http://gog.com/) deserve a mention!</comment>


The Unofficial HN FAQ - <AUTHOR> http://www.jacquesmattheij.com/The+Unofficial+HN+FAQ <comment><USER2> Another good one:

Q: Why don't people ever email me when I invite them to in a comment?

A: The Email field in your profile is for site administrators only. If you want other users to be able to see it, you need to include it in your About box.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, added.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _A high average score on your comments will give your comments preference in the search order (this is part of the 'secret sauce')._

I've wondered about that… I spend a fair amount of time reading through the "newest" and "ask" lists and often comment on articles that don't end up making the front page. This can really drag your average down. The best way to have a high average score is to comment only on top stories where everyone else is reading, which I think is a bit unfortunate.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I fully agree. I remarked as much to PG that this would be an unintended and negative side effect when he implemented this, but I don't care one bit about my 'average karma' so that's just too bad, and I'll keep on answering 1 upvote 'Ask HN' posts anyway.

<comment><USER4> The thing that makes me a bit sad is that is that some people do try and be helpful and respond to Ask HNs that are languishing unresponded... and yet only have one point of karma on their comment.

Which means that even the person who asked the question didn't upvote the commenter who was taking the time to respond to them. I've seen this even in cases where the OP followed up on the comment and said "thanks that's very useful". So click the up-arrow, dude.

(unless upvotes by the OP are filtered out? but I can't imagine why that would be)

<comment><USER5> _(unless upvotes by the OP are filtered out? but I can't imagine why that would be)_

AFAIK they are. For instance, if I were to upvote your comment it would have no effect.

This definitely happens if you comment and then upvote. Not sure about the reverse order.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not sure how big of a deal this is, but it might be worth mentioning that many HN users dislike short URLs and will often vote you down if you post one. Just a community norm that some folks are surprised by.

<comment><USER7> And HN currently has no way to remedy accidental down (or up) voting, which is particularly problematic on touch screens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Simply flag the post, don't bother bitching about it, that will only get you downvotes."

This isn't _always_ true. I've bitched about submissions and gotten upvoted for it. :-)

Usually, it's something along the lines of "I'm tired of seeing this crap on the front page" though. Usually if it's "this is _hacker_ news" or "N00b, this is a violation of the rules" it will get downvoted.

One other point to make, it's ok to point out that someone is breaking the rules if you're not _bitching_ about it. I think comments saying "You might not realize this, but this will likely get downvoted/flagged because it breaks rule X" comments should be encouraged.

<comment><USER9> I sometimes like to explain exactly why I don't think something should be on HN (if it's not spam or of really bad quality) - simple one liners like "This shouldn't be on HN, flagged." aren't helpful at all. Be constructive!

I think feedback helps at least some submitters tremendously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Great list. You might want to edit the title to replace "HN" with the full form "Hacker News".

Another noob FAQ is: "Is HN becoming like Reddit and Digg?". pg has given lots of good answers to that (mainly that people who haven't been around long enough see patterns in randomness).

Edited to add: You might also want to point out that Reddit and Digg are also good communities with a different feel, and there is no need to take a moral high ground.

<comment><AUTHOR> Title changed.

I don't see how I could have missed the reddit/digg one, I've added it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Is there an API for HN / is it ok to scrape HN?"

Comment from PG: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1721105>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, added that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> A couple of things you might want to include:

The rule about having to be here for a year before you can even talk about if we're turning into Reddit. It's in the guidelines, but I think it's worth mentioning under "Is HN becoming like Reddit and Digg?".

It's also pretty courteous around here to note any edits you made to your comment with a brief footnote, or by adding the additional content as a footnote itself. The footnote should mention what was edited, not just that the edit occurred. That bit of etiquette might fit under "Someone edited a comment I replied to and now I look like an idiot!"

</comment><comment><USER13> Does anyone seriously believe that your chances of getting into YC go up linearly with your karma? If I had to guess, past a certain threshold, your chances of acceptance probably drop.

<comment><USER14> I suspect pg is looking for certain traits in your comments - maturity, technical knowledge and/or experience, and some insightfulness into your field. "Thoughtful" can comprise all three, and more.

If you have high karma, but most of your comments are noise, that can't help. Or if you have low karma and rarely post, but your posts are mostly "thoughtful", that probably helps.

I suspect it varies like that.

<comment><USER15> pg has stated that YCombinator is looking for good/great people, even if their startup idea is weak. He's also stated that skimming your HN comments provides one way to judge what sort of person you are.

Most high-karma people on HN (like, 5k+) get there by being thoughtful. I'd imagine pretty much everyone in the top 100 would be helped rather than hurt by their HN presence. I suppose it's theoretically possible to amass a lot of karma without making any useful contributions, but I haven't see anybody do it yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "The thresholds at which this happens changes over time, I believe the downvote cap is at 50 right now and the flag cap is at 200."

I may be reading this wrong, but I think what you're saying is that once you reach a karma of 50, you can downvote comments. I'm pretty sure that's incorrect - I have a karma of 89 as of this writing, and (unless I haven't yet figured out how to) am unable to downvote comments. Maybe someone who recently became able to could give a more accurate number.

<comment><USER17> I'm at 147 and no down vote. I think he has it backwards? I had heard somewhere else 200 was the magic number for comments.

<comment><USER18> Yes, you need a karma of 200+ to be able to downvote. Reached that just a few weeks ago. You can only downvote comments which were made after you reached the treshhold.

<comment><USER19> Only partially true - nobody can downvote comments after a certain amount of time. I'm not sure if it's 12 or 24 hours; but it's a fairly short window.

<comment><AUTHOR> 24 hours.

edit: proof: <http://pics.ww.com/d/425306-1/downvote-cutoff.png>

That's the 'comments' list.

<comment><USER18> Ah. Thanks for pointing that out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> '"self" posts, posts that do not link to another website have their own category in the top menu bar, they are all grouped under the 'Ask' entry...'

But that doesn't happen for every "Ask HN" I've posted. A good number move there, but not all, and not immediately.

<comment><USER21> I faced the same problem. Since I couldn't find the "Ask HN" rule clearly mentioned anywhere, I even tried prefixing "Ask HN" in my post subject speculating that maybe HN does a string search, but it didn't work.

Is there a minimum karma level for Ask HN posts? Or is this a bug in the system?

<comment><AUTHOR> Which post was that?

<comment><USER21> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1747909>

<comment><AUTHOR> It's there on the third page, currently entry #70.

<comment><USER21> Thanks, not sure why I couldn't find it on the day I posted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is a great article, Jacques.

Somebody should put together a list of meta-HN posts. These guides written by the users have as much or more value than that the stuff pg and the rest put together. I think part of the reason why is that fellow users are more likely to see things from a user's point of view.

</comment><comment><USER23> > _Why can't I respond to a comment that responded to me ?_

Current answer is wrong. Commenting is disabled for old threads. For new, overly active threads only in-thread commenting is disabled, but clicking on the 'link' link still gives an access to the response form.

<comment><USER24> The answer is correct, but is (perhaps deliberately) incomplete. Replying to recent comments is not disabled, there is an exponentially increasing timeout. Yes, you can always click on the "link" link and then hit "reply", but in- thread, the "reply" link only appears after a timeout that gets longer as the comments get deeper.

In summary:

\+ "reply" on comments in old threads are disabled.

