Ask HN: What can a startup do to help fix law for the average person? - <AUTHOR>

The law is very difficult for the average user. Legal fees are extreme to the point of pricing many potential users out, and the incentives for legal firms often aren't aligned with the best outcomes for clients and the interests of justice.
Many of these issues affect startups and entrepreneurs - patent issues, financial law, contract law - founders find themselves unable to fight battles that they ostensibly should be able to win according to the law, but cannot afford to fund.
These pain points seem like potential opportunities for  a startup to turn into an opportunity.What could actually be accomplished by a startup in the legal space, and what kind of effort and resources would it take? <comment><USER3> The "average user" shouldn't be trying to do law any more than they should be trying to do their own plumbing or wiring or surgery.

Should "average lawyers" just hack around for awhile in Visual Basic and then complain that a fully featured CRM/CMS/client portal/website hasn't popped up on their screen and installed itself on some free server somewhere? Or if those average lawyers managed to get something that would build/compile/run, would it make sense for them to complain that "computers are too hard" or "developers are too expensive" when the sad little program they produced crashed, with horrible results?

No, that would be crazy.

Lawyers should let developers and programmers work on technical things. And developers and programmers should let lawyers work on legal things.

Legal fees are "extreme" if you're looking at the most expensive big name firms - but that's like walking past a Ferrari dealer and deciding you can't afford to buy a car.

There are tons of ordinary attorneys who charge relatively reasonable fees - but many people think that, just like everything on the Internet should be (almost) free because it's all just bits, that everything lawyers do should be (almost) free because it's all just words on paper.

If you really want to be in the "legal space", the effort and resources involved starts with three years of law school and passing a bar exam.

There are attorneys who don't use a traditional hourly billing approach - <USER2> particular, and relevant to your concerns mentioned above, some attorneys for small business charge a set monthly or yearly fee for reasonably limited access to the attorney for advice and basic document drafting, etc. If an attorney could get, say, 20 companies to sign up for $1000/month, the attorney would gross $240K, giving them, say, $140K for overhead and $100K for compensation, which isn't great or awful. The companies would be able to use, on average, 8 hours/month of the attorney's time, which is enough to get some good ongoing advice and handle little issues.

If those companies wanted to pay $500/month for legal services, the attorney could probably fire his/her staff, not rent a fancy office, and work out of their home and the clients' conference rooms instead. Of course, then the companies don't get to whine about how they have to leave a voicemail when they call the attorney, and they don't get to go sit in a fancy conference room in a tall building and feel important while talking to their attorney.

Some people are doing that. (Not me, by the way.) I think it makes sense. Perhaps you could write software that would help those attorneys manage their practices, or build a site that would help attorneys and clients find each other. (there are already a lot of those, and there's a new one that pops up every couple of weeks, so I'm pretty cynical about that .. but the online dating market, which isn't so dissimilar, is pretty mature, but people like plentyoffish or okcupid manage to survive and grow despite the match.com juggernaut, so it's obviously possible.)

<comment><USER4> People unclog their own toilets, and fit their own pipes.

They solder their own wires, and jump start their own cars.

They represent themselves in small claims court fine, and read their own legal papers before deciding whether or not to sign.

\----

You don't have to go all the way and become a professional, sometimes it enough to dabble and do simple things well within anyone's reach.

I think there's a lot of simplicity to the law and the logic behind it isn't too hard to follow. However, fear holds people back from even trying to learn about case law and the court systems, and so too many fights are lost out of fear (e.g. "I can't afford a lawyer, but he can, so I give up").

<comment><USER3> All of your examples concern people solving their own problems, not solving other people's problems, or providing infrastructure/tools for solving other people's problems.

People who "read their own legal papers" should be commended for their diligence - but unless they've spent hundreds or thousands of hours studying the specific field in which they're signing papers, chances are there's a ton of meaning in those papers they don't understand or even recognize. Sometimes what's _not_ present is as important as what _is_ present - and sometimes the person who drafted the papers has included terms and conditions that sound innocuous but are incredibly important, or are completely unenforceable but sound scary.

The example you pose probably isn't "fear", it's economics - e.g., "I don't want to give up having the other things in my life I'd have to sacrifice to have money for an attorney . . . and this dispute isn't really that important to me, so I'll just let the other guy win."

I think it's a good thing that lots of minor disputes aren't litigated fully.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a Harvard Law School graduate I want to say that the OP is really underestimating the skill set of lawyers, the law is a very difficult field and the suggestion that it is a cartel is a little overblown. Every legal issue is different, no two divorces are the same, no two lawsuits are the same, no two patent disputes are the same. This is why you don't really see a Dreamweaver/Weebly type app for web application development, no two web applications are the same and each one has different needs and challenges that require the skills of a computer engineer to work out. Same way for the law. The underlying attitude in Silicon Valley that "every problem can be solved with a web app" just does not hold true in the real world, especially for hard problems such as America's legal system.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not suggesting something like an app to solve legal problem just by plugging in all the data. I just wonder if there isn't a better way to make the law more 'user friendly'.

Maybe the problem is the firm system - what about a way for people to engage 'freelance' lawyers, while simultaneously making 'freelance' law more attractive? What about arming people with more information about what they should look for in lawyers to make firms more competitive?

It's quixotic to look for a way to replace lawyers, but obvious market failures such as cases where one party was in the right but simply could not afford to fight must have some kind of solution.

<comment><USER5> One thing I always tell friends and family is that litigation is the worst way to resolve conflicts. I have filed numerous legal complaints while working for a Legal Aid organization and even the simplest cases with as little as $2k at stake require hours of drafting legal documents, arguing motions, conducting discovery, etc. The more complex cases such as those you referred to in your original post are even more complex.

My suggestion is that you approach this issue from an arbitration angle, which takes legal disputes outside of the legal system. In other words figure out how to get parties to agree to forced arbitration like in MLB when contracting with each other, the only problem with the arbitration approach is that it would only work in situations where the parties contracted with each other, but not in situations where you suing someone who has no contract relationship with you.

I believe that most "freelance" lawyers are grossly underpaid and overworked. Contrary to popular belief solo attorneys only bank between 30k-75k a year on average which is barely enough to survive. Only the top 10% of attorneys work in prestigious law firms with six figure salaries and big name clients. The majority of attorneys in America are either barely scraping by or unemployed.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's really interesting, especially about the lawyer underemployment problem - do you have a link to some data backing that up?

Is it possible to create some sort of legal instrument where a case is simplified by first creating a contract between the disputing parties? It sounds daft but if savings on both sides are significant due to the simplification it would be in their interests to agree - especially if terms were standard issue of some sort.

Thanks for the food for thought.

<comment><USER5> Empirical Study On Legal Salaries

[http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2008/07/how...](http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2008/07/how- the-cravath.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a relatively normal person, I have my quirks. I read HN, I love politics, and I enjoy trying to understand the law. The fact that an average contract is impossible to comprehend is actively offensive. Most legal phrases in contracts are stock phrases. A "Google translate from law to human" would be a wonderful thing. Stick a contract in there, have all the standard parts summarized, and flag anything odd. I would adore this. This isn't about fighting battles, this is about making battles never happen in the first place. As a founder, you could run your recieved contract offers through this, just to make sure you aren't being doomed. If it can take in .doc, .docx, .odt, and .pdf files and return their translated equivalents, so much the better.

<comment><USER3> This is approximately equivalent to writing a program that would read poetry or literature and explain what's going on, including allusions, metaphors, snarky inside references, etc.

Or, framed differently - if law is code, it's linked against a complicated set of libraries that isn't standard worldwide, or even across a single nation. And the libraries are frequently updated - so unless you've got a statically linked executable (which may or may not be permissible) it's entirely possible that library functions will do things at runtime that hadn't even been imagined when the code was written.

Also, when the code is executed, the system's got a built-in "red team" trying to substitute other libraries that produce opposite results, and from time to time fuzzers appear that generate gibberish which may also be linked with your code.

In that context, your task is to solve the halting problem.

The battles that you are trying to avoid occur because someone wants them to occur.

The problem isn't that law is complicated, the problem is that people are assholes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Find a way to end the lawyer cartel: <http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=51>

Good luck with that :-/

<comment><AUTHOR> The formation of a cartel indicates market failure. The source of this is usually due to some property of the good or service.

In that link, the property appears to be the licensing of legal practitioners as a sign of competence to represent clients, but it does not address the structure of incentives around providing the service of practicing law. What properties could a disruptive business exploit to improve the situation?</comment></comment>


Would You Unschool Your Child?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.unlimitedmagazine.com/2010/09/would-you-unschool-your-child/ <comment><USER2> This page isn't loading for me, but to answer the question: absolutely.

My whole goal of becoming financially independent is based on my desire for two things: the freedom to continue my own 'unschooling', and the ability to invest all of my time and energy into my family. Sending my children to a detention center five days a week is incompatible with the sort of family life I'd like to have.

The biggest argument for sending kids to school is that it gives them an opportunity to socialize. I'd agree with this in a limited sense. Yes, they get to be surrounded by other children, but socialization outside of sanctioned time periods is punished (I spent a lot of my time in school sitting in 'timeout' in the hallway), and the socialization that occurs in such an unnatural setting is probably not optimal - in fact, it's common in America to refer to immature social settings as being 'high school'. I have friends who were home schooled, and they had no trouble meeting friends during their school age years.

