Ask HN: Which ATS Is Better: Workable.com or Lever.co - <AUTHOR> I need one ATS for my startup, I've been using email so far. <comment><USER2> We have built a modern ATS which is designed for team collaboration and seamless hiring. We are currently in Beta and giving a free trial. Please have a look by signing up here: [https://accounts.fastpad.com/signup](https://accounts.fastpad.com/signup)

Feel free to reach out at email@example.com for any queries.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've never used lever.co. workable is alright, but frankly I'm not sure it provides much more over emails and a spreadsheet.</comment>


13-year-old Minecraft player confesses to swatting, police say - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/13-year-old-minecraft-player-confesses-to-swatting-police-say/

<comment><USER2> The fact that SWAT is so easily manipulated seems to me like a symptom of their being out of control in general. A little eager to get in there and beat down people's doors without proper evidence, aren't they?

</comment><comment><USER3> What justification is there for a dynamic entry raid outside of clear-cut, verified cases of armed hostage taking?</comment>


The Fastest Growing Mobile Markets Barely Use Apps - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/466089/the-fastest-growing-mobile-phone-markets-barely-use-apps/

<comment><USER2> So the web is more dominant in Asia and Africa because the is more readily available on feature phones than apps.

Will that change when smartphones have higher penetration? That makes the assumption that smartphones will stay popular long enough for them to trickle down to everyone. And that the Web will not have evolved to fill in the gaps that make apps better. And that the ecosystem of the mobile web being currently built via feature phones won't simply transition to smartphones.</comment>


Quack Overflow, Stack Overflow's new rubber ducky debugging feature - <AUTHOR> https://stackoverflow.com/ <comment><USER2> Works so much better than other software quacks I had the misfortune of working with.</comment>


Show HN: Notational Velocity for Vim - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alok/notational-fzf-vim <comment><USER2> The description isn't that obvious for people that don't know what notational velocity is or how it works.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for pointing that out. I thought it is just some name OP chose.

It is just a note-taking app for Mac.([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notational_Velocity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notational_Velocity))

<comment><USER4> Not just. It's the best one!

<comment><USER5> Nah NVAlt is the best ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I glued fzf and vimwiki together to do something very similar. If you have both of those tools installed, you can use a mapping like this:

nmap <Leader>wp :Files ~/git/vimwiki/<CR>

so that you're just a couple of keystrokes away from fuzzy finding any entry in your vimwiki.

</comment><comment><USER7> I just use org mode.*

* Not really. This looks excellent. I just wanted to get the org mode boast dispatched with as soon as possible.

<comment><USER8> Well, no. That's not what we'd say to use for this (although you could). [Deft]([https://jblevins.org/projects/deft/](https://jblevins.org/projects/deft/)) would be a better comparison/equivalent.

Regarding OP, it looks very snappy! I like it. Looks like it leverages `fzf`. Can we swap it out for something else?

<comment><USER9> Deft was (around 3 or 4 years) my weapon of choice as well when I was using nvAlt. So, it was nvAlt (for times when I was in a random place on my Mac), Deft (for searching or adding from within emacs and 1Writer [1] from iOS, all were fed from a Dropbox folder.

Now (since January) though I have moved to use Bear [2] (non-free) on all my devices. Its use case is a bit different, but I like it better overall.

Side question: what do you suggest as alternative to fzf? fzf is excellent (a post I wrote on our engineering blog about using it for custom completions in zsh [3]), but I'm always eager to see new tools I can use.

[1] [http://1writerapp.com/](http://1writerapp.com/)

[2] [https://bear.app/](https://bear.app/)

[3] [http://engineering.affectv.com/aws/devops/2018/08/15/fzf- aut...](http://engineering.affectv.com/aws/devops/2018/08/15/fzf- autocompletions/)

<comment><USER10> skim [1] is a rust alternative that has an interactive mode [2] which makes it easy to drill down to more specific results.

[1] [https://github.com/lotabout/skim](https://github.com/lotabout/skim) [2] [https://github.com/lotabout/skim#interactive- mode](https://github.com/lotabout/skim#interactive-mode)

<comment><USER9> Thanks, I was actually wondering why I had heard of no fuzzy searcher in Rust, seemed like a natural fit

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Isn't editing existing notes fundamental to notational velocity UX? I have also been missing NV since leaving Mac OS is 2012. Shame the whole NV codebase is tied to Apple only frameworks. Nothing important about NV is even Mac specific; it is just three textboxes with well thought out key bindings; it's not using a bunch of fancy GUI framework features.