\+ "reply" on comments in new threads have a timeout

\+ the timeout is very short if the comment is shallow

\+ the timeout gets longer as the thread gets deeper

\+ the timeout can be circumvented by clicking "link" - then you are offered a "reply" link immediately.

\+ PG might put the timeout out the shortcut method, but hasn't yet done so.

<comment><USER25> Do you mean a delay for the reply link to show up ? Timeout is confusing. I didn't know about this feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> A nice summary, but I think a little too casual in recommending 'flags'. The official guidelines mention flags for "spam and offtopic"; this FAQ says to flag when you "think it's not HN material", a looser standard.

How about on-topic but trivial, repetitive, frivolous, flimsily-argued, outside-the-mainstream, etc.? Best to _ignore_ , rather than _flag_ these -- a flag is not a downvote saying 'less attention', it's a judgment ' _no_ attention; against-the-rules'. (It stings far more when your earnestly-offered submission is killed than when it simply never musters many votes.)

I've noticed more people using flags as simple downvotes, and some good submissions have been killed as a result.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's true, let me think about that, that's a thing that will impact quite a few entries actually.

If you want to re-word a specific entry in it's entirety I'd be grateful, this is a hard one to get right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> You might want to add a question:

\+ Why can't I downvote comment?

with the answer

\+ You can only downvote comments once you have sufficient karma. The required level rises over time to account for the karma inflation caused by an increasing userbase.

This would enhance the answer about what one can do with one's karma.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, thank you! I've added the question and the answer + a bit to it about the ability to downvote comments that are in reply to your own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> You may want to add a section on alternative or mobile interfaces to HN, such as hckrnews.com and icombinator.net.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, done that. If there are others please let me know and I'll add them.

thanks!

<comment><USER28> HN Droid is an excellent app on the Market for Android phones that even allows you to login, upvote, and post comments. It's even open source itself: <http://github.com/amir/HNdroid>

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, it's added. thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is a pretty good list, thanks for putting it together. Definitely going to have to bookmark it for the times when new people complain about the way of the world here.

</comment><comment><USER29> Great post, thanks.

Typos:

 _For one HN has it's own 'flavor'_ => its

 _HN gets it's (more than) fair share of spam_ => its

Weird HTML:

It seems line-breaks are hard-coded with BRs inside of P elements? In this phrase the BRs are missing and therefore it crosses over to the invisible right side:

 _The thresholds at which this happens changes over time, the downvote threshold is at 200 right now and the flag cap is at 100. There_

<comment><AUTHOR> fixed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> In the digest question you might want to add the RSS feeds from "A cure for Hacker News overload":

[http://jmillerinc.com/2010/07/23/a-cure-for-hacker-news- over...](http://jmillerinc.com/2010/07/23/a-cure-for-hacker-news-overload/)

</comment><comment><USER31> Great list jacquesm. I had no idea Hacker News was open source! I guess you learn something new every day.

And thanks for mentioning Resourcey. I've added your FAQ to HN's Resourcey.com page (gotta love circular recursion!)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Update: I've added the possibility to link directly to an entry in the FAQ.

</comment><comment><USER32> One other search tip - I use Duck Duck Go's bang command to search HN using !hn <search terms>. It takes you to searchyc.com, but is more handy if you are already using DDG.

</comment><comment><USER33> The "Can I post links to my own blog ?", could not be true anymore, or at least reading the ShelfLuv creator's post <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1754584> this morning i got that impression (didn't we discuss this in a thread last week?).

<comment><USER34> That shouldn't be true; his domain is probably autodead for a different reason. This own post is submitted from jacquesm's own blog!

<comment><USER33> I guess you are both right, but considering there seems not to be other links to his blog on HN it still seems a bit weird.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The FAQ is seemingly contradictory on the subject of downvotes. Does anyone ever seen downvotes on posts? On comments? (I have never seen a "down" button on either). The FAQ says that there are no such things, but also mentions downvotes, which I find confusing.

<comment><USER36> From the article:

"At what karma level can I downvote articles ?

There is no karma level that I know of that will allow you to downvote articles."

and

"What [karma] does give you is that at some point you can downvote other comments and it gives you the ability to flag posts."

In other words, you can't downvote articles, ever, and you can downvote comments after a certain karma threshold has been reached.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Edit: nevermind, the thing I suggested adding was already on the FAQ.

</comment><comment><USER25> An information I failed to find is text formatting methods. Sometime I see itallic text, others courrier text. URLs aren't always shown as clickable links. How can we control this ?

<comment><USER38> <http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc> (linked next to the about box on your account settings page)

A Google search for "link:<http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc> site:news.ycombinator.com" shows that others have requested more links to the formatting help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Regarding "What can I do with my karma?" another thing you can do once you reach a certain karma level is to setup a poll, with multiple answers that people can vote on.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah yes, that's true there is a karma threshold for that too, I'll add that right away. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I just added this as a stand-alone article:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1759548>

How to make the homepage.

</comment><comment><USER40> Under "alternative ways to read", you're missing some punctuation. Currently, it seems to imply that hckrnews.com is an Android app...

<comment><AUTHOR> I re-organized that section to remove the ambiguity, thank you for the pointer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> typo: "otherwise you nobody can see it"

Where did you get the (one boat cruise|two boat race) saying?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, fixed the typo.

> Where did you get the (one boat cruise|two boat race) saying?

Long ago I designed a CAD/CAM system for a sailmaker in the Netherlands, the effect of this is that I spent a ton of time in and around the sailmakery itself (I even spent some time living in the attic above it because I had no house) and the sailing related proverbs flew fast and thick there.

It's really true though, if you're on a boat and having a good time sailing and someone overtakes you the urge to give chase is almost too strong to resist, it's like having a hound spot a deer that is running away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> "Why would you want high karma ?" because I don't have one. Hit me</comment>


Ask HN: Would you leave your company for a raise of 20%? - <AUTHOR> "In 1968, the year Intel opened shop, a psychology professor at the University of Maryland cast a theory that surely influenced Andy Grove. First, said Edwin Locke, "hard goals" drive performance more effectively than easy goals. Second, specific hard goals "produce a higher level of output" than vaguely worded ones.
In the intervening half century, more than a thousand studies have confirmed Locke's discovery as " one of the most tested, and proven, ideas in the whole of management theory." Among experiments in the field, 90 percent confirm that productivity is enhanced by well-defined, challenging goals.
Year after year, Gallup surveys attest to a "worldwide employee engagement crisis." Less than a third of U.S. workers are " involved in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work and workplace." Of those disengaged millions, more than half would leave their company for a raise of 20 percent or less. In the technology sector, two out of three employees think they could find a better job inside of two months."
Excerpt From: Doerr, John. "Measure What Matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation Rock the World with OKRs." Apple Books. <comment><USER2> I know I wouldn't. In fact, about 10 years ago I started working 4 days a week instead of 5, taking a 20% pay cut. I wanted the extra day to be with my family, help out with school, etc. By switching companies and going back to working full time I could easily make 2x the amount of money I'm making right now, but it still wouldn't be worth it. I can always work more and make more money, but I will never get another opportunity to see my kids grow up.

In my case, time is money but money does not equal time.

<comment><USER3> Thats an answer to a completely different question though? The question wasn't "would you work more hours for more pay".

<comment><USER2> Yes, you're right. To answer the question: if you would ask me 'would you leave your company for a 20% raise with the same hours' than my answer would be 'probably not'. I've had numerous jobs before this one, this is the first job that I like going to, even after a couple of years in. I make a decent amount, have nice collegues, no office politics and every day is a new challenge (in a good way). Having the peace of mind of a fulfilling job is worth a lot more than 20% in my opinion.