I'd let my kids go to school to see what it is like, provided they know enough not to buy in to it, and they are going just to have fun and make friends.

* I'm a little reluctant to make this claim, since I am not yet a parent, but it all boils down to this: there is no way in hell that anyone cares more about my children's education and personal development than I do, so I am the best candidate for assuming that responsibility.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, one of the ironies of school is that one of its sole conceivable benefits is socialization, which is heavily punished and restricted. I have no idea where it was agreed upon that sitting passively listening to middle-aged people lecture for six hours a day is in anyway helpful to a young person, but whatever.

<comment><AUTHOR> This socialization comment is one that my coworkers always brings up. "They're breeding serial killers" he half-jokes.

I wasn't very well socialized in school. Maybe that's why I was interested in writing this story.

<comment><USER4> Thats kind of funny, until you realize he is actually right.

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris would not have been serial killers if they had not be so mercilessly bullied in school.

Granted most people don't end up as serial killers, but they do end up pretty ruffled and with psychic scars for the rest of their life.

The irony is that if geeks actually did kill more people they would have women falling all over them in prison.

<comment><USER5> _Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris would not have been serial killers if they had not be so mercilessly bullied in school._

Causation for that has not been rigorously demonstrated. But, agreed, the school social environment they were in is described by press reports as having been toxic even before they brought their weapons to the school.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My contribution: If you're doing this, and you have a smart kid, for God's sake, buy a lot of books, buy every book you can think of and put it in your house. I can point at three quarters of my interests and trace them straight back to books I picked off the shelf when I was 10. My parents had a lot of books, but even so, I ended up having to re-read the ones that were interesting to me instead of pushing further and learning more as a kid.

I think that if Amazon.com had existed and someone had given me a $500 gift card to last the duration of my childhood, I would be a lot smarter and better-educated than I am today, having established a better foundation.

<comment><USER7> This is the thing I'm most excited about for the future of the internet. Forget Amazon - anyone with an internet connection has access to audio and video lectures, notes and classwork from Harvard, MIT and others. Almost anything you want to learn can be picked up online, and (illegal though it is) any book you want to read can be found online.

But the best part is, _this hasn't sunk in yet_. So few people understand that the world has gotten to a stage where you can get a university-level education by yourself, based on what you feel like learning, from the comfort of your own home.

I love this for two reasons. Firstly, I imagine that 20 years from now, when this fact starts changing the world, that the world will be a much better place for it. And secondly, as a person involved in tech (and entrepreneurship), I have the ability to take part in the creation of this brilliant future. A great time to be alive, I think :)

<comment><USER8> _But the best part is, this hasn't sunk in yet. So few people understand that the world has gotten to a stage where you can get a university-level education by yourself, based on what you feel like learning, from the comfort of your own home._

But you can't, at least not in the biological sciences, unless your home has an autoclave, ultracentrifuge, laminar flow hood, etc. Same could be said for civil engineering, chemistry, or any other discipline with a lab or field component.

<comment><USER9> Suppose there were facilities to rent lab space by the hour?

You'd need some formal training on safety issues but maybe you could get educated a lot more cheaply then with the full university system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wait wait wait. I don't understand this. Unschooling simply seems to mean "being a good parent". Can someone explain the distinction? The Unschooling website doesn't help me either:

"Unschooling is following your children's lead...Unschooling isn't a method of instruction, it's a different way of looking at learning..."

Outside of school, my parents encouraged and helped me to learn interesting subjects, play musical instruments, paint, build things with Lego, play sports. When I asked my dad about computers he taught me Pascal. They did all this not because school was bad (it was great actually), but because they wanted to support me. I thought that's just what good parents are meant to do. What do the Unschooler people think parents do by default?

<comment><USER11> Doesn't "unschooling" mean "unstructured homeschooling"? People who believe in unschooling generally aren't sending their kids to school at all.

I think this might get tricky because "unschooling" is a new-ish term, and is pretty overtly trying to pick up steam as a "movement" or a "sensibility" or an "ethic" and is deliberately being inclusive; no doubt someone on HN is going to chime in and say they're an unschooler who sends their kids to public K12.

<comment><USER12> I think most people use "homeschooling" in the sense of re-creating a school environment at home - assignments, textbooks, tests, etc. At least one of the parents is expected to take on the role of the teacher, with all that implies.

"Unschooling" does away with most of the conventions of traditional schooling, and tries to give kids as much freedom as possible to explore and learn on their own, under the assumption that kids learn better that way.

There may be more or less structure involved, at the discretion of the parents, but the parent is more of a facilitator and less of an teacher. The theory is that the trappings of school get in the way of actual learning, so unschooling tries to remove as many unnecessary obstacles as possible.

<comment><USER11> Yeah I believe you and I'm sure this is all great (as a parent of 2 school- aged handfulls, "good luck with that", as they say).

My point is just that unschoolers aren't sending their kids to a big brick building full of professional teachers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My wife and I are expecting in December, and we're planning on some variation of unschooling for our children, starting at an early age. Based on the research we've done, it's a straightforward way to get better educational results for your kids if done properly.

We're planning on some variation of the "Robinson Curriculum" (<http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/>), which in essence is a simple daily structure of (1) a daily math lesson, from the Saxon math series or similar, (2) daily reading, based on their interest but with a few recommendations, and (3) daily writing about any topic that interests them, which is then proofread and corrected by the child.

"Socialization" is pretty much a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned. The above structure takes a few hours a day, so there's more than enough time for play and structured activities like sports or music if they're interested. As tommynazareth commented, the socialization in schools is mostly negative.

The key seems to be striking a balance between a clear and simple structure and letting your child follow their interests. It also requires some self- control by the parents - it's better to let your kids struggle at times when they find hard problems than immediately jump in and help them. The parent isn't doing the teaching - they're helping the child learn to self-educate, which is a major difference.

I want my children to be able to think clearly, learn essential skills, and be able to teach themselves anything they're interested in learning. I don't believe the public school system is capable of doing that, which is why we're looking to do it ourselves.

<comment><USER13> I've never met a home-schooled kid who wasn't social awkward. I really hate the current education system, but I also recognize that the social skills developed there are almost as important as the formal education kids get.. perhaps even more so.

<comment><USER12> I think a child's social skills are very influenced by the _type_ of environment at home.

Many families homeschool because they want to intentionally "protect"/isolate their children from the mainstream. This is very common with religious families that choose to homeschool so their kids (1) are exposed to the family's values and belief system to the exclusion of others, and (2) aren't corrupted by the evils of the outside world. That's a perfect recipe for social awkwardness.

Isolation is not a primary component of the homeschooling/unschooling approach. In fact, if your goal is to expose your kids to as many cool things and people as possible, more unstructured time doing things in the real world may actually make them more socially skilled than their peers.

<comment><USER14> This is just as unfair a characterization of home-schoolers as the GP.

<comment><USER12> What part do you think is an unfair characterization - that some parents prefer to isolate their children for religious/moral reasons, or that doing so can lead to social awkwardness?

According to a 2001 U.S. Census survey, 33% of homeschooling households cited religion as a factor in their choice, 14% objected to what the school teaches (i.e things like evolution), and 9% cited morality. (See data at [http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053/...](http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053/twps0053.html#data) and [http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053/...](http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053/tab05.txt))

In a 1999 study by the National Center for Education Statistics, only 48.9% of US homeschooling parents cited "Can give child better education at home" as the primary reason for homeschooling. That means 51.1% of homeschooling parents in the US think their kids would get a better education at school, but choose to homeschool for other reasons, which are primarily religious/moral in nature.

I'm not saying all homeschooling parents (which includes all religious homeschooling parents) want to isolate their children. The point is that, for a non-trivial percentage of parents, removing their children from the mainstream _is a primary motivation for homeschooling_.

<comment><USER15> > _"That means 51.1% of homeschooling parents in the US think their kids would > get a better education at school"_

No, that's not what it means.

It means 48.9% thinks "better education" is their main reason for homeschooling. For the other 51.1%, "better education" is not the main reason, but may still be on the list.

It's true that a non-trivial percentage want to isolate their children from the mainstream, but please do not misrepresent the statistics to make your point.

<comment><USER12> That was what I thought at first too, until I double-checked the study. If you look at the data here ([http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053/...](http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053/tab05.txt)), the cumulative percentage is 214.2%. That means it wasn't a "multiple choice, pick one" question - it was a "mark one or more reasons" question.

That means that 51.1% of parents surveyed did not mark "quality of education" as a reason they chose to homeschool - it was on the list as an option they could have marked, and they chose not to pick it. That's pretty telling, IMO.

<comment><USER16> Parents can also believe that homeschooling does just as good a job as other schools.

Because they don't list that their motivation was that they can do better than a public school does not mean that they believe they will do worse.

Consider the case of someone sending their child to a French immersion school. Most would not say that the immersion school is better than all other schools, but that doesn't mean they believe they believe it is worse. Likely they are sending their children there because they want them to learn to speak French fluently, not because they believe other schools are worse.