<comment><USER12> I believe that pressing Enter on a result opens the selected file as a buffer for editing. I think they mean that the plugin _itself_ won't modify existing files, not that you can't modify existing files.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I made a JS/Electron based clone of nvALT a while back. Easier to hack on than an Objective-C codebase: [https://github.com/wincent/corpus](https://github.com/wincent/corpus)

But the node ecosystem has its own problems. I like the idea of doing everything in Vim.

<comment><USER14> If you're the wincent who made Command-T for Vim, thank you. I used it for years and years with great success.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This looks cool, but I have been happy with [https://github.com/vhp/terminal_velocity](https://github.com/vhp/terminal_velocity) \- terminal based, I use it with vim but you can specify the editor.

</comment><comment><USER16> Sorry what's the license of this?

<comment><USER17> Thanks for pointing that out, I created an issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is cool! It's generic enough that it works not only with nvalt on Mac, but also with Notable on Linux ([https://github.com/notable/notable](https://github.com/notable/notable))

Notable also uses markdown files for storing notes, so I just had to point the plugin search path to notable's notes directory, and it worked like a charm!

Please keep this usecase in mind when you make changes to your plugin going forward. Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER19> Amazing! This is the vim plugin I've always wanted to write. I used Notational Velocity briefly on Mac before I switched to Linux/Windows machines during university and kinda never picked it up again. At this point vim movement is too critical and I can't use GUI solutions well... so I'm very excited to see a fusion of the two!

</comment><comment><USER20> So nice my two favorite apps nvim and nvalt got merged.

Anyone already tried it, how is it?

</comment><comment><USER21> fzf is such a great addition to the command-line

</comment><comment><USER22> Meta: these angle brackets got interpreted into the link.

<comment><USER23> Sorry; that's a bug and on our list to fix. I've edited the angle brackets out above.

We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20049765](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20049765) and marked it off-topic.</comment></comment>


Tell HN: Some of you are straight up bullies - <AUTHOR>

I might get flagged or down-voted in this thread to kingdom come but I don't care. This needs to be said.
Like many here, I strongly oppose SOPA and believe in freedom of choice, or rather, a free Internet. And I understand that there are many reasons why people would want to move off a service like GoDaddy for their support of SOPA that has come out in recent days. Of course there are a lot of other reasons people have for not wanting to stay with GoDaddy such as poor service, the elephant killing, etc... and this simply became the last straw for a lot of people. Whatever the reason, I get it. You want to take a stance and not do business with them, partly due to a difference in beliefs, and that's okay. For what its worth, I'm moving my business off GoDaddy as well.
Having said that, what I am NOT okay with is how many people have become bullies as a result of this. You may not like the fact that they are supporting SOPA (or were) but that doesn't mean you have to be an ass about it. In my personal opinion, the real objective was always to help educate others on the potential harm SOPA represents, and help spread the word about it so that others can understand and make a choice, and hopefully do the right thing in opposing it. It was never about personal attacks against GoDaddy. Maybe I'm alone in this thinking but not doing business with them was more due to mal-alignment in personal beliefs than it was to screw them over.
However, that's exactly seems to be the case with some people here. I am reading about how people want to get other companies to drop GoDaddy to prove a point. And what point is that? That if other people/companies have a different opinion than yours, that they're automatically the bad guy and you need to do everything you can to beat them to a pulp? I may not like SOPA and I may disagree with GoDaddy, but I can at the very least respect other people's opinion (including companies). I'm glad that a lot of people are standing up for their beliefs and moving their business away from GoDaddy, which is a perfectly fine personal choice. But when it all of a sudden sounds like that became the objective, to simply pile on and get everyone to drop them, and then try to recruit other large companies to do the same or risk your wrath, you lose sight of the real goal. Now you're just attacking everyone who doesn't share your belief. I like to believe we're all adults here and we can act with class rather than like playground kids about it.
Maybe you don't like their service. Maybe you hate them for various reasons outside of just SOPA. Maybe there are a bunch of other reasons I can't think of. Regardless, GoDaddy is entitled to their opinions even if that opinion differs from your own and being a BULLY is never acceptable behavior in my opinion to get what you want no matter how strongly you feel.
For the record, I'm glad they reversed their opposition (and hopefully not doing some under handed stuff privately). I'm still going to move my business away simply because I don't believe its truly what they want and they're only doing it because its hitting their business. I'm glad that the word about SOPA is getting out. In no way am I defending GoDaddy in any way, shape, or form. All I'm trying to say is, remember what you're fighting for. Don't act out a mob mentality on the wrong things so much that you lose sight of what is important. <comment><USER2> I don't think you are using the word "bully" correctly.