Maybe I'll switch in a couple of years for a real C-level job, but right now I don't see myself going anywhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I finish my current role on Friday, and start a new one next Monday.

The difference is pretty much 20%.

On why I took it:

* The money is better

* It has more potential for fulfillment

* The money is enough to offset the risk that it won't suit me

</comment><comment><USER5> Restated: "would you accept an offer to shorten the time before you can retire by 20%?"

It would take a lot of free coffee and fooseball at your current gig to make that be worth turning down,

<comment><USER6> Restated once more: "Would you trade free time in your youth for the same amount of free time at retirement age?"

<comment><USER5> As noted elsewhere, that's not the trade-off being made (as we're assuming like-for-like work conditions, thus equal free time in both cases).

But it's a fun exercise in compound interest, so I'd recommend doing the math to discover how many years of extra retirement you get from working, say, a full year of 80 hour weeks, billed hourly at your current salary, at age 30.

Once you've gotten past the steep part of the salary curve, that starts to look like a _really_ good tradeoff. Put an extra, un-looked-for, quarter million into the market early in life, and you can essentially not worry any further about saving for retirement.

That is, you can move forward spending every cent you earn (or only working as many months per year as necessary to cover expenses) and still retire as per usual at age 60.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> All things the same, why wouldn't you?

There are very few companies out there that wouldn't replace you in a heartbeat for someone taking 20% less, everything else the same.

<comment><USER8> Actually it doesn't work the other way around. If you're a developer, you've already got some understanding of where everything is. A new guy would take at least a few weeks training to catch up, and there's a risk that they might not transfer in so well from their current role. Even if you're a marketer or salesperson, someone who has been in the company a while knows the strengths and weaknesses right off the bat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anyone who is surprised at this is either so wealthy they are out of touch or has not felt the creeping dread of an under-funded retirement account.

</comment><comment><USER10> I recently switched jobs for a 40% raise.

The extra money feels good but I do miss the tech stack and my former team members. It is exhausting to work with people who do not share the same thought process and are very risk averse.

When I accepted the offer, I knew this could happen but felt the pay raise would neutralize this :) yes and no.

Next time— I will jump ship for more of a raise.

<comment><USER11> > It is exhausting to work with people who do not share the same thought > process and are very risk averse.

> Next time— I will jump ship for more of a raise.

Money alone is not enough. From my observations sacrificing significant job ergonomics for money is a trap leading to burnout. I would continue to search for a better place with a bit more balance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I did the other way round. Intentionally went to a company which paid me 30% less, but I'm unionized and have a job security until pension (it's a gov organization). I'm in the early 40's with a record of senior developer and PM roles in FAANG companies, but started to feel the ageism issue. I believe I could survive 15 more years in the tech but it wouldn't be sufficient for me to retire. Overall on average I prefer to earn 30% less for the next 30 years than earning 30% more for 15-20 and having nothing for the rest.

</comment><comment><USER13> There is no incentive for commitment at most places. And that's no surprise: how can any company compete with the whole world minus that company for future career opportunities? Even Google cant do that.

And sure people would leave for a raise. It'd be interesting how the survey is worded. Would they take the raise for a more boring or stressful job, a longer commute or to work in something less ethical?

</comment><comment><USER14> It's likely, however there are other considerations. Flexibility. Workload. Work-life balance. New management style. Etc. I wouldn't do it automatically, but for the right position, definitely. I haven't gotten a raise in half a decade and each year benefits are going down. But work life balance and flexibility are really nice. So it's a tough call.

<comment><USER15> Sounds like you should have started looking a quarter of a decade ago. I'm sure you could find something that compensates better with similar work life balance and flexibility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm working with really good people, as a remote worker and I have probably and objectively one of the best work conditions one can get without playing politics or being someone's "yes man" or something similar.

I am already paid extremely well and I am not a greedy person anyway.

So, 20% more means nothing to me unless I have the same conditions, which are so rare.. that I've never seen before.

If it means to wake up and deal with awful people, that's a definite no.

If somehow I can end up working with as good people as my current colleagues and bosses, I would only take the job if my current company doesn't suffer because of me. Yes, I am loyal person and it's probably looked down upon in this day and age, but it is what it is.

So, probably no.

<comment><USER17> Could you tell which company is it? Its always nice to hear about companies which pull off remoteculture very well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If I magically had an offer on the table right now of 20% more - duh?

</comment><comment><USER19> I wouldn't leave for any realistic amount. 20%, 50%, 100%. Even a x10 wouldn't be enough to make me leave (after that it starts to get really unrealistic, and I don't hypothesize on unrealistic situations).

The other dev in my company won't either, at least not until 100% (we both know he could get that by jumping ship to go to defense/banking jobs that pay at least double our salary).

Why is that? For me, I'm a founder (the other dev is not), and I'm emotionally invested in our company success. The biggest other factor is that we do social good. That's the main reason we are there and will stick there as long as the company runs. Salary is enough to live confortably, and way higher than the minimum wage, so we aren't complaining. The work is interesting as well, and we get to have a good dev culture, focused on making things better. All the people working their are nice.

Finding another company that satisfies all the non-monetary consideration is a crapshot, frankly. I would be very hesitant even if I was not a founder, a lot of things aren't apparent until you are several months in your new contract.

</comment><comment><USER20> I don't understand the connection between the text and the title question, btw:

If my current job gives me enough to live decently, and I feel it's satisfying, 20% is too little to jump ships into the unknown. Of course, if the destination company is good and I have insider information about the environment, this could change.

Otoh, if I make too little money to sustain myself, I'd jump ships at each +20% chance .

</comment><comment><USER21> i've always made decisions outside of money. While i'm not the most highly paid, i've grown over time consistently. The work, your team and your goals usually out weigh your compensation if you live within your means. Go with a role who is going to provide long term growth and interesting work. The money will follow.

</comment><comment><USER22> In my current job, I have (mostly) sane management, co-workers I like and get along with, and do work that helps people. I've been around enough to realize that it's pretty sweet to have that. I'd have to think hard before leaving that, even for more money. (It might depend on how badly I needed the money.)

</comment><comment><USER23> Would depend on what the new company does, where I currently am I'm very happy with the ethics and morality of the business model, it would be hard to find somewhere that ticked all the boxes but if it did then sure.

</comment><comment><USER24> It depends on whether I have "enough" to comfortable meet my short term commitments, long term goals, and have nice to haves on the level that I desire.

To keep things short, let's just say that my career stagnated until 10 years ago and I was basically at the salary level and skillset of a junior software engineer, my side hustles evaporated and I met my now wife and (step)children she was taking care of by herself.

I was living in a nice neighborhood with a horrible school system. She was living in a condo in the best school district in the state. We were worked together and we were both laid off. I was able to get a comparable job literally the next week, but she had to take a job either with crazy inconsistent hours or one paying less...

2012 - we were barely getting by when we moved to an apartment on the better side of town and we were both recovering and paying back money because of $life. I stayed at the company just long enough to finish modernizing my tech stack and I jumped ship for $25K two years later.

2014 - now between the $25K I was making and the extra $10K she was making we had enough to comfortable live our lives, get a new car she desperately needed and get myself a new car so I could hand my old one down to my son who was now a senior to go back and forth to college with the next year - and car insurance for teenager.