Here's a more recent study from the US Department of Education:

[http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/TableDisplay.asp?Tabl...](http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/TableDisplay.asp?TablePath=TablesHTML/table_4.asp)

This 2003 study is considered to be far superior to the 1999 one cited for reasons discussed in this article:

<http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/parentsreasons.asp>

For example, on the 1999 study two flaws listed are "when faced with an open- ended question, parents may not have recalled or responded with all of the reasons for homeschooling that were applicable to their situation" and "parents were not specifically asked to report their primary reason for homeschooling".

As you can see the 2003 study addresses these procedural errors and breaks out factors cited at all separately from those cited as primary concern.

The most listed factor for both was environmental factors in other schools, meaning "safety, drugs, or negative peer pressure". This was a concern of 85.4% of families, and the most important factor for 31.2%.

Dissatisfaction with academic quality of other schools was a factor in 68.2% of families, but a primary reason in only 16.5%

Regarding the assumptions made previously that any included component of religious or moral instruction implies isolationism and a lack of socialization, that claim is not supported by studies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Tried it. Didn't work for my children. As the article says though, it's not for everyone. My kids are super-smart, but lazy, and unfortunately need structure. I homeschooled them for several years, but both of them asked to go to "real" school eventually, one by the age of 6 and the other by 8 (they were about 2 years ahead of the other kids when they enrolled). I think that it's worth the experiment though, but be prepared for the unexpected as you're dealing with an individual, not an ideal.

<comment><USER18> Such a smart comment. The ideals matter, but so do the individual kids. What works for some may not work for your kids, or for you as a parent. Being adaptive gives better results than following the One True Way. Especially with a thing like "childhood," which is so idealized -- it's easy to get carried away.

Also, as a parent, you have to remember that your issues about school (too strict, too unstructured, too much bullying, not enough recess, whatever) are likely to _not_ be the issues of your kids.

You shouldn't be making their educational choices to compensate for retrospectively-understood mistakes in your own education.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> As a life-long unschooler, I'd answer with an emphatic yes (though I don't actually plan to have kids of my own). Letting me direct my own education was without a doubt the single greatest thing my parents did for me in life.

"Last year Shea's son wanted to do more math so, deviating from the strict un- schooling line of thought, they placed him in an online math course."

This sentence struck me as odd. This could only be construed as "deviating from the strict un-schooling line of thought" (whatever that means) if they placed their son in the course against his will. But the article explicitly states that he was interested in learning more math. Many of the unschoolers I know take take formal classes in subjects that interest them.

</comment><comment><USER20> While I love the idea of homeschooling and unschooling, I can't quite figure out how people do this while still managing to pay their bills. Wouldn't this, in essence, take up a significant portion of your day, preventing you from working?

<comment><USER21> My mom stayed home with us while Dad worked (now that we're all grown she got a new job, the sort that has a commute and is counted in GDP). I think the other homechool families in the area did the same thing.

This being HN, I suppose another option would be for one parent to run some sort of e-business that allows them to have an opposite schedule and take turns working vs being with the kids.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> We Homeschool, My wife is a full time mom, she was a practitioner so has a lot of Bio background. I Freelance, and generally work from home. I have a friend here in my home town that came back from the valley after a successful exit who introduced us to the concept of unschooling.

I was extremely skeptical of homeschooling in general, when my wife decided that we should do it. But with the gangs, drugs and actual lack of eduction being taught in schools I decided that we would probably be doing them no harm.

After a few years of homeschooling and the return of my friend who was unschooling his children we decided to give unschooling a try. Before homeschooling there is no way that you could have convinced me that some hair brained idea like let you kids choose what they want to do would ever work.

It has changed my perception of how children learn now. My 4 year old is putting together robots and working out logic with a Lego Mindstorm, set and my 12 year old is well into Algebra and rivals any professional graphic artist or digital media professional I have ever seen.

Most of the kids that we know in the homeschooling and unschooling social circles enter into collage at between 14 and 16 years of age. Something is obviously working here.

<comment><USER23> As always, correlation is not causation. I was unschooled, and a lot of people get into it precisely because school is simply too slow for their kids. It isn't surprising that these kids would go on to be very bright.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> _"...un-schooling is learning without the trappings of a formal schooling arrangement. It is the act of trusting your child's natural curiosity to teach them what they need to know. This is not to say that you abandon your children at the playground and pick them up at the end of the day, mind you. Instead, the parent plays a critical role as a resource who is there to answer questions, to talk with and to provide support."_

I like this article. It's an explanation of one of the many ways in which people are decentralizing their lives (Other ways include the returns and growth of local food and entrepreneurship).

Of course, decentralization of education means that parents and/or local communities _have_ to be more involved in their children's educations. But I think the larger point is that in order to do that, people need to be less involved with other things. I hope I live long enough to see the culture shift towards smaller lifestyles with an emphasis on more diversity and creativity.

</comment><comment><USER25> Unschooling seems vaguely defined, but it seems to sit on the child-initiated end of the spectrum. Traditional schooling is at the teacher-initiated end. I'm a fan of the Montessori style, which is near the middle. It's a great balance of freedom and structure.

<comment><USER15> One of the keys to both Montessori style instruction and "un-schooling" is the recognition that children learn at their own pace. Sometimes their brains aren't ready for a particular topic, and trying to get them to learn it too early can do a lot of harm (much like "learning" a physical activity before the muscles and bones are ready for it), or at the very least won't do much good. On the other hand, when a kid is ready to learn a topic, he may pick it up much more quickly than the lesson plans expect. Teacher-initiated schooling, with its curriculum and standards boards, usually doesn't have the flexibility to accommodate different kids' different readiness to learn different topics.

Within the context of child-initiated learning, it's certainly worthwhile to have someone introduce a child to new topics, inspire them to learn, and provide answers to their questions. Some amount of structure and some amount of teacher initiation is useful.

With my own children, I plan to be somewhere on the un-schooling-to-Montessori end of the spectrum. Figuring out where will be a learning experience for me, too.

<comment><USER26> This is true, and homeschooling with some sort of curriculum is a nice balance, I think. My wife and I follow a "classical" curriculum with our kids at home, but at the same time, we are flexible according to what works and what doesn't, and what they enjoy. And, hopefully, we're developing and nuturting their intellectual curiosity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If I was unschooled as a child, I think my every minute would have been playing basketball and Atari.

It would seem to me, that children need a good deal of direction. I was curious as a child, but I don't think I was curious about math, until I learned about it.

And I think this actually gets worse in high school. Where I'd probably do math/programming 24/7 and never read another non-technical book. Or study any history, biology, chemistry, music, etc...

Seems like you need a good balance. The parent needs to be more than simply a resource. The parent needs to be... well a parent. Someone who guides the child to areas that they might be interested in, even if the child doesn't know it. And in some cases pushes the child.

<comment><USER28> They say "not to say you abandon your child at the playground". Every kids plays the "why" game with their parents. They're naturally curious assuming they're stimulated. You can feed this curiosity and see where it takes them. If they love sports, see if they're interested in reading about the greats, or looking at stats, etc.

<comment><USER29> >Every kids plays the "why" game with their parents.

So far my eldest lad hasn't, perhaps for one day, I think it's because I kinda overload him with questions and suggestions as to why things might be, trying to stimulate him to think of possible answers.

He does come up with some humdingers though - "how do we move our arms", "what's water made of" were two of his most recent. I'm not sure that he took in all of the info on motor-neurons or realised that he should be surprised that H and O gases combine to a room temperature liquid.

Re your last sentence, I always loved sport but (despite doing Maths at Uni) have never been in the least bit interested in statistics related to it. Horses for courses, or something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Because the article mentioned not memorizing the alphabet, I thought I could ask a question I've been pondering on a while.

Beyond looking at print indexes and dictionaries, is there any compelling reason to learn the _order_ of the alphabet anymore? Lists are often in alphabetical order but it's not a strict requirement to know the ordering to use those lists, and most datasets online have search. As do digital dictionaries. Could the relentless switch to all-digital content make the alphabet only a cute, optional thing to memorize?

<comment><USER31> I think teaching your kids the alphabet isn't asking for too much. And whatever you do, don't mix up the letter order.

I was unlucky enough when I was a young kid (5 or 6) to be enrolled at a school for a few weeks during the start of the year while my parents were moving. (We were staying with family in a different town than the one we were moving to).

The teacher started the year by helping us learn to read. I could already read a little at this point, some of the other kids couldn't yet. She went through this process by teaching random letters from the alphabet. x, b, and k one day, and g, p, s the next.

This confused the _hell_ out of me. It also did no service to the other kids who were trying to learn. After a couple of weeks of me telling my parents about it seeing my reading comprehension actually getting _worse_ , they pulled me from the school for the last week until we moved, if I remember correctly.

And to put this all in perspective, I have always been a voracious reader. There was barely a moment growing up that I can remember not being with a book. In school I was always at least 2-3 years ahead of most of my peers when it came to reading, language, etc. I'm lucky I didn't have to keep that one backwards teacher.

<comment><USER30> _I think teaching your kids the alphabet isn't asking for too much._

I agree. I was doing a little thought experiment, though, to analyze why that is. I don't like believing something without knowing the value of believing it ;-)

 _And whatever you do, don't mix up the letter order._

This, though, I am unsure about.

I appreciate hearing your experiences but I'm not convinced one teacher's approach invalidates the technique. With the synthetic phonics approach that's common here in the UK, the focus is typically on learning letters in relation to their use in simple words (like 'cat'). The order of the alphabet isn't ignored, but this is left till later when the names of the letters are covered (this comes after learning all of the "sounds").