GoDaddy is a powerful and monied entity that has been caught paying money to convince the most powerful and monied entity in the world, the United States Government, to implement a set of rules that would generally make it easier for rich corporations to silence poor critics. The GoDaddy boycotters are not bullying the SOPA supporters.

The GoDaddy boycott does have a certain amount of groupthink and mindless sloganeering in it. Perhaps this is what you mean when you say "bullying".

GoDaddy tried to recruit the largest power in the world to help silence the smallest, and you find lobbying others to boycott them "piling on" ?

You say "GoDaddy is entitled to their opinions" but remember, GoDaddy spent money to make it easy for you to have your opinions removed from the internet. They didn't just "express their opinion" that a corporation should be able to shut down critical sites just for asking, they set about to make it happen. They engaged in no dialog or conversation with you, they just tried to get it done.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. The issue I had was many were beginning to take on a mob mentality even after GoDaddy backed off. This isn't about GoDaddy either regardless btw. It was about SOPA. GoDaddy was just an example to purely to point out that by continuing to destroy them even after they've relented, does not help continue making a case against stopping SOPA from being approved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> GoDaddy suffered a market correction as a result of rational actors behaving in their self interest. In this case the self interest was simply economic, but also an issue of freedom.

GoDaddy didn't simply have an opinion, they were acting upon it. Their actions support legislation that limits freedoms, especially free speech, and sets up a dangerous precedent for further limiting freedoms. Any entity that threatens freedoms of the people should expect to be bullied by the people.

Many people at some point in their lives determine that certain things are valuable enough to fight for. For a lot of people, their values were under siege by SOPA and PROTECT-IP.

Bullying is what happens to a kid on a schoolyard who has done absolutely nothing to deserve the harm (usually physical) inflicted upon them. The reaction of people against GoDaddy was self-defense in the interest of self preservation.

</comment><comment><USER4> You sound like a very good person who is completely oblivious to all the ways lawmakers and companies fuck us all over. The problem with people like you is that you let feelings and "goodness" get in the way of doing what needs to be done.

We have to be bullies, we have to be aggressive, merciless, unforgiving. Have you seen how companies like Monsanto have hijacked our congress? Make our lawmakers their bitches? How businesses have, over the course of decades, destroyed our towns, freedom, and privacy, in the name of profit.

The way Massey Coal caused deaths of children and contamination of hundreds of streams because they use mountain top removal as a method to mine for coal. They lobby lawmakers to prevent any type of law against it. George Bush signed a law allowing them to actually. Google "mountain top removal" and look at the giant holes they left in West Virginia, then look at the kids going through chemo therapy to fight brain cancer caused by the chemicals in the explosives used for mining.

The way American car companies lobbied congress to prevent higher mileage standards so they profit more without having to innovate. (which ultimately led to them needing a bailout because they couldn't compete with foreign car makers)

The way Car companies bought up and ripped out streetcars and their tracks so more people could buy cars. Now we tax payers are paying billions trying to put them back in to unclog our cities.

The way banks got bailouts then went out, partied, and gave themselves raises and bonuses. (self explanatory)

The way the United States poisoned 10,000 of its own citizens so it can more easily sell prohibition to the public. Yeah, kill people to scare them away from drinking alcohol.

The way oil companies are allowed to have as many oil spill accidents as they want, as long as they pay their

There is NOTHING we will ever do that will ever equal to the bullying that corporations inflict on us for the sake of profit and personal agendas.

These are the lunatics the American public are competing with, with all due respect, grow a pair of fucking balls. Because balls are all we have left.