We had enough to qualify for the house we wanted in the school district we wanted, but I knew it would be a stretch.

But by 2016, I knew I could call up my list of well curated recruiters and get a job making $25K more that would make buying a house much more comfortable. We started the process of getting a house built, as soon as we closed, I made a few calls and had a job making my target salary before the first mortgage payment was due.

Now, in 2019, things are different. The only job opportunities that I have in my local market that pay even 25K more that I am qualified for without going into management are consulting jobs. I just don't want to do that now and I wouldn't take the 25% raise that they have offered me.

Sure we could build our net worth faster, but it wouldn't make any significant difference in our lifestyle.

Money was the major motivation for me leaving a job between 2008-2016, but now it would be based on whether I am working with technology that keeps me marketable and whether I like the environment.

</comment><comment><USER25> I left my full-time job to start my own business. I work more than I used to but I also make more than I used to. Part of the upside is that I do hope to retire earlier than most, but I do miss having a more 9-5 day.

</comment><comment><USER8> I've interviewed people who straight up said they were looking for 10% over their current job, even providing evidence of their last pay slip.

<comment><USER26> and what was your reaction and why ?

<comment><USER8> Honestly, we had no issue with it. It's quite sad as we were already prepared to offer much more. One guy had quite a long resume. Twice my work experience but asking for half the salary. It hit me in the existential feels.

I don't think 10% jumps are effective. Part of the problem is some people are focused solely on that 10% incremental salary growth. They bounce around in bad companies willing to match that. They don't develop the skills needed to get a 30% or even a 100% leap. (they were being paid ~$15k annually, so a 100% leap is very plausible)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It depends. 20% of 50K is a lot less than 20% of 100k. I would absolutely jump ship for a 20K raise.

<comment><USER28> Actually it's not.

$20k might seen like a lot to you at $50k, because your life and expenses are calibrated to that level. It means a little less at $100k, and much less at $200k. I'd argue that if you make it to $500k, a 20% raise is absolutely meaningless because you probably already have enough for your lifestyle needs.

Ever wonder why CEOs get SO MUCH MONEY to switch jobs? This is why. Lower amounts just don't move the needle and prove enough incentive.

<comment><USER27> It depends what you intend to do with that money though. For example, if I can put an extra 100k into a retirement fund or investments over the next 5 years then that is an incentive to go for the 20% raise. I say this because I am currently in that situation. I am about to accept an offer for a substantial raise. I own a nice new car and have a big home. I could decrease those expenses and put more into retirement or I can continue with my current standard of living and put more money into retirement by accepting the offer. In the end, depending on what your financials are like, that 20% raise could mean the difference between retiring at 67 or retiring at 60...or before that. It's all relative right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I wouldn't. I work for myself and I gave away 50% of my income to work by myself on my own product. I wouldn't go back to working for someone else for 20%, not 100 or even 300% more income.</comment>


Apple launches podcast analytics beta - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16778596/apple-podcast-analytics-service-beta-launch <comment><USER2> This scares me. Already I frequently receive ads on certain podcast networks that must be based on geolocating the IP of my download--advertisements for area health-care networks that are certainly not nationwide. I've also downloaded episodes from backlogs where (what I assume to be newer) automated ad systems have inserted ad blurbs in a way that scrambles the content or has it played more than once.

I miss the idea of being able to download "podcast001.mp3" and get the same file today that I did 10 years ago; the lack of a canonical source of history seems a loss.

</comment><comment><USER3> So many podcasts are going to lose their shirts due to hugely inflated numbers based on downloads, not listens.</comment>


Snap Set to Pitch $3.2B Share Sale to Voteless Investors - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-16/snap-seeks-to-raise-as-much-as-3-2-billion-in-initial-offering?cmpid=BBD021617_BIZ <comment><USER2> I'm very curious what happens with this IPO, and if it has a downstream impact on other start-ups' valuations.</comment>


Ditching My Smartphone - <AUTHOR> https://thefocuscourse.com/ditching-my-smartphone/ <comment><USER2> > Solitude Deprivation: A state in which you spend close to zero time alone > with your own thoughts and free from the input from other minds.

Or a Blaise Pascal put it:

"All of man's problems stem from his inability to sit quietly in a room all by himself."</comment>


Nearly a quarter of U.S. rural hospitals are on the brink of closure – report - <AUTHOR> https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20190220/NEWS/190229999/nearly-a-quarter-of-rural-hospitals-are-on-the-brink-of-closure <comment><USER2> This is a longstanding problem of geography and demographics. It is not unexpected that many of the States with the worst problem are also the ones that are least urbanized i.e. much of the population is diffused across a vast region. The aging and decline of these populations makes the situation worse.

The rural hospitals typically serve a population that otherwise would be several hours travel from the nearest "real" hospital, and typically have a catchment area of 1-2 hours travel. Many of these hospitals are located in towns with populations of a few thousand people. Even when heavily subsidized, the economics of maintaining these hospitals is very poor, especially as populations decline. Maintaining a fleet of doctors and facilities that are increasingly rarely used is expensive. And even with the current distribution of rural hospitals, it is not uncommon for people to live several hours from the nearest hospital.

It is essentially a math problem. To ensure that virtually everyone lives within N hours of a hospital, you would need to build an enormous number of hospitals that each service a population of a few thousand people unless N is quite large. This has an extremely high cost per capita, most of which is wasted because they are often very underutilized, which does nothing to help reduce healthcare costs. And you can't force these people to move to more urbanized areas of the country either. The other challenge is finding enough doctors willing to work in a tiny remote town. Few people want to live in these areas and so many doctors that do work in these hospitals are effectively required to commute from a city that is hours away -- it is not a desirable assignment for most.

<comment><USER3> We can also improve coverage by building faster roads. How about a dedicated fast lane with a minimum speed of 120 mph and modern-car requirement? Add toll to reduce congestion.

It might improve emergency response, local commerce, far-away commute, tourism, and availability of all services, including healthcare.

Short of that, maybe next-gen VTOL aircraft (robotic octocopters) for transporting the ill at a fraction of the cost of a helicopter.

Here's one for $200k with a 70 mile radius. [https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/307065](https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/307065)

<comment><USER2> Building new, faster roads in rural areas would be outrageously expensive per capita and would rarely be used, there is no economy to justify the expenditure. There are 2.2 million kilometers of _unpaved_ road in the US. Even for the paved rural roads, many of them are relatively low-speed or circuitous because it is cheaper to go around myriad engineering obstacles than through them. It is difficult to justify tunneling 20 kilometers through a mountain range with a high-speed road so that 100 people can shave an hour off getting to the other side of that mountain range where there _might_ be a fast highway.

Helicopters and similar have problems of limited range and operating ceiling, which are particularly relevant in the western US, in addition to requiring safe landing areas that may not be readily available. It is a challenging problem to solve, the US is quite large and many areas where people live are rugged and remote.

<comment><USER4> I would beg to differ -- the vast majority of rural roads in this country west of Pennsylvania are mile by mile grid, wide, and 55 MPH fast moving. They don't get you anywhere nearly as fast as freeways, they often slow down through tiny hamlets and they have lots of stop signs, but they're already very fast compared to a lot of places.

Edit: Which is to say that I agree with you more than the grandparent.