I still need to do a lot more reading into this, but my own daughter's approaching the stage where she'll be interested in specific letters and I was planning to focus on the sounds she takes an interest in and their associated representations and worry about the "alphabet" somewhat later on. Phonics is not without its detractors though so, as I say, I need to do more reading ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> "The current K-12 educational system exists, generally speaking, for two primary reasons. First, its scalability makes it easy for the state to educate its citizens, and second, it gives children and teens a shared public space where they learn to interact with others and hopefully pick up some societal norms."

This is completely wrong. The five functions of school are generally recognized to be Training, Sorting, Socialization, Caretaking, and FRPL. The author doesn't even get partial credit, because each function affects how each other function is implemented. So a school system whose only roles were teaching and socialization would have essentially zero in common with our school system today.

"Influential books in the un-schooling canon include Deschooling Society by Ivan Illich"

The thesis of Illich's book is (IIRC) that one of the biggest flaws of society is that each area of life is dominated by only a few major schools of thought, and these schools of thought tend to favor the elites. The book isn't even about education, let alone unschooling, albeit a lot of his examples are about education merely because it turns the title into a clever pun.

In any event, do you really want to be taking advice from someone whose clearly never actually read a book about education, or any of the vast amounts of research?

<comment><USER33> I would down vote you if I could.

1) The article does not say that the main function of K12 system is to be scalable. It says that scalability was an important concern on how the system was designed to accomplish its functions. You are comparing apples to oranges.

2) What is FRPL in the first place? or your full 5 list for the matter. Most of your audience is not a M.Ed. but most are smart enough to follow your argument if you take the time to present it. Please spare us the letter soup.

3) The idea that only the pundits and experts have the right to express an opinion about the subject is not one very favorable in this forum. Do not disqualify the argument because it lacks the "proper credentials".

<comment><USER32> 1) I was sort of ignoring the scalability part and responding as if it just said education and socialization. The author never mentions scalability again in the article, so it's not even clear why it's there.

2) FRPL is free and reduced price lunch. One of the main reasons why schools exist is to feed children whose parents wouldn't otherwise have enough money to feed them. In many parts of the country kids gain weight throughout the spring and fall, and then come back a lot thinner after winter and summer break because they don't get very much food at home. But designing schools to fulfill has a huge effect on the pedagogical and other functions of school.

3) I'm not criticizing the author for lacking the proper credentials, I'm criticizing him for being wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A lot of the controversy comes from the reality that there's no single definition for unschooling so it can range from montessori style progressive education in which facilitators help the independent learner explore a curriculum of their own choosing, right through keeping the children chained in a basement and fed raw potatoes and water. Everyone would agree the latter is abuse and not really homeschooling or unschooling, but the minute fraction of parents with children chained up in basements are of course going to claim that the children are homeschooled in order to explain why they aren't in school.

In between there are parents who allow their children to play in meadows each day as Rousseau recommended, to run their own private web business at age 11, as well as those who feel that watching TV and playing video games for several hours a day is educational.

Overall, most unschoolers produce kids more educated and capable than public school graduates.

This is mostly possible due to the poor state of public schools in general, which comes from trendy theories and government muddling rather than any lack of funding or talent.

</comment><comment><USER34> I would not consider "unschooling" or home-schooling for a child, nor do I think it is a good option for the majority of children.

People love to malign the public school system, but the truth is that in most places in the western world children have the opportunity to get an excellent education. The problem is that more and more parents don't seem to take the time to teach their children to respect others, be it authority figures, peers, or anyone else. Children who are taught by their parents that it's fine to be disruptive (at inappropriate times, at least), ignore their responsibilities, and generally think it's ok to do whatever they want make it harder for the other children to learn.

The field of education has evolved over hundreds of years, and there are plenty of researchers working hard to find better ways to teach children. I certainly don't agree with all the methods they are trying today, but that doesn't mean that I feel many parents can do a better job.

<comment><USER29> >Children who are taught by their parents that it's fine to be disruptive (at inappropriate times, at least), ignore their responsibilities, and generally think it's ok to do whatever they want make it harder for the other children to learn.

The system tends to reinforce the behaviour by not ejecting those who are disruptive to the severe detriment, IMO, of those others who are not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> We're unschooling, but with backstops on reading. If the kids don't want to read for several days in a row, then unfortunately we're going to have to find a way to compel them to. They're young, and reading is the predicate for everything; if we can get 'em into it, hopefully this unschooling will pick up steam.

<comment><USER5> A good book for developing reading skill and getting kids hooked on reading (it has worked for all four of my children) is Let's Read: A Linguistic Approach.

[http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Linguistic-Approach-Leonard- Bloom...](http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Linguistic-Approach-Leonard- Bloomfield/dp/0814311156)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I like the idea and feel that a significant number of students (including myself when I was in school) would benefit from it. I think the majority of students are better off with some kind of formal education. Now, whether we're providing the appropriate formal education is another question entirely.

</comment><comment><USER37> This sounds a lot like the Montessori philosophy

</comment><comment><USER38> When I have kids, I might consider this. One of my big fears is that I may not be the most qualified person to teach my children. The idea of un-schooling actually reminds me of a program that I went through in elementary school.

When I was in elementary school, I was identified as a "gifted" pupil. Once a week, I was removed from regular class for a few hours and sent to the GATE program (Gifted And Talented Education). It was run in a way that my natural curiosity led me to learn things that were considered above my level. For example, one of the activities that GATE provided was being able to draw pictures by plotting coordinates. You would be given a set of instructions that looked like:

        (2,2)
        (2,6)
        (6,6)
        (6,2)
        (2,2)
        STOP
        (2,6)
        (6,2)
        STOP

That would draw a square with a diagonal line through it. Of course, they had more interesting pictures than this example, such as a horse. Naturally, I wanted to draw these pictures, so I learned how to plot coordinates. Later, I discovered a more challenging set of pictures--the coordinates involved negative numbers, and the grid included all four quadrants of a Cartesian coordinate plane. My teacher gently nudged that it's more advanced, but when I wanted to try anyway, she taught me about negative numbers and I was successful at plotting the negative coordinates. This was all while my peers who were not attending the GATE program were still learning basic arithmetic.

Later, in 4th and 5th grade, I was put in a full-time GATE class. This was a regular class in elementary school, which was comprised entirely of "gifted" pupils. It wasn't free-form like the weekly GATE sessions, but it was structured in a way that helped gifted pupils more than a regular classroom. I think the GATE program is partially responsible for me excelling in math. When I arrived at junior high (6th grade), I was placed in the _advanced_ 7th grade math--honors pre-algebra.

There's a little bit of information about the GATE program here: <http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/gt/>, but that resource is mostly bureaucrat- speak.

Another resource that helped me excel in math was my 2nd grade teacher. I was picking up math faster than the other students, so my mom suggested that I ask my teacher for something more challenging. I did, and my teacher gave me a different assignment from the rest of the class. (I don't remember today what those assignments were--probably double digits when the rest of the class was learning single digits.) I remember during a car ride home asking my mom and older sister how to multiply double digit numbers. They explained it to me and wrote down a few problems for me to work out.

The tl;dr version of my comment is: I completely agree with the premise that a child's natural curiosity is an excellent catalyst for learning. If you're lucky, you might find a resource that nurtures your child's curiosity, even in the institutionalized school system.

<comment><USER39> "One of my big fears is that I may not be the most qualified person to teach my children."

Maybe not "the most qualified", but you sound pretty smart to me, and there are a lot of thoroughly unqualified teachers in the school systems. I think you'll find you can pick up anything you need to know pretty quickly.</comment></comment>


AppEngine 1.4.3 released: new file API, concurrent requests & more - <AUTHOR> http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/03/announcing-app-engine-143-release_30.html

<comment><USER2> The testbed API is exciting -- testing (python) App Engine apps has always been thorny business.

It appears that support for integration testing, however, is not part of this release.

How do you integration test your (python) app engine apps?

Tools like nosegae + webtest give the _theoretical_ promise of integration testing by driving a WSGI app instance. Unfortunately, the _practice_ for any interesting App Engine app (especially those that call use_library for Django) is totally different. Basically, integration testing this way is completely broken: you end up in import error hell. This appears to be at least in part related to dev_appserver's (mis)use of Python's `imp` module, as described here: <https://gist.github.com/883676#file_readme.md>

<comment><USER3> That's a nice Gist. Not sure if you should send that to the NoseGAE folks or what. The dev_appserver follows PEP302 (<http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0302/>) and should properly set attributes on sub-modules (i.e., assert 'subpackage' in dir(sys.modules['package']) ). The dev_appserver does not set those attributes explicitly, but the loader driving the PEP302 hook should.

<comment><USER2> Interesting, thanks!

I'm afraid I'm having trouble parsing your statement on dev_appserver's behavior. Could you clarify it? It sounds like you're saying that dev_appserver both does and doesn't set submodule attributes on parent module instances. Where _should_ NoseGAE be doing this?

As far as I can tell, no code in the App Engine python SDK ever does this. In today's SDK, dev_appserver.py line 2256 adds the submodule to the sys.modules dictionary, but shouldn't there also be a line of code along the lines of setattr(sys.modules[parent_package_name], sub_package_name, submodule)?