<comment><AUTHOR> Believe me, I fight for what I believe in. I wouldn't have the galls to post this knowing there might be some backlash if I didn't have some balls. Note I'm also doing so under my real name.

I don't disagree with the shadiness that various companies have chose to carried themselves by. And there certainly a lot of reasons to be angry and upset. I agree with you that there are a lot of fucked up shit going on out there. But you're now mixing two totally separate arguments and taking advantage of the situation to tear GoDaddy a new asshole in the process.

I am not defending them (this isn't about them specifically either) nor do I honestly give a shit about their business. My original intent with this post stands. The goal and sole focus was and still should be to educate others on SOPA, get the word out, and oppose it from happening. Not take out everyone/company along the way. That's unnecessary and irrelevant collateral damage coupled with a lot of anger from a multitude of things combined.

<comment><USER4> I see. Sorry I got carried away then.

The problem with the public is that they don't want to be educated. Scientists and logicians have tried for decades to educate the public and they still deny evolution and global climate change. The public can only be scared shitless into things or "infotained" by public displays of drama and shock. That's how congress get us into wars and pointless "security theater" strip searches and hand swabs at the airport.

Which do you think would catch the -> average <\- person's attention: (note: the average YouTube kitten watching, tv couch potato, "who's Carl Segan?", "I didn't come from no monkey", person)

1) Congress is voting on a law called SOPA which censors the US internet and can completely destroy free speech, fair use content, youtube, and fair file sharing.

2) Did you hear what happened to Godaddy? They supported some SOPA law on censoring the internet and got their ass beat. Now they're on damage control, etc....

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> """However, that's exactly seems to be the case with some people here. I am reading about how people want to get other companies to drop GoDaddy to prove a point. And what point is that? That if other people/companies have a different opinion than yours, that they're automatically the bad guy and you need to do everything you can to beat them to a pulp?"""

Supporting SOPA is not "having an opinion" --in their own private home--, it's actively supporting and helping a legislation pass. Those kinds of opinions have consequences. GoDaddy's opinion (and lobbying) could have the consequence of a law passed. Why shouldn't it also have the consequence of them losing business?

So you are wrong here. This is not about "freedom of opinion", it's about political action, and fighting against society being forced into laws one does not approve. Not paying a company and suggesting others to not pay them either, is not bullying. It's exactly like suggesting people don't vote for a party you don't agree with.

<comment><AUTHOR> Then how do you explain the fact that after GoDaddy change their stance to oppose SOPA, people were still going on with the "who cares, lets get others to continue dropping them" (paraphrasing). Believe it or not, that attitude is still going on.

I believe that the moment they admit and change their stance, continuing to do so became a moot point. As I said, I'm still going to move my business off GoDaddy, but that's a personal choice at this point. Now that they're not opposing SOPA anymore (supposedly), why are people still trying to rally large companies to quit using GoDaddy? Clearly there is a problem here in my opinion.

EDIT: Clearly I'm not the only one who've observed this behavior, see: [http://fredandrandall.com/blog/2011/12/23/why-im-sticking- wi...](http://fredandrandall.com/blog/2011/12/23/why-im-sticking-with-godaddy- for-now/) (from HN)

<comment><USER5> """Then how do you explain the fact that after GoDaddy change their stance to oppose SOPA, people were still going on with the "who cares, lets get others to continue dropping them" (paraphrasing). Believe it or not, that attitude is still going on."""

Not only I believe, I also approve it.

GoDaddy's hypocritical turn-around means nothing, it's just damage control. The idea is not to "bully them into behavin'", it's to not support a company that doesn't respect our internet rights, period.

They should not have supported SOPA in the first place --especially given that they are a tech company.

<comment><AUTHOR> We'll have to agree to disagree here to an extent. As I've said, there comes a point when all you're doing now is trying to hurt them. Whether you realize it or not, or whether you can acknowledge it or not, that's blatant bullying.

I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of not supporting GoDaddy on the premise you're arguing about. Like I said earlier, I'm moving my business elsewhere either way regardless of the fact that they've let up. But now that they've let up, blatantly rallying against them even more to damage their company or going out of your way to continue getting other companies to continue moving off of them when the original goal was to focus on SOPA itself (of which seemed accomplish as far as GoDaddy is concerned) is just personal vendetta.