<comment><USER2> Those grids are not a problem, they drive relatively fast for unpaved roads, but the grids completely disappear once you reach the mountains in the western third of the US, even in large unbroken crop areas like The Palouse with proper rural roads. Many parts of the South are similar, though in those parts the meandering rural roads are defined more by water obstacles.

The major highways in the rural west, on the other hand, are very fast (90 MPH is normal) once you get to them, but the geographic distances between places that resemble civilization on those highways are often quite large even at that speed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Weirdly, the article didn't notice the very strong correlation between "states that didn't accept the Medicaid expansion" and "places with under-payed rural hospitals".

This seems like an absolutely elementary analysis to do -- places with the Medicaid expansion are more likely to have people with health insurance; places without are less likely.

</comment><comment><USER6> I honestly wonder if any form of sparsely populated settlement would be sustainable if it was not heavily subsidized by taxes from the urban regions.

Ironically, the worst predicament for any form of infrastructure is under-use. In today's world where no town can be self-sufficient, low density can be the bane of its existence.

It is sometimes irritating how heavily favored rural communities are (per capita) in the way Govt.is structured.

<comment><USER7> True. Rural areas might also be the source of the next generation, having higher fertility rates.

[https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest- communities/articles/...](https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest- communities/articles/2018-10-17/as-fertility-rates-fall-across-us-gap-widens- between-rural-and-urban-counties)

<comment><USER8> More likely immigrants will be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wouldn't be better for pretty much everyone to just help the people in areas where services are unsustainably expensive to move to denser areas where they can be properly attended? At this point the less dense areas are a waste of energy and resources that are worsening our climate outlook, we should be starting to think about real solutions instead of some cockamamie telemedicine patch - seeing a doctor over the phone is only a solution for trivial problem, as soon as there's something serious the only option is a very long car ride or a very expensive helicopter ride.

<comment><USER4> Well, that depends. Will the urban area allow me to have a workshop? Will it do like San Diego did and disallow any personal car repair even in my own damn garage? Will I be able to even modify the way in which I enjoy my hobbies without incurring literally 100x the cost in an urban area vs. a rural one?

The town I live in now has messed with zoning so much over the last 30 years that any extant property is a minefield of exceptions and variances, so any time you want to even repair what's there, you need a $500 zoning variance application. Anytime you want to expand in place, you violate the setback rules. Anytime you want to do anything other than stay exactly as is, doing only the mowing the lawn and walking to the restaurants in town that the "City Master Plan" expects, you are begging for permission from the high and mighty civil masters _ahem_ servants. All of my friends that enjoy the same things as I do, do what I'm working towards doing -- move out of the city and away from the upper class zoning that intends to keep the working class out.

<comment><USER10> > Will I be able to even modify the way in which I enjoy my hobbies without > incurring literally 100x the cost in an urban area vs. a rural one?

I think the point the parent is making is that the people in urban areas are the ones subsidising your extra-urban lifestyle, which would be unaffordable if you had to pay the real cost of all your services

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting, you have to wonder if this will help accelerate a push from rural voters for government-run health care where gov run hospitals have a mandate to stay open and the cost is spared across the system.

<comment><USER12> I doubt it. My grandparents and inlaws both live in rural towns, and I think they'd rather have the hospital close down than have to pay more taxes. I know the news likes to show people from rural towns that want the government to provide urban ammenities in areas that can't financially support it, but in my experience, those people are in the minority. Most rural people I've met know the risks of living far from government services, and they think the benefits outweigh the risks.

<comment><USER13> Still even people living 'far from government services' should be able to get emergency help when they need to and the closure of the hospitals might just drop the general level of life in the area

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Honestly I don't feel sorry for the USA any more. The rest of the world solved these problems 50 years ago.

At some point you conclude that the USA _wants_ these problems. China could not ask for a better boogeyman.

<comment><USER10> Not really, the same questions are common in many large European countries too. In France the "continuity of public service" is harder and harder to keep going, as taxpayers balk at the cost of subsidising telecoms, post, hospitals etc for sparsely populated areas

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Doesn't the free market say that however many hospitals we have is exactly the right number? /s

<comment><USER16> The free market says if you are not worth keeping alive, you should be dead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does everyone here grow everything they eat in a windowbox? Dig their own ore? Not everyone in a rural area is just sitting in their trailer living off Social Security, and many of those that are were productive citizens in their youth. All the stuff NIMBY urbanites care not to do gets done elsewhere, and those people have just as much right to healthcare as anyone.

<comment><USER18> The voting record of most rural areas indicates they don't believe they have a right to healthcare.

<comment><USER17> You're conflating a right to healthcare with a right to have someone else pay for it.

<comment><USER19> No, they're not, because implicit in a right to healthcare is access to subsidy. There's literally no other way for it to be systemically provided. Literally every other option results in provisioning failure. The former requires and cannot not require the latter.

I have trouble understanding why social issues make nerds stop thinking systemically, but there you have it.

<comment><USER17> I'm not arguing against subsidy, everyone else is- most of the comments here are that rural citizens are 'getting what they deserve' because they don't vote correctly in national elections and burn too much carbon on the farm or whatever. I don't believe someone in SF has to subsidize a hospital in Alabama, but I do believe they have to subsidize a hospital in the Central Valley, either through taxation or through higher food prices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Just more cracks in the facade on sick care here in the United States obscuring the fact that it is an unsustainable sham.

</comment><comment><USER21> The urban/rural divide is so great we really need to sets of laws. Aviation laws should be different in rural areas; reducing cost by sacrificing safety.

Make it cheaper to fly people to hospitals, in slightly less safe craft.

</comment><comment><USER22> hmmm not sure..the rural hospitals near me combined to save costs.

</comment><comment><USER23> It seems to make sense, as populations fall -- there would be less need for healthcare. The more we subsidize rural living the more we distort their long term viability. Towns and cities shouldn't be deploying infrastructure that they can't support, it adds up over time and makes their situation even more untenable in the future.

A classic example of this small towns implementing city like water/sewer systems without the tax base to do the maintenance; the federal government provides a grant for the initial installation and the town slowly goes bankrupt trying to pay for it.

</comment><comment><USER24> Why shouldn't they close? If it is not cost effective to support rural communities why do we prop them up? Lot of these places have 20% unemployment rates(areas listed in the article) yet there is a severe job shortage in urban areas. How about we fund moving them to areas that have better economic conditions/jobs?

<comment><USER25> The question is how to provide healthcare for rural communities, these hospitals are it. The citizens often can't afford the healthcare, can't afford to go to a doctor until it's an emergency, and now with many of these closures they can't even get that.

The easiest answer for many states is to expand Medicaid to cover a larger share of the low income population which can bring revenue to the hospitals with visits etc, but that seems to be very difficult politics for some individuals.

<comment><USER24> The example given in the article was in New Mexico which is a state that expanded medicaid. The labor participation in that county is 30% with 14% of working age people on disability. There aren't jobs in the county. Sante Fe on the other hand has 70% labor participation.

Moving people to areas that have higher economic advantages and jobs is a long term fix. On other solutions are just bandaids and doesn't solve the underlying economic issues.

<comment><USER21> This is the least mobile generation, few people more around. We need to make it easier for people to move around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Makes sense. Why would anyone choose to be inpatient at Hickville Memorial Hospital when they could drive 45 minutes to go to State U Medical Center?

These communities need smaller facilities with fewer beds, not mid 20th century style hospitals.

<comment><USER27> I just think you should know that "hick" is an offensive slur.