Thanks for your help...

<comment><USER3> IIRC (and it's been a few years) the hook goes on sys.meta_path, which uses the HardenedModulesHook to load modules, but then the Python runtime binds the variable names and attributes and whatnot before returning import statements back to application code.

<comment><USER2> The python runtime does not appear to do this in the specific case of submodule attributes. Right now, the Python bug against this indicates that it is considered a documentation bug... but my hunch is that it's an actual bug. I'll try manually inserting the setattr() line into my local copy of the SDK and see how integration testing goes then.

What do you use for GAE python integration testing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The File API mapping to the Blobstore really simplifies blob support. The Blob datatype in Datastore has the 1M limit. It was kind of cumbersome to use both the Blobstore and Datastore API to store large objects.

BTW, the Java+Play!+GAE+Objectify really makes webapp development fun and fast.

<comment><USER5> Using Java+Play!+GAE+Twig for Sparkmuse and Im very happy with the stack overall. The new Blobstore API will help with handling image uploads which is something Play! On GAE fails at horribly (GAEs fault mostly).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> GAE Java only handled one request at a time till now?

<comment><USER7> One request per server instance. The change allows multiple threads to run in each instance, so now your code has to be threadsafe.

<comment><USER8> I was wondering about this in October, I guess the Vosao CMS needs to stop storing state in static fields now:

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4028787/is-it-thread- safe...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4028787/is-it-thread-safe-to- store-data-inside-a-static-field-when-deploying-on-google-ap)

Thilo added answer a few hours ago, pointing out the new threadsafe mode for GAE. That's why I like StackOverflow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not to diminish the value of this release, but are there any improvements to consistency and availability of the data store?

<comment><USER10> Hasn't this mostly been addressed by the High Replication Datastore?

<comment><USER2> I suspect the answer is "yes" for most users.

My understanding of how it all fits together, please correct if wrong: the default datastore is (strongly!) consistent and partition tolerant but sacrifices availability. The new HRD gives you availability and partition tolerance at the cost, potentially, of consistency. You can get an intermediate state by wrapping writes in taskqueue tasks, which I do for writes that can wait but must not fail on the standard datastore.

<comment><USER11> To clarify: the HRD sacrifies some consistency, but the sacrifice is limited. It still maintains consistency within an "entity group", using the Paxos algorithm for distributed consensus. Consistency is sacrificed only for queries that span entity groups. Retrieving individual records, or queries within an entity group, are strongly consistent even in HRD. The primary tradeoffs for HRD really are cost (because you're maintaining more replicas of your data), and write latency (because you're updating multiple locations). For those not familiar with App Engine terminology, each database is partitioned, by the developer, into shards called Entity Groups -- see [http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/entit...](http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/entities.html) for details.

Some additional details on the HRD tradeoffs are at <http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/hr/>. The technical underpinnings are described in <http://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2011/Papers/CIDR11_Paper32.pdf> (warning: this is not a light read).

[Full disclosure -- I used to work at Google and was involved in some of this work.]

<comment><USER12> How is consistency sacrificed with HRD? Do you mean that, with HRD, you could potentially see the effects of some write W to entity group A, write some value dependent on that write to entity group B, then immediately look at entity group A and see a pre-W value?

<comment><USER11> No, the scenario you describe could not occur -- it would involve a consistency violation within entity group A. Once you see the effects of write W to entity group A, all operations on entity group A (across all servers) are guaranteed to see W.

The reduced consistency guarantees in HRD involve indexes, because indexes span entity groups. An example: suppose that you set name=foo in record A1, which is part of entity group A. If you then retrieve record A1, that's an operation on entity group A, so you're guaranteed to see name=foo. But if you perform a global query for all records with name == foo, that's an operation on an index, which is outside the entity group and so is not mediated by the entity group's Paxos log. Therefore, your query might not return A1. The index is "eventually" consistent -- it's guaranteed that, eventually, all indexes will be updated. But AFAIK there's no guaranteed upper bound on "eventually". In practice, it should usually be very quick, but only usually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I really hoped that they would release a full-text search for the datastore.

Guess I'll have to wait for that and use the improvised solution ([http://billkatz.com/2009/6/Simple-Full-Text-Search-for- App-E...](http://billkatz.com/2009/6/Simple-Full-Text-Search-for-App-Engine)).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> One area that raise my interest is with the File API. I wonder if with the 'file' support it will be possible to get Lucene deployed onto GAE.

</comment><comment><USER14> Still no simple backup/restore feature. All I ask is for them to implement a dashboard based backup & restore tool!</comment>


Show HN: Easy to use CSS3 transition library - <AUTHOR> http://usablica.github.io/lup/

<comment><USER2> kinda cool. whats the advantage over css timeline animations?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! So you can bind callback functions, detect transition completing and of course easy to maintenance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> that was very usefull... thanks a lot...</comment>


Dad Reflexes [video] - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/1140213022259998720 <comment><USER2> I couldn't understand the 3rd clip, with the dog. Was something going on that was much more dangerous than I could tell?

<comment> duncan-donuts Sound may have made the difference there. Idk what was going on there either, but here is the full clip.

[https://youtu.be/71Htqd_Dz-M](https://youtu.be/71Htqd_Dz-M)</comment></comment>


Tech Transitions, Video, and the Future - <AUTHOR> https://www.fcc.gov/blog/tech-transitions-video-and-future

<comment><USER2> This is fantastic. Consumers have been showing for a long time now that they desire better access to cable tv content. Hopefully the cable companies don't abuse their power as ISPs to limit competition online.

</comment><comment><USER3> While on the surface this seems positive, I am gravely concerned. When you change the rules to allow OTT transmissions it is possible that this could further solidify FCC control. Claimimg the imternet itself is public airwaves and that it has sole regulatory authority over the matter. Need to learn more than a simple blog post to have the information. Hopefully this is just cynicism, however the FCC has never been a friend. I will beleive it has changed when it allows broadband competition (actual infrastructure development) and unfettered access to the WWW.

<comment><USER4> This is just the commissioner starting a process to identify rules. This is the beginning of a long process to try and figure something out about OTT content.

"Specifically, I am asking the Commission to start a rulemaking proceeding in which we would modernize our interpretation of the term "multichannel video programming distributor" (MVPD) so that it is technology-neutral."

If you have opinions about what kinds of rules should be developed, then send them a comment.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "solidify FCC control." The Internet is of course a global network, but the FCC already has tremendous regulatory authority over the Internet in the USA. They don't exercise much of that authority, and that's largely what the network neutrality debate is about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> While I'm happy this may finally allow me to watch live sports over the Internet, it sucks that they're limiting it to "linear programming".

<comment><USER6> In the context of the internet it isn't clear what "linear programming" even means. The concept requires the notion of a channel and what is that for the internet, a URL?

<comment><USER7> That's an odd argument. First its a government term and second it's right in the article:

> So-called linear channels, which offer the viewer a prescheduled lineup of > programs, have been the largely exclusive purview of over-the-air > broadcasting, cable, and satellite TV.

People still do this. Isn't this a perfect description of if someone says that my Twitch stream will be showing me playing again between 4 and 5 PM?

I thought we had decided that adding "on the Internet" doesn't fundamentally change things. Why would it here?

Just because people want to watch what they want when doesn't mean the FCC should automatically force everyone to put all shows up on-demand _on the Internet_.

<comment><USER6> Without the snide I would have appreciated that clarification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sounds more like the FCC wants to regulate the internet

<comment><USER9> While I was very pleasantly surprised as I read the letter, I had this fleeting thought as well. But although the FCC has been an occasional nuisance in the last 25 years, they naively seem to me to have been a generally good force in broadcast competition.</comment></comment>


OOP Basics in Python 2.x - Part 1 - <AUTHOR> http://lgiordani.github.io/blog/2014/03/05/oop-concepts-in-python-2-dot-x-part-1/

<comment><AUTHOR> I like this because it is suitably in-depth and yet written in a very accessible manner</comment>


How Obama Raised $60 Million by Running a Simple Experiment - <AUTHOR> http://blog.optimizely.com/how-obama-raised-60-million-by-running-an-exp

<comment><USER2> "That would have been a huge mistake since it turns out that all of the videos did worse than all of the images."

It annoys me no end when websites have videos explaining their product and no equivalent text. I hate watching videos about products. Always make the video optional and secondary.

<comment><USER3> Yes, always. Assuming your audience is maxklein. Otherwise, best to test.

<comment><USER4> You're right that they should test, because their audience might be different. But I admit to being the same way as him: when I hit an article that's nothing but video, I skip it.

I can read a _lot_ faster than they can talk and I could have read a lot of other things in the time it takes to watch a video. I also have a lot of things I want to read and nowhere near enough time to read them all. In fact, there was an article here on HN that linked to a bare video. I was going to read the article, but when I saw it was a video, I closed the tab immediately.

So be sure to test and make sure, but remember that there might well be a lot of others like me who would rather read than watch a video.

<comment><USER5> I'm similar. I'll watch about 2 minutes of a video, and see if the presentation is engaging enough to warrant spending the time to watch the video.

If I can download the video, I do that and watch it on my trainride home.