As I said in my original post above, remember what you're fighting for. Continuing to destroy GoDaddy isn't going to help push the fight against SOPA any more or less at this point. Now you're just fighting in anger, in personal moral beliefs, etc. I perfectly understand where you're coming from, believe me. Hopefully you see what I'm trying to say as well.

<comment><USER6> In the larger picture, other future companies will reflect on GoDaddy actions, if the pressure was pulled off now the lesson would be, hey you can support some pretty crappy anti-consumer stuff and then just say hey I am sorry. Now in GoDaddy's case it's not like they are just passer-by supporters of this bill, they are culpable in the very creation of it and to assume that they have now seen the light due to financial punishment, would be to say the least giving them a lot of credit.

Far worse it would change the very lesson of the historical context of what is now playing out. You see GoDaddy stepped across the line into politics and corruption and paid to play, when one starts dealing with politics it is no longer a business transaction, they are bartering in peoples rights. Doing so can lead to war, which what GoDaddy is dealing with is very akin to, and rightfully so, a business deal is one thing, but when you get on the wrong side of peoples rights, you should expect that those people are going to go to war. They have every right to do so, because a piece of their freedom is at stake. It's not about "I'm sorry's" at that point, the stakes are much higher, an example must be set so that future actors learn that rights are not tools for barter.

If GoDaddy does not like that they have fired the first shot, then they should have kept to domains and steered clear of brokering peoples rights for profit. GoDaddy stepped out of the lines of business and tried to mandate consumers actions via legislation, no one should expect that they be treated like a business when they did so, they no loner are because they are not acting like one, a better definition for them would be the enemy.

In saying that, I do want to thank you, mob rule and justice must be checked, we must have decent, so that people stop to think about their actions, in my opinion, they are justified in this case, but we should always take time to reflect. For me personally, I wrote GoDaddy an email asking how they plan to financially oppose the legislation now that they are sorry. If I am satisfied with the answer I will remain, because I think it will make for even greater historical context, if they have to financially fight the very legislation that they helped craft. That lesson will resound as an example, for a very long time and as far as my ethics are concerned it is a narrative that I can support as a cautionary tale to future business leaders.

<comment><USER6> I hate replying to my own post, but it's too late to edit my original post, so here is the response I received from them:

 _Fighting online piracy is of the utmost importance, which is why Go Daddy has been working to help craft revisions to this legislation - but we can clearly do better," Warren Adelman, Go Daddy's newly appointed CEO, said. "It's very important that all Internet stakeholders work together on this. Getting it right is worth the wait. Go Daddy will support it when and if the Internet community supports it._

I am now in the process of transferring out my domains, the fact that they are revising the legislation and not opposing any regulations signals to me that they have indeed not learned there lesson and are making PR maneuvers to do damage control. The fact that they would even entertain working further with a regulation framework is indicative of their mentality on the matter. Unfortunately they are probably too far invested to change direction and become a champion for their customers, as such I am left with little choice.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was reading somewhere earlier today those exact same words as a statement publicly made so if you got that in an email, its copy/paste BS.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Lending Club IPO Up 56% on First Day, Sets Stage for Hortonworks and New Relic - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/11/lending-clubs-ipo-pops-56-in-its-first-day-sets-stage-for-hortonworks-and-new-relic-offerings/

<comment><USER2> I always think that if my IPO was priced such that it doubled or whatever on the first day, I should sue my bankers for the difference between what I got and what it was worth.

In the end, it's the coke machine theory - I should IPO at a price that sells all available shares but one.

<comment><USER3> Except when you IPO you do not sell all your shares. You want the price to go up and maximize your personal upside.

<comment><USER4> You still get the same upside, all that matters is the price. You own the shares already, you're not buying them in the IPO.</comment></comment></comment>


Snapshots of Tokyo's vivid street life - <AUTHOR> https://www.huckmag.com/art-and-culture/photography-2/tokyo-street-photographer-mikiko-hara/ <comment><USER2> Somewhat related:

One of my favorite Youtube channels is Rambalac. It's just videos of walking through various places in Japan, from crowded streets to peaceful natural areas. No voiceover or explanations - almost every video is as if a video camera were moving around on its own and recording everything it saw (occasionally he interacts with things). Super relaxing to have on in the background, and really cool to watch to get a glimpse of everyday life there.