<comment><USER28> I agree with what you say, and I think it is wrong for the parent comment to use such derogatory terms.

That being said, your comment also strikes me the wrong way, and I have received similar comments in real life where I had the same reaction, so I thought a bit about why I really feel that way.

More precisely:

1\. the patronizing "you should know", as if your goal was to educate the person, as if not offending others would be a matter to be solved by education, etc.

2\. pointing out in a lukewarm and passive-aggressive way that something is offensive. What should the other person do? He clearly knows already, and his goal is to offend. There is no right "not to be offended".

3\. that it is not directed at you, but you are offended on other people's behalf.

All in all, while I am on your side, I would find it more heartfelt, if you said "you call me a hick? I'll kick your ass!" then this type of reaction.

<comment><USER29> I agree that the wording isn't ideal, but I interpreted the commenter you replied to as explaining why the original comment was getting downvoted without real responses. That is a common occurrence on HN when someone steps outside the bounds of civility in non-immediately obvious ways. It serves to give context to both the original commenter, and readers who may wonder why it was downvoted.

Also, why are you so sure that the responder is not offended on his or her own behalf? Hopefully you don't think that just because someone is commenting on HN that they would never be associated with "hicks". I find HN has people of more backgrounds than most folks realize, and as a person with a family who would certainly be categorized that way by many (southern, rural, working- class), I find your insinuation that it would be somehow more "authentic" to threaten violence as far more patronizing and stereotyping than the original comment even.

<comment><USER27> I was offended on my own behalf. I grew up in a rural, Southern area where I only ever heard 'hick' used by outsiders as a slur against locals. Certainly I have also seen rural people "reclaim" the term, but that doesn't give outsiders the right to use it.

I also find the insinuation that I should have threatened violence patronizing and prejudiced. The parent comment also included an example of how I "should" talk to sound more "authentic". Textbook prejudice.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Jennifer in paradise: the story of the first Photoshopped image - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/photography-blog/2014/jun/13/photoshop-first-image-jennifer-in-paradise-photography-artefact-knoll-dullaart?CMP=fb_gu

<comment><USER2> What's are those familiar shapes fluttering across the screen of the old Mac in the background??! It's out of focus in the shot, but it looks to me like over all those years, they took great care to save its screen with flying toasters!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Dark_(software)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Dark_\(software\))</comment>


Inside the Secret World of Data Crunchers Who Helped Obama Win - <AUTHOR> http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world-of-quants-and-data-crunchers-who-helped-obama-win/

<comment><USER2> The other submission ...

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4753364>

... links to the print version, and hence is not, strictly speaking, a duplicated URL. The content, however, is identical.

</comment><comment><USER3> duplicate submission? already a higher voted submission</comment>


All Work and No Play: Why Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/all-work-and-no-play-why-your-kids-are-more-anxious-depressed/246422/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> One month ago I started removing the constraints on my 8 years old daughter's outside activity. I just gave a wristwatch with the alarm set before dinner time and told her "when the alarm goes off then come home". I'm against her having a phone.

When she comes home and she tells us what she and her friends did (I don't ask, she just wants to share) it is hilarious and I usually think "It was better if I didn't know this and that". But then I think about the 8 years old version of me "bombing" the toy soldiers together with a friend of mine by spraying alcohol on them and by setting everything on fire, and I relax...

<comment><USER3> My company is in the process of launching a screen-free, non-phone LTE device (think unlimited range walkie-talkie with extra features) intended to let kids stay safe while having more freedom. I'm genuinely curious - how would you feel about something like that?

The site: [https://relaygo.com/](https://relaygo.com/)

<comment><USER4> Snark: It's nice for the helicopter parent who also doesn't want their kids exposed to a phone, so it'll probably sell just fine.

I suppose because I'm not a parent, I don't have that built in level of worry / paranoia, though I "fondly" remember how fearful my own mother was, but I don't get it. Isn't the point of letting your kid venture out to help them establish and explore freedom and boundaries?

You tell your child not to stay out past the street lights, not venture past certain landmarks, and then let them roam. If they comply, great! If not, they learn actions have consequences.

If I were a kid, I'd make sure to conveniently forget / power off / not charge / lose that thing as much as possible.

<comment><USER5> > If they comply, great! If not, they learn actions have consequences.

Or they die, which kinda sucks.

Look, I'm generally in favour of kids wandering about the place like I did when I was a kid, but even back then we had a tragically high number of kids getting themselves crushed under farm equipment, falling from heights and landing hard, getting exposed to hazardous materials, or drowning in pits full of animal shit.

It's simply disingenuous to act as if the worst that can happen is a wee scrape and a lesson learned.

<comment><USER6> That "tragically high" number was still a rounding error, though, in the United States.

I do wonder if it is a particularly American thing to take the wild exception as the norm like this.

<comment><USER5> Ireland, actually. I'd be curious to see the stats, but suffice to say enough families were losing children that there were major changes to farm safety regulation.

<comment><USER7> Ireland here as well, and that had a lot to do with poverty and families needing their kids to work at a young age. The same was true in the US before child labor laws. I think a general "ambient" risk and a culture of,having your 9 year old work on the farm or in a mill are fundamentally separate issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's important to let kids be bored and ignored from time to time, so they actually have the space to think for themselves and realize how many opportunities they have out there and how fun it is to explore them.

Of course, every kid is a different universe, but in general I feel we are missing quite a bit of that.

<comment><USER9> I wonder if lack of spontaneity is part of the blame. It seems to me that there is too much structured time for kids. Particularly in suburbia. When I lived in a suburb I rarely saw kids out playing in a park without an adult hovering over them. Never saw kids playing in the street or wandering the neighborhood.

<comment><USER10> > _Particularly in suburbia. When I lived in a suburb I rarely saw kids out > playing in a park without an adult hovering over them._

A significant part of this, I think, is a design failure instead of a parenting one. Suburbs are bad at almost everything they do, except creating neighborhoods with big houses, grassy yards, and decent schools. In particular, they're poison for both children's play and parents' peace of mind.

As for kids - empty lawns, identical houses, and artificial boundaries don't support energy or imagination. There's nothing to look at, nowhere to go, and not much to do. when I was a kid the only suburban house where we played outside was one where the neighbors had given permission for us to play games across 3+ yards. Meanwhile at more rural houses, there were trees to climb, places to hide, and forests to explore. And in mixed density condos and apartments, there were sidewalks along the roads, shops to look into, town parks with soccer fields to play on.

As for parents - suburbs are honestly one of the worse environments I can think of to turn kids loose into, after serious wilderness and dense cities. Many suburbs have no sidewalks and most have wide roads with long distances to travel and lots of vision-hiding curves; perfect conditions for kids to get hit by cars, whether they're walking, biking, or playing street games. There are enough people and cars around to worry about someone with ill-intent, unlike a rural setting, but not enough to trust in bystanders or authority figures like an urban or mixed-density setting. There are neighbors to get mad at your kids, but if you want someone watching them it falls entirely on you. And there's so little to _do_ that it raises fears of vandalism, bullying, or any other badness you might get from idle hands. For a younger kid, the sheer uniformity of suburbs can raise questions about finding their way home.

There are almost no redeeming features to suburbs, but I regularly hear "at least it's a good place to raise a family". I don't think it's true; suburbs are superficially clean and inviting, but they lack the stuff that makes unstructured life healthy and inviting for kids.