Else the window gets closed

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The "Learn More" button and this whole page are spammy. I remember being annoyed by this splash page, I just wanted to get to the main site. When users saw the "Sign Up" or "Join Us" buttons they probably realized it was an email phishing form and then searched for the hidden "Continue to Website" link. The "Learn More" button otoh seems to be what you are looking for, an escape, but when the button complained about the missing email some users probably went ahead and entered it even though they didn't want to because it seemed like the only way into the site.

<comment><USER7> Precisely. It doesn't take very many A/B tests on lead-gen forms to realize you can get much better conversion rates if you're willing to trick your users into clicking on stuff. "Learn More" isn't a better title for that button, it's a deliberately misleading title for that button. You can have a button labelled "Get a free puppy" and a button labelled "Spam me every 24 hours and sell my e-mail address to the highest bidder". Guess which one will convert better; Guess which one is honest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The best thing about this article is that it is a giant ad. Informative, educational and useful, but an ad nonetheless.

Wonderful marketing and great article as well.

<comment><USER9> Indeed. I thought it was particularly clever how he apparently used the campaign data, but ran it through his product to get the "experiment results" screen shots.

<comment><USER10> I assumed that was Google Website Optimizer or whatever they actually used back in 2008. If not, they should make that clearer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Kind of a side note, a complete noob when it comes to A/B, I tried out Optimizely after reading this and I've gotta say, this thing is put together well. I think I created 6 variations for our home page in about 2 minutes, saved it, and started watching results flow in. Amazing execution.

<comment><USER12> I completely agree. I just started using Optimizely today, and the ability to make a small change instantly across all pages on your site is extremely valuable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> He seems to assume that the contribution and volunteer rate of the added marginal people (those who signed up after seeing the best performing media / button, but would not have signed up with the default media / button) is as good as the rest of the people (those who would have signed up regardless).

<comment><USER14> He doesn't mention it, but that's easy to determine. Simply see what the average contribution of people who contributed during the A/B testing was per image/button combination. If there not all about the same then there may be some effect (negative or positive) that the added marginal people brought. If they're about the same, I think its a decent assumption to believe that it will be the same going forward.

And of course, you can simply validate it by seeing if it is the same going forward.

<comment><AUTHOR> _Simply see what the average contribution of people who contributed during the A/B testing was per image/button combination_

We didn't measure the average contribution for each variation for this particular experiment but in future splash page tests we measured eventual $ per pageview for each variation and it was very closely correlated to % signup rate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> $400/month for 200K visits? The pricing seems to be based on how much they'll contribute to your bottom line rather than what the market will bear, what competitors are charging, whether they should focus on growth rather than early profit, etc. This might be a great opportunity for someone to clone the business and charge 25% of their prices, which will still be $250/month for 1 million visits.

<comment><USER16> You think the opportunity to be the cheap, crappy competitor with an audience of technically inclined poor people is attractive? I think that is terrible positioning. If you charged $50, that would still be a whole lot of ramen, and you'd lose your customers to the first still cheaper, still crappier alternative or to free options. (There exist compelling free options for A/B testing if one is technically inclined.)

$400 is not a lot of money when you probably demonstrate increases in revenue. (It is a fraction of BCCs gains from A/B testing. Nationwide political campaigns, Fortune 500 companies, and real estate firms all have slightly more money to spend than BCC does.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The experiment showed that video was a poor choice for Obama. Images worked better for him. However, I do not think anyone should generalize from this example. Obama was supported by specific demographics. The poor and working classes favored Obama to a disproportionate degree. These are the people most likely to still be on dial-up Internet connections. There are the people with the least access to broad band. Therefore, these are the people for whom video would be a poor choice.

<comment><USER17> I wonder why this was downvoted? What part of this do people disagree with? I made 3 main points:

1.) Obama had disproportionate support from the poor and working classes. This is easy to verify, there were many news organizations that covered this. Here is one example:

<http://geocommons.com/overlays/6095>

2.) The poor and working classes have less access to broadband Internet. Is anyone seriously going to dispute this?

3.) Therefore video was a poor choice for Obama, since many of his supporters lacked broadband Internet access.

My friends, instead of downvoting, why don't you explain what you are thinking? Does someone disagree with my thesis? I feel like I'm stating something fairly obvious here.

<comment><USER18> I didn't downvote you, but I do think you're mistaken.

1) Your source cites the November 2008 exit polls. The campaigning mentioned in the article was being done through 2007, when Hillary Clinton still had her hat in the ring. Now, it's hard to use campaign donations as a gauge of support for presidential candidates (particularly among people who are too poor to even afford broadband). However it's easy to point out that Hillary Clinton's platform was more beneficial to the working class, whereas Barack Obama's vague Yes-We-Can appealed more to broadband-connected hipsters like me. As you can see from About's (pro-Clinton) US Liberals blog[1], half of the Obama campaign chest going into 2008 came from individual donors, whose email addresses were harvested on websites just like the one described in the OP.

2) I'll also dispute the claim that the poor have less access to broadband, having grown up so debilitatingly poor myself. In America, internet access is cheap, and even for the poor, the value of a fast, reliable internet connection far outweighs the cost. Those who are remain on dial-up connections are residents of low-density rural areas where broadband is unavailable. These people are a) unlikely to have been Obama supporters, and b) unlikely to have gone around donating campaign money on the Internet.

3) Barack Obama's was the most Internet-connected campaign in US history. If dial-up users were as large a chunk of his support base as you say they were, he would have spent a lot more time going door to door in Des Moines, and a lot less time on YouTube.

[1] I wanted to link to the New York Times article, but it's probably more informative all around if I just link to a blog which quote-mines it. At least About.com doesn't make you log in. [http://usliberals.about.com/b/2007/07/19/hard-truths- about-d...](http://usliberals.about.com/b/2007/07/19/hard-truths-about- democratic-2008-fundraising-results.htm)

<comment><USER17> This is not a subject where anecdotal information reveals much, because the USA is diverse and few of us understand what all of the different population segments face, in terms of information access, or Internet access. According to Wikipedia the digital divide still exists, and income plays a role:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide>

While it admits to several definitions of the divide, it mentions broadband access as one aspect of the problem.

My original point remains: Obama had disproportionate support from those population segments that were likely to have limited broadband access, therefore video would be a poor choice for him.

The larger point is that you can not generalize from this one example, mentioned in the originally linked article. Video was a poor choice for Obama, but might be a good choice for a new web startup that is pitched to a demographic where broadband access can be assumed.

<comment><USER18> Of course the digital divide is affected by income, but you're missing key pieces of the story.

1) The digital divide between classes is negligible compared to the divide between rural and urban dwellers, particularly wrt broadband access[1]. Also, n.b. class based Internet analytics is prone to error, since the poorest segment of America lives in remote rural areas where broadband access is unavailable to begin with.

2) As I pointed out above, the OP was in reference to 2007, when the Democratic candidacy was still up in the air. Further, Barack Obama drew support (particularly individual campaign donations) from young Internet-savvy people, whereas the real blue-chip donations went to Hillary Clinton (and to a lesser extent, Chris Dodd). Your data is from the exit polls in 2008, after the Democrats had (more or less) formed into a united front.

This makes your larger point untrue[2]. The data from the Obama campaign indicates that these particular videos were less effective than the images, and to assume this is due to bandwidth complaints is specious at best.

[1][http://pewinternet.org/Media-Mentions/2006/Rural-areas- laggi...](http://pewinternet.org/Media-Mentions/2006/Rural-areas-lagging-in- broadband-Internet.aspx)

[2] Well, it is true that you can't generalize from this one example, and that video may still be a good choice for web startups, but not for the reasons you suggest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> _"Sending email to people who signed up on our splash page and asking them to volunteer typically converted 10% of them into volunteers."_

Is it wrong for me to be a little startled by that conversion rate? I wouldn't have expected anything that high.

<comment><USER20> _Is it wrong for me to be a little startled by that conversion rate? I wouldn't have expected anything that high._

It depends on how much of a commitment they're asking from volunteers. If you've already signed up on the website it's not much more to volunteer to pass out fliers at your office. If they want you to work a benefit or something than ya I'd agree it's a little high.

Keep in mind too that these are people who have already actively signed on to support the campaign.

<comment><USER19> Good points, though the best-testing design was the one that didn't phrase signing up as a commitment, but as an opportunity to "Learn More", hence my surprise.

<comment><USER20> That's a good point and when I was reading the article I actually predicted that the "Learn More" button would win because it was the least committal but I never drew the connection between that and volunteer signups.

A few theories:

1) Maybe the feeling of not committing by pressing the button made people more comfortable signing up to be a volunteer, figuring that it probably wouldn't be too much of a commitment

2) Maybe the content on the Learn More page was just so good that the only thing that really mattered was getting more people onto that page and they would be comfortable

3) Perhaps the type of person more likely to click after seeing the picture of the family (Stay at home moms perhaps) was more likely to have time/desire to volunteer.

As I think about it, assuming that one of these ideas is right which is probably not the case, I would guess that it's #3. I don't know the demographics of the people who volunteered but around me it seems like it would be the moms who go to the site, and they would probably be more likely to be skewed toward clicking with the family and non-committal button, while also being more likely to have the time to volunteer.

Disclaimer: This is pure, assumption based, uninformed speculation of the worst kind.