[https://www.youtube.com/user/Rambalac](https://www.youtube.com/user/Rambalac)

Here's some of the videos, there's a huge variety:

Shibuya at night: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qGiXY1SB68](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qGiXY1SB68)

Shinjuku evening walk: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHr4qSQ-5XU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHr4qSQ-5XU)

Kyoto's Kiyomizudera in the morning: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAeN7TdGq4o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAeN7TdGq4o)

Cat island (Tashirojima): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnfzALzLNgY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnfzALzLNgY)

Playing with deer at Nara: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu4GJwCpX2w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu4GJwCpX2w)

Shibuya Halloween: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkm522cTpzE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkm522cTpzE)

<comment><USER3> I live in Tokyo and wish I could see it through the eyes of someone new here again. I can see it in these videos, but when I walk through the city I'm too used to it and my brain drowns out all of these things.

<comment><USER4> So a technique I've found useful to solve this issue aside from hanging out with someone visiting is to dedicate 1 day to doing nothing but picking a place that you're very familiar with and intentionally thinking about whether you've been down that street or the next one, looking at places that I wouldn't usually look like at the corners of the roof of buildings and then just taking a moment to sit down and watch. This has worked for me in each of the cities I've ever become too familiar with. You just tend to relax and get to where you want to go, there's no nervous energy of not knowing where you are or where you're going. Nowadays I tebd to just pop on my headphones and go to where I need and go back home again and not take in a thing unless I have a bit of a "reset"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really enjoy these photos of every day life in Tokyo. This type of photography is something I struggle with, some of my attempts are here: [http://poglet.net/](http://poglet.net/)

Hoping to get a change to go back one day.

<comment><USER6> Great photos!

<comment><USER7> Yeah, those are some great shots! Good eye for small details.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can't see anything "vivid" on those pictures, honestly.

<comment><USER9> Me neither. They seemed badly framed and intruisive to many of the subjects. Street photography demands some respect for privacy or at least more discreet shooting

<comment><USER10> it's actually illegal in Japan to take pictures of people or their possessions without permission. As a hobbist youre unlikely to get sued but it's one of the reasons Google Maps had to add face blurring to Street View.

I found out when some guy had some bunnies out on a Sunday is Shinjuku. I went to take pictures and was told angrily "NO PICTURES". I thought it was silly that he'd say that when we was displaying his bunnies in public but I looked up the law and found by Japanese law it's the illegal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Shooting without a viewfinder is a great way of taking photos. I used to use a Minox 35 ML, the so called "spy camera": [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minox_35#/media/File:Minox35ml...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minox_35#/media/File:Minox35ml.jpg)

It's _very_ small, if not the smallest 35mm camera out there, which makes it inconspicuous. Also it only has _zone-focusing_ , which means you have to guess how far your subject is away from you. You'd only use the viewfinder for framing and setting your exposure. However, since I also used the flash, the exposure was fixed anyways. I usually put a roll of Portra 400 in, which I pushed to 800. All that allowed me to stop down the lens quite a bit, so I knew that everything in around 1.5 to 15 meters distance would be in focus when I press the shutter. And I didn't worry about the framing, so I didn't use the viewfinder.

This gave me an instantaneous access to situations and pictures that otherwise would've been long gone after looking into the viewfinder and setting the focus and exposure. I didn't worry much about how I held the camera and just used my intuition. It really was a kind of liberating way to create images. So yeah, the camera does matter! Although I think I only paid around $100 for this one.

Those are a couple images I took in Paris that way:

* [https://gereonrecht.com/photographs/images/paris/paris-2.jpg](https://gereonrecht.com/photographs/images/paris/paris-2.jpg)

* [https://gereonrecht.com/photographs/images/paris/paris-3.jpg](https://gereonrecht.com/photographs/images/paris/paris-3.jpg)

* [https://gereonrecht.com/photographs/images/paris/paris-4.jpg](https://gereonrecht.com/photographs/images/paris/paris-4.jpg)

And one I took in Cologne: [https://gereonrecht.com/photographs/images/cologne-man- with-...](https://gereonrecht.com/photographs/images/cologne-man-with-dog.jpg)

<comment><USER12> Super cool results.