<comment><USER11> I think the question needs to be "how universal is the suburban space"? I've lived in multiple suburban areas, and the kid fun spaces were always the wild spaces at the edges of the suburban areas. If the houses are interspersed with somewhat-wild spaces, it works okay. If it's 100% homes, that's the curse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Shame I can't find it but I saw a study where a sociologist was monitoring a single town for decades and recording how far children would wander by themselves during the day. In the seventies it was around ten miles, with single-digit aged children wandering through the woods and into town and even doing errands for the family.

Around 2010 I think it had declined to about 200 yards max. It's really extremely sad. I wouldn't want to be a kid now. I wouldn't want to have those memories of childhood. It's part of several reasons I don't think it would be ethical for me to reproduce at this time.

People's fear is a sliding scale, and a child's safety is one of those things that the human psyche gives infinite value. That really screws up your ability to manage risk. People are even more afraid now, even though the causes of early death are the lowest they've ever been and we've marched ourselves into a joyless panopticon where nobody really decides their own destiny from an early age.

These kids are going to absolutely hate us.

<comment><USER13> > _These kids are going to absolutely hate us._

The decline has been going on constantly, over many generations. If the trend continues as it has, these kids will think we were too lenient and restrict the movement of their own children even further.

<comment><USER14> Parents have been investigated for allowing their children to play in the back yard: [https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/manitoba-cfs-will-not-erase- fi...](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/manitoba-cfs-will-not-erase-file-of- mother-who-lets-kids-play-in-backyard-1.2871900)

<comment><USER15> So? They were investigated become someone filed a complaint about small children alone, and the investigator found that the parent was home supervising the children and there was no problem. The rest of the article is FUD about CFS's refusal to expunge case files.

<comment><USER16> That's a 'near-miss'. Something that shouldn't happen does happen, and you come closer to disaster than you were ever comfortable with. At that point, all it would take is a grouchy case worker to throw their entire family into disarray for months or years.

Two years ago, an Ontario foster family had their children taken away solely for refusing to lie about the existence of the Easter Bunny[1]. The parents were planning on celebrating the holiday with the children, but when the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton discovered the parents were unwilling to lie if asked, they had the children immediately removed from the home. The caseworkers treated learning the truth about the Easter Bunny as if it were a serious immediate danger to the safety of the children. If that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is.

The foster parents won a lawsuit over the matter in March of this year, but it's kind of too late to make things right. The lives of both the children and the parents have been permanently changed by the bad decisions by case workers.

If I was that Manitoba parent, I'd be angry and scared too. Nothing happened this time, but if she continues letting her kids play in the backyard, she's rolling the dice again. All that needs to happen is for her same neighbour to make another complaint, and to get an unreasonable caseworker. Superficially, it might even seem reasonable, "children removed from home of woman after repeated complaints of neglect" is not a headline that sounds concerning.

[1]: [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/easter-bunny- edmonton...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/easter-bunny-edmonton- ontario-foster-children-hamilton-1.4569813)

<comment><USER17> > Two years ago, an Ontario foster family had their children taken away solely > for refusing to lie about the existence of the Easter Bunny.

And people all over the world read about the case and started to worry that something similar might happen to them, even though it was one single case on another continent (from where I am) two years ago. Maybe we should treat it as the freak incident it was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Since the introduction of all-age mandatory bicycle helmet laws in Australia back on the early 90s, cycle participation rates in relation to population has been in consistent decline (all while pedestrian safety and driver safety - but not cycle safety - at the same time has improved).

Bike racks at schools used to be filled - that is no longer the case. By comparison, this is what it looks like in Netherlands: [https://youtu.be/8NUgB_xkIvU](https://youtu.be/8NUgB_xkIvU)

<comment><USER19> Is it really required bike helmets to blame here? I find that hard to believe. Is there any research on that topic?

<comment><USER20> It's required in New York as well, but I can't imagine that is seriously deterring people from riding bikes.

<comment><USER21> I live in Toronto and bike to my university on a daily basis. If helmets were mandatory here I wouldn't, and if I wasn't I probably wouldn't even own a bike. I also bike recreationally to nice parks and stuff - stuff I wouldn't be doing since I wouldn't have purchased a good bike in the first place.

I've tried to explain why below, but the real point is just "from personal experience I can't image it isn't detering people from riding bikes".

The main reason a helmet is such a problem is just convenience. A bike, like a car, I can just lock up wherever I go. The helmet I would have to carry around with me all day. That makes whole day just slightly more inconvenient, and it's honestly just not worth it to me.

The second is that wearing a helmet makes me feel substantially less safe. There are two direct reasons that I can articulate for this, but I'm not sure they fully explain the effect. There are also statistics that support me, showing that wearing a helmet is correlated with a increase in collisions.

The first reason is wearing a helmet substantialy impedes my hearing. This is probably a bit foreign to people who are use to driving, but hearing is incredibly useful for knowing when a car/truck/bus/etc is coming up behind me. A helmet increases wind noises to the point where the signal is much less useful, I'm not confident I will always hear a car in time to react with one on, and I'm worse at pinpointing the location. Incidentally I find the lack of sound when driving fairly disturbing and scary, since I'm so used to being able to use it.

The second is that the extra weight on my head seems to make looking around take more psychological effort, so I end up doing it best, so I end up having less awarness of cars around me. This is a rather surprising (to me) effect, but I'm certain it's real. Of course it's not the end of the world because I do still make substantial effort to look around, it's just epsilon less often which makes me epsilon less safe.

<comment><USER22> What's wrong with just putting the helmet with the bike when you lock it up?

<comment><USER23> You will shortly no longer have a helmet. Locking it to the frame is difficult in direct proportion to how effective locking it up would be.

<comment><USER24> I've locked a helmet up with my bike all my life, in several different cities; It's a complete non issue to me. What is the concern; that someone will use a blade to cut the helmet strap so that they can steal your broken helmet? It's effortless to leave your helmet attached to your bike.

Edit - I'm not saying I support laws enforcing helmets for adults; I just don't think that helmet theft is a big concern.

<comment><USER25> This really depends on which city you're in and where in the city you leave your bike+helmet.

I've had the ultra-cheap lights on my bike stolen. I've seen plenty of other bikes stripped of everything except the frame itself.

This is why I always take my helmet (and my lights) with me, lock my bike and the front wheel with a good lock, and chain lock my seat down for good measure. Haven't had anything stolen since -- even in some sketchy areas.

<comment><USER26> > This really depends on which city you're in and where in the city you leave > your bike+helmet.

London, famous for rampant bike theft, and I've never had a locked up helmet stolen. Lights, I take with me; I'm not mad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The earlier discussion of this article mentions Legos as a good toy for free- form play. I'd like to add another: plasticine clay.

It's even more free-form than Legos, as it's not limited to any kind of pre- made shapes. It never hardens, and can be endlessly re-shaped in to new forms. It's a great way to get kids exercising their own imaginations.

<comment><USER27> Nice, where can I get plasticine clay avengers characters for my kids?

edit: The point I am trying to make is that kids don't want the toy that are good for them. They want "cool" stuff. And the market are really good at making new crap.

<comment><USER25> _" where can I get plasticine clay avengers characters for my kids?"_

Buying pre-made toys defeats the purpose of the clay, which is for kids to make their own toys out of.

It's like recommending you buy your kids some paints and paint brushes only to hear someone ask, "great, where can I buy them a painting of their favorite character?" You don't. That's not the point. If the kids want a painting of their favorite character, the paints and brushes empower them to paint their own. Same with clay.