<comment><USER21> As I understand it there is no "Learn More" page just a button: you give your e-mail, zip code and press the button.

After that they send you the e-mail with the suggestion to volunteer. So 10% look impressive.

<comment><AUTHOR> _As I understand it there is no "Learn More" page just a button: you give your e-mail, zip code and press the button._

You are correct. All of the variations would redirect to the home page regardless of what the button said.

 _So 10% look impressive._

Keep in mind that this is the percentage of people who volunteered at some point during the campaign after signing up on our splash page-- not the percentage of people who immediately decided to volunteer after signing up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Glad they were able to actually write a short case-study on such a high worth (I'm assuming) case. That's real transparency.

<comment><USER23> <http://www.designing-obama.com/> => I snagged the PDF when it was still free. _EDIT: Still free. See responses._

VSA Partners on the Logo:

Part One: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etEP1Bhgui0>

Part Two: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukIMW833EPE>

There's a ton of info out there on Obama's campaign, it's really one of the best branding and marketing success stories.

<comment><USER24> The PDF is still free: <http://digital.designing-obama.com/>

You can also read "Barack Obama Social Media Toolkit by Edelman" : [http://www.scribd.com/full/10807015?access_key=key- nc75wovez...](http://www.scribd.com/full/10807015?access_key=key- nc75wovez6hgum15t6)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> For any of those interested in seeing the Mixergy interview with Dan Siroker (founder of Optimizely), check out this link: <http://mixergy.com/dan-siroker- optimizely-interview/></comment>


Fast as Fuck Django, Part 1: Using a Profiler - <AUTHOR> http://gun.io/blog/fast-as-fuck-django-part-1-using-a-profiler/ <comment><USER2> Doesn't Django Debug Toolbar bring in itself into AJAX calls if you simply wrap the results in a <body> element?

</comment><comment><USER3> Great article but that server's DEBUG is left on and some forms don't have the CSRF tag...</comment>


Four Strategies To De-Suck Your Commute  - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/1769948/four-strategies-to-de-suck-your-commute

<comment><USER2> I might have a work commute of one hour to two, and sometimes even four, hours each way on any given weekday. I typically warm up for the work day by either developing personal projects on my laptop or writing my thoughts on what there is to do once I arrive to my office.

If I have no need or desire to do either of those things, I'll prepare for my future career by reading books and articles that relate to it.

This arose out of the boredom that I was experiencing when I first found myself making such a long commute. I seem to be at my most productive, outside of my day job, during these times. I ride public transit, so my morning commute is very quiet and typically free from distraction; it's nice.</comment>


Sacklers Reject Demand To Surrender Personal Wealth To Settle Opioid Claims - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2019/09/09/758927743/sacklers-reject-demand-they-surrender-personal-wealth-to-settle-opioid-claims <comment><USER2> Well, sure, who would want to give up their personal fortune when they've gone through all the motions of forming a corporation to protect themselves from these exact types of things?

This kind of thing is exactly why you incorporate as a business.</comment>


How to Back Up a Linux (or unix-like) System The Right Way - <AUTHOR> http://www.halfgaar.net/backing-up-unix

<comment><USER2> I like backupninja.</comment>


What an Everest Climb Looks Like in 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://www.outsideonline.com/2392617/everest-2019-summit-trek-nepal-south-side <comment><USER2> The placeholder images are interesting:

[https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/img...](https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/img_850-width_flex- height-low-quality/public/2019/03/25/paul-dj-everest_h.jpg)</comment>


Kilogram redefined in terms of Planck constant - <AUTHOR> https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2018/11/16/kilogram-planck/ <comment><USER2> I wonder whether the constant is a constant. Still believe in a fixed object so that for some reason. Well, the G is postulated it may account for dark matters or c is not a constant etc.</comment>


People Who Order Coffee Black Are More Likely to Be Psychopaths - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-coffee-psychopath_561baf08e4b0dbb8000f150f <comment><USER2> File under: bad science 'journalism'.</comment>


How we're trying to stay innovative as a 3.5 year old startup - <AUTHOR> http://joel.is/post/84609383788/how-were-trying-to-stay-innovative-as-a-3-5-year-old

<comment><USER2> I don't think your a startup after 3 1/2 years ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think it has anything to do with time, but with this definition: An organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model.

Or Paul G.'s: startup = growth.</comment></comment>


Automation and Disruption in Stolen Payment Card Markets [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://weis2014.econinfosec.org/papers/PeacockFriedman-WEIS2014.pdf

<comment><USER2> I see this type of refining activity on our payment gateway logs. I can only imagine what it looks like at a major online retailer or SAAS service. It just goes to show how fundamentally broken is payment card processing at the moment, and how ripe it is for disruption.

<comment><AUTHOR> My guess is you're talking about the logs from your business site, Ringio.com. The "refining" problem (testing stolen credit cards) is much worse for sites that generally receive small, one-off payments. One of the hardest hit groups is non-profit organizations who accept/solicit donations. They regularly get clobbered by charge-backs and other issues.</comment></comment>


The ASUS Zenbook UX305 Review - <AUTHOR> http://www.anandtech.com/show/9104/asus-zenbook-ux305-review <comment><USER2> So basically a fanless, ultraportable, 13" laptop with an IPS HD screen that beats the 2014 Macbook Air on both performance and battery life, has more than one USB port and costs between $700 and a $1000.

Seems like a winner to me.

<comment><USER3> Unless this has great, zero-issues unix support, I'll have to pass.

Is there a laptop like this that is supported by linux or any of the BSDs well?

<comment><USER4> The 2015 Dell XPS 13 sputnik edition is similar and will have full support for Ubuntu 14.04 LTS out of the box. It's still in the last stages of development & bug fixing from what I understand though: [http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/os- applications/f/46...](http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/os- applications/f/4613/t/19613910?pi22229=6)

<comment><USER5> Yeah, but 'full support for Ubuntu' doesn't necessarily mean 'full support for Linux'; I've learnt that the hard way.

<comment><USER6> What do you mean?

<comment><USER7> Sometimes vendors will include proprietary kernel modules that's only licensed to Ubuntu or works only on Ubuntu.

I think this happened to some broadcom chips.

<comment><USER6> Can't they just be copied? It's not like other distros use a different kernel (maybe a different version, but that's usually easy to adapt to).

<comment><USER8> Copying binary kernel modules isn't guaranteed to work across kernel versions. There's a stable API, but not a stable ABI.

Heck, Ubuntu's kernel actually has lots of patches, so unless you carry those along, the modules may even not-work on a same kernel version for some other distro.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love laptops and follow the market quite carefully. But why is this here?

I can understand the discussion about the new Apple Macbook, and the Google Pixel 2015, and the Dell "Sputnik" linux laptops. Because they all have some element that's a bit "out there" for discussion. This one... is just another laptop, there are many laptops on the market.

Why not discuss this one instead? It's much more _interesting_ IMO:

[http://panasonic.jp/pc/products/mx4h/](http://panasonic.jp/pc/products/mx4h/)

The Panasonic MX4, only available in Japan, features: - 2.6lbs (same as this Asus), but it's durability-tested like it's a lightweight Toughbook, they have drop-test videos etc. \- 1920x1080 touchscreen \- Flips around to become a tablet (yoga), pen is included. \- Advertised 12hr battery life, but there are two batteries: the one that drains first is hot-swappable, leaving you with a few hours of battery life for you to swap in a replacement. \- An extra accessory allows you to charge your removed-battery from the wall via USB. So you can keep the laptop on battery forever, swapping them out and charging them. \- More connectivity options than anything else: VGA, HDMI, separate mic/headphones, SD card, 2xUSB3, and physical wireless on/off switch \- Physical touchpad buttons \- Ample-size trackpad, and the keyboard buttons are advertised as a decent 2mm of travel distance (deeper than most small laptops nowadays) \- Optical disc (blu-ray) drive. In that tiny form factor with exceptional battery, pen-included yoga-tablet, lighter-than-macbook-air durability-tested machine. Amazing!

<comment><USER10> If I had to guess:

> The most amazing thing about the ASUS UX305 though is that the company has > crafted an all-aluminum, thin, light, and capable Ultrabook for only $699. > With this kind of price point, one would expect sacrifices to be made in the > specifications, but that is not really the case at all.

<comment><USER11> It was more or less the same with the last two generations, with the first generation only really suffering from a 'poor' keyboard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I bought this a couple of weeks ago. Works pretty well with xubuntu 14.04.

I don't have it with me, so I will update this comment when I get home with specifics. Many of these may be xubuntu oddities more than general Linux issues.

Issues so far:

* wifi does not work out of the box (fixed: add /lib/firmware/iwlwifi-7265-8.ucode[1]).

* top of windows disappear (fixed: turn off composition in Settings/Window Manager Tweaks).

* most "special" keys do not work, (volume and mute work)

* applications menu stopped responding. (still broken)

Otherwise it's fine. Good battery life, and very lightweight. I hardly ever use the applications menu, and I generally use my desktop for a browser and terminal windows, so it works well for me.

1\. [https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/_media/en/users/drivers/iwl...](https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/_media/en/users/drivers/iwlwifi-7265-ucode-22.214.171.124.tgz)

</comment><comment><USER13> Purchased the UX305 about two weeks ago for ~$630 (15% off at the Microsoft Store) with tax.

I have nothing but good things to say about the hardware - screen, keyboard, and touchpad are A+, and I'm getting 8-10 hours working in Visual Studio 2013.

Two things not covered in the review: HDMI port is 1.4, and the SD card reader is half-depth similar to Macs.

The only issue so far is the touchpad gesture software crashing Chrome sometimes when pressing alt-D to select the address bar.

<comment><USER14> umm... I am surprised you, nor anyone else (yet) mentions the power key being right above the backspace key... I've turned off or put to sleep that stupid laptop so many times I went back to using my iPad 1st gen with bluetooth keyboard and RDP lol

but seriously, how they can continually overlook what clearly is a flaw? if I've got this all backwards, please share the logic behind it

<comment><USER15> Hit the Windows key and type "power button" to open the power options control panel. Set "when I press the power button" to "do nothing". You can sleep/hibernate/shutdown from the start menu/screen, or automatically when you close the lid.

I have a UX301. The first time I accidentally hit the power button while working, I disabled it.

<comment><USER16> This is exactly the fix I would apply if I had this, but you would think they'd make it so that you had to hold the button down for more than a quick key press to put it to sleep. Seems like that would be a problem that would come up in testing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The IPS matte is lovely. I have a touchscreen I impulsively bought and it can't face a source of light directly, or else it's unreadable.

</comment><comment><USER18> I will wait for the Skylake version, that should bring the best out of these beauties. I have the Ivy Bridge version (UX31) and I love it. When I bought it I wasn't sure if choosing it or Macbook Air, choose the Zenbook for its better resolution. Same thing is happening now.

</comment><comment><USER19> Sort of off topic, but I'm kind of stuck with Lenovo Thinkpads thanks to my love of the Trackpoint, but we're a shrinking group and there are many, many tempting alternatives these days. Anyone know if there's any way to graft a Trackpoint onto other laptops?

<comment><USER20> I'm the same, can't work without the track point, trackpads are inefficient if you type a lot.

One of my colleague in the same situation ended up buying a Toshiba.

<comment><USER21> > I'm the same, can't work without the track point, trackpads are inefficient > if you type a lot

This is only true if your trackpad driver/software sucks. Good trackpads (like on Macs) are great at palm rejection and other heuristics to prevent these issues.

Really good hardware has great software to complete it.

<comment><USER19> It's not a software issue; it's physiology. The inefficiency is that using a trackpad, even one with very good software, requires me to take one hand off the home row on the keyboard. With a trackpoint, I just move my finger about an inch.

<comment><USER20> Correct, this is what I meant.

Additionally, I find it more efficient to apply pressure to move the cursor accross the screen rather than the "put fingers down, rub, fingers up, move through the air" loop!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > "ASUS has kept the styling consistent over the years"

Well, they look completely different to me:

1\. Zenbook UX31E [http://www.techspot.com/images/products/laptops/org/10306327...](http://www.techspot.com/images/products/laptops/org/1030632738_761952150_o.jpg)

2\. Zenbook infinity UX301: [http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/06/ASUS-Zen...](http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/06/ASUS-Zenbook-Infinity-Ultrabook_1-580x370.jpg)

</comment><comment> SG- Ignoring the product which seems to be pretty nice especially for that price, I found the review which was mostly about showing charts and comparisons to be pretty poor.

It seems some charts they've omitted models to compare, and they're comparing it to 1-2 year old models of competitors (no 2015 MBA, sometimes a 2013 MBP).

It would have also been nice to see SSD benchmarks considering how Anand has typically pretty good at reviewing SSDs in the past.

</comment><comment><USER22> Could that CPU handle lets say WebStorm, postgresql, gulp, apache/nginx, laravel(php-fpm)/rails open all at once?

Running on Ubuntu MATE

I see boost up to 2GHz, so.. yes?

<comment><USER23> "WebStorm, postgresql, gulp, apache/nginx, laravel(php-fpm)/rails"

I used to run all that stuff -- or its contemporary equivalent -- on a 400MHz single core laptop with 128MB of RAM. But that would be impossibly slow today. I wonder what changed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Where can I get one of these for 699?

<comment><USER25> Newegg seems to have it for that price: [http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834232...](http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834232393&cm_re=zenbook_ux305-_-34-232-393-_-Product)

Amazon's cheapest is $799 for some reason.

<comment><USER24> ah, cool. google "ux305 newegg" only returned a link for the ux31.</comment></comment></comment>


Chomsky Wants You to Wake Up from the American Dream - <AUTHOR> http://davidswanson.org/node/5057 <comment><USER2> One of the elements of typical libertarian ideology that now strikes me as a fantasy is the idea that one can truly separate economy and state and that wealth and political power (a.k.a. force) are not the same thing.

In _abstract theory_ wealth is not force and is not political power. It's easy to write that statement down and believe it. But firewalling these two in the real world is something that I regard as politically impossible. The only scenario I can imagine is one where we have some kind of AI programmed to maintain a democratic libertarian state and that is above economics, invulnerable to persuasion, and lacks any human needs or wants that can be influenced through money.

Given that wealth can easily buy power (a.k.a. ability to wield force), then a sufficiently large concentration of wealth in the hands of a few easily leads to that few having the power to arbitrarily wield force. Even if the plutocrats are initially idealistic, over time this will erode... especially if social change or market forces threaten their wealth. At that point the choice is between adapting (hard) or using force (easy). People usually take the easy path.

<comment><USER3> Jeb Bush has raised far more MO ey than the other republican presidential candidates and got the nod from the party of elites and yet he's in near last place with the party's second pick in distant third and two outsiders, which the party can't decide which it hates more, vying for first and second.

Money is even barely buying Hillary first place.

<comment><USER4> That's because of Bernie and to some extent Trump -- There's a good Article by Benjamin Studebaker(I think) that basically states that Neolibs have taken over both parties, as long as corporate interests are taken care of--which both do, then they're given everything they need to stay in power. But Tea Party and Bernie democrats are throwing a wrench in their plans -- People are now waking up and they are MAD - some just don't know where to direct that anger, but the NeoLibs are out and it's either going to be the Tea Party or Progressive Wing of the Democrats that win -- and no Hillary is not, nor has she ever been Progressive, she is too much part of the corporate power machine to be part of the progressives. This election scares the shit out of the corporations, and honestly, I'd rather see Trump than Hillary win, if just to send a message to Wallstreet that the establishment isn't welcome any longer.

<comment><USER3> I'm completely with you. It makes me grin every morning to realize I live in a world where hundreds of millions have been spent to elect corporate shills, and they're either barely hanging on, or out of the race.

But populism has historically been a negative thing. When people get angry they're willing to do some bad stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great article. I am forwarding a link to that to a few friends and family who have open minds about such things.

It annoys me when people rail against the incompetence of the ruling elite. They seem all too competent to me, and processes like manufacturing consent, etc. are too obvious to ignore for people paying attention. The middle and lower classes have lost the game.

</comment><comment><USER6> > The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the > spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that > spectrum. gg

</comment><comment><USER7> No thanks. The reason we're in this mess is because of the progressive movement. Before income tax, before regulation, before welfare, the country experienced unparalleled growth decade after decade.</comment>


Whats the best way to take backup? - <AUTHOR>

I was thinking of taking backup of various videos and pictures of my new born daughter and storing it in a external USB harddisk or probably in time capsule. But what is the guaranty they will still be supported after 20-25 years when we actually need it? Just the way floppy disks and various other storage devices are dead today USB or timecapsule may be dead soon. What is the best way to take backup of those precious moments then? Have you faced similar situation? or am I thinking too out of the box? <comment><USER2> No-one really has a good solution to this at the moment. One thing you _can't_ do is try to do this passively, i.e. by making one and then stashing it somewhere. You need to keep it online, back it up regularly with the rest of your data (I use a 1T Apple Time Capsule for my first-stage backups) and just keep migrating forwards as you upgrade to larger storage solutions. This does mean some ongoing work on your part, and it rests on the assumption that someone will have created a truly permanent storage media before you die (or that you train your kids to keep on doing it).

There _are_ two easily available media that are known to endure with no active involvement if stored correctly, and will always be accessible no matter what the prevailing technological environment: B&W film and acid-free paper. Everything else is up in the air at the moment.

<comment><AUTHOR> I see your point here. Upgradation to new backup devices is a solution for now. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I would say you are thinking about it a bit too much. If you are really concerned about future support, store it on two or more types of media (flash, DVD, etc) and then it is more likely to be retrievable.

<comment><USER4> I've found that optical media like CD-Rs and DVD-Rs corrode over time. Many of the CD-Rs I burned over the last 7 years are unreadable now. Different media seems to degrade at different speeds. Beware of burning a DVD, storing it away for 10 years and trying to read it then.</comment></comment>


Systems thinking helps product design - <AUTHOR> https://userfriendly.substack.com/p/systems-thinking-for-product-design <comment><USER2> "Instead of linear cause-effect, systems thinking emphasises interrelationships. Rather than static snapshots, systems thinking steers our attention towards patterns of change. To start perceiving interrelationships and patterns of change in a situation, we need to understand a simple concept called feedback that shows how actions can reinforce or counteract (balance) each other. An organisational initiative designed to amplify user growth and at the same time, another set of actions counteract that growth."</comment>