The results might not be up to the high standards of adults, but usually kids don't care, have a lot of fun with the materials anyway, and actually learn to be creative instead of mere consumers of someone else's creativity.

 _" kids don't want the toy that are good for them. They want "cool" stuff"_

Cool stuff that they get bored with 5 minutes after they got it. Clay gives them an inexhaustible material that they can shape in to whatever they desire (including the cool stuff that they make themselves), and if they're bored with one thing they just mash it up and make something else.

I speak from personal experience -- having spent endless amounts of time playing with clay as a kid while many of my other toys languished. Of course it's not the ultimate toy, and kids will eventually get bored with it too and move on to something else. But it'll always be waiting there for whatever new thing their imagination conjures up next, instead of needing yet another trip to the toy store.

<comment><USER27> Only properly educated children knows how to play with good toys.

Grew up in 90s china, clay was actually really popular because they were cost effective to provide entertainment. On the other hand, even back then there were tons of companies making shitty toys around popular cartoons.

Right now company are smart enough to make shitty "educational toys" as they figured out they need to sell to the parents.

Kids are meant to be educated. Without good art and technology education, They would just consume crappy toys like junk food.

I was lucky enough to discover the fun of dissembling and repairing electronics for my parents. But not all children are like that.

It all comes down to how we educated young kids. Primary school teachers are not the best educated and they are paid lowest. Better education will mean smarter toy industry and more educated adult in the future.

But who on earth is going to pay for that?

<comment><USER15> Why the off-topic swipe at primary school teachers? Does it require specialized advanced education to allow kids to play with clay and blocks?

<comment><USER28> It requires specialised education to guide free play into a constructive activity. There's a big difference between "Here's a lump of clay. Smash it with your fist until you're bored." and "Here's a lump of clay. Let's try and mold it into something together, like a flower, or a bowl."

<comment><USER29> Also, depending on the child there can be a lot of learning in the "smash it until you're bored" phase. Then you can show a technique, or help them make something they can be proud of and help, a little, to show they can produce artefacts they are proud of if they seek to learn and apply that learning.

There's also much therapy in smashing clay, it doesn't hurt it as I remind every person I instruct on making pottery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Here is my observations from last 20 years:

Mississauga, CANADA: Lots of parks but almost all are empty throughout the year even during Summer time.

Karachi, PAKISTAN: Severe lack of parks but even the ones which are there are usually empty even during winter times.

Culprit in both cases: technology such as mobile phones, video games and TV. And also, paranoid parents who don't let kids go out and enjoy (and are probably too lazy to just sit quietly in the park to watch the kids).

<comment><USER31> I'm sure those are contributing factors. However, in the 90s I had video consoles and satellite TV, but still spent a lot of time unsupervised playing football (soccer). TV and video games were for rainy, cold days.

Part of me struggles to believe that kids don't want to play outside unsupervised – at least once they're outside.

My suspicion is that children just aren't allowed to be out alone as much today.

Parents would be almost seen as negligent if their children weren't supervised within earshot. Not in all cases of course, but my guess would be the parents have changed far quicker than children or the distractions available to them.

<comment><USER32> >Parents would be almost seen as negligent if their children weren't supervised within earshot.

One asshole calling CPS will put a little voice in the back of everyone's head telling them to be slightly more restrictive with their kids.

>art of me struggles to believe that kids don't want to play outside unsupervised – at least once they're outside.

Kid's don't want to play outside in the first place. They'd rather watch TV or whatever. If you make them play outside they'll stop whining and do it in fairly short order.

Combine the up front whining with the little voice and you see why "go play outside until mommy is done making dinner" is much less common.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> You should see them now, 2011! Facebook and twitter is here and ready to help with that anxiety and depression.

<comment><USER34> experimenting with sentiments ... err Connecting People at All Costs®

<comment><USER35> Lol nice

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's interesting watching the pendulum swing back so hard towards the kind of "free range parenting" that most of us grew up with in the 70s and 80s.

Looking at the comments here, it seems everyone thinks that it's tantamount to child abuse to not let a kid of any age roam free in any environment. Of course, I notice that many people expressing that don't seem to have kids of their own yet :)

I am amused by nostalgic comments about dangerous things that we all did decades ago and how: 1) we were fine, so how dangerous could it have been? and 2) look how much safer things are today, so it's no big deal.

Many apparently have never considered that maybe things are safer today _because_ we don't do those things, or that survivorship bias means that asking people who never wore seatbelts as a kid about whether it was dangerous may not be the best approach.

I grew up in the 80s and looking back now, I honestly probably roamed a little bit more freely than was healthy. I would ride my bike around town alone for hours when I was 6 or 7, including across major streets with heavy traffic. On at least one occasion some stranger tried to get me to get into their car. Now, I was taught to be careful but I doubt I had the maturity to understand the gravity of some of these situations.

I have a 3-year-old now and I'm going to work hard to not be paranoid and to let her explore and gain independence as she gets older, but I'm also not interested in making a statement or pushing back against societal trends or recreating my own childhood. I want to make sure she gets as much freedom as possible within the boundaries of a reasonable degree of safety, and I'll just use some common sense and balance to figure out what's best for her. Her childhood will look different from mine, and that's perfectly OK.

<comment><USER37> > don't seem to have kids of their own yet

I have two of my own, now 12 and 14. My wife was very paranoid, very overprotective, very helicopter parent. We continue to fight about this, because I grew up roaming outside in the 80's whereas she insists that "the world is different than it was back then". More than anything else, I worry about the potential health problems my kids might develop from having spent 90% of their lives indoors, sitting in front of a TV or a computer (and the people who say, "well you should just restrict your kids screen time" are the ones who don't have kids of their own).

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Could the points outlined in the article be the reason why Minecraft is so popular with kids? It seems to offer freedom that is similar to what free play does.

</comment><comment><USER39> Growing up in the 80s I had to deal with so much violence and abuse that I didn't get much play time. But I got my first writing published in an academic journal at 14. The violance, abuse and chaos around me caused me to hyper focus on reading and writing as an escape. I wasn't required to read 300 pages a day but the library was the only space I found free from violence as a child in the 80s.

<comment><USER40> That's great for you, but "I was surrounded by so much violence that I published my first academic article as a teenager" definitely isn't the typical case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3106016](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3106016).

<comment><USER42> Mmm, a good michaelochurch rant in there, I miss him.

<comment><USER43> Me too, bro, me too.

<comment><USER44> This prompted me to check out his blog. There's enough rant there for a few lifetimes.

<comment> le-mark I also check his blog from time to time, the quality of his rants have declined imo. Also he tended to beat the same drum, a bit myopic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I wonder whether the headline applies to adults as well.

<comment><USER46> Yes.

I seem to recall a piece on burnout in mathematicians (academics). Decades spent on ppotentially unsolvable problems, unbalanced reward/discouragement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Sure it sounds good but it was disappointing to see that none of the five suggestions were backed up by any supporting statistics.

</comment><comment><USER48> I see middle-school kids biking home from school in my suburb and when approaching the intersection (not a very busy one, mind you), they all dismount their bikes and walk across the street. I know that's what you're supposed to do, but c'mon, they're kids.. When I was that age my friends and I would race across the street without helmets flipping the bird to the crossing guard, so it's a bit unsettling to see them all obediently get off their bikes and single-file across the street, even when there are no crossing guards in sight.</comment>