I enjoy zone focusing with an Industar 50-2 on my Spotmatic. Actually, that is really the only way to enjoy using that lens because it has a fully manual, one-ring iris – on an SLR lens! Stopped down to about f/8 it was pretty easy to focus by the scale only. I did check my composition in the viewfinder, but that was about it.

I'll try shooting without using the viewfinder at all next time. Shutter speed is pretty easy to set and forget at daytime (Sunny 16 all day! ...literally)

<comment><USER11> Thank you!

I love Spotmatics! Sadly, the ones I inherited have light leaks.

If you're not going to use the viewfinder, it'd probably be a lot easier to use something wider than 50mm. Besides the greater depth of field making zone- focusing a lot easier, there's literally "more room" for error in your (somewhat accidental) framing. Makes things easier. But I might be biased here, as 35mm is my favorite focal length on any camera!

<comment><USER12> I prefer 35 for general shooting and 50-58 for taking pictures of people. I have one 40mm and it is a nice compromise. I'm going to try some viewfinderless shooting with my Spotmatic today - watch this space ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Japan's got some pretty strong privacy laws. Strong to the point that it's not permissible to take pictures of random people without their consent and especially not OK to publish them publicly. None of these people look particularly happy about some person taking pictures of them and it sure doesn't seem like the were trying to be subtle. [1]

Furthermore, the faux olde timey look is far past its prime.

[1] [https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2017/01/22/how- tos/re...](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2017/01/22/how- tos/recording-public-places-japan-privacy-portrait-rights-come-play/)

</comment><comment><USER14> I love how life in Tokyo is so middle-class and family oriented compared to US cities like SF and NYC.

<comment><USER15> Young children ride the subway alone to school, it's a different world

<comment><USER16> I see tiny kids walking down narrow (I would call dangerous due to traffic) streets. See them crossing sidewalks. As a parent of a one year old I find this scary and fascinating.

<comment><USER17> Traffic in residential Tokyo streets is also super slow, because drivers are well aware that they're full of kids, grannies, cats, etc. And you're pretty much automatically at fault if you hit a pedestrian.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I appreciate that this is next to an article called "Privacy not included: Holiday gift list for privacy and security".

</comment><comment><USER19> You can not have a thread about Tokyo snapshots without mentioning Daido Moriyama[1][2]. :)

[1] [https://www.moriyamadaido.com/en/](https://www.moriyamadaido.com/en/)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daid%C5%8D_Moriyama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daid%C5%8D_Moriyama)

<comment><USER20> Also the Provoke magazine and all the people that participated on it (like Moriyama). Specially Takuma Nakahira.

<comment><USER21> I have been a fan of Sean Wood's photography - [https://50mm.jp](https://50mm.jp) (check out the older shots of nighttime Tokyo).

<comment><USER22> Thank you :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> q-base I really like the photo-documentary style. If anyone else has links to similar style blogs/websites I would be very interested.

<comment><USER23> You'll want to look into any of the street documentary greats:

      * Garry Winogrand - NYC/LA/Texas, considered by many to be the best.
      * Lee Friedlander - From Aberdeen, WA, but really shot everywhere.
      * Anthony Hernandez - Modern, still working, has moved on to larger formats of environments.
      * Joel Meyerowitz - Modern, still working, has moved on to still lifes in Tuscany, but still teaches. Pioneered a lot of early color street work.
      * Robert Frank - Released The Americans the book that really started it all.
      * Henri Cartier-Bresson - Surrealist, dream-like work that's hard to imitate.
      * Walker Evans - Worked for the Farm Services Bureau and took lots of important documentary work early in America's history.
      * Elliott Erwitt - NYC with a touch of humor.
      * Helen Levitt - NYC bad neighborhoods and life.
      * Brassai - Parisian nightlife.
      * Richard Kalvar - Still working, great work of Italy in the 70s though.
      * Leitizia Battaglia - Italian mafia in Sicily.
      * Gianni Berengo Gardin - Considered the Italian Henri Cartier-Bresson.
      * Josef Koudelka - Czech, one of the greatest documentary workers to have ever lived. Still working today and making incredible work. His book Exiles is worth everyone owning.
      * William Eggleston - Basically responsible for color photography being accepted in fine art circles.

For some contemporaries still actively shooting street I'd check out:

      * Andre Wagner https://www.instagram.com/photodre/
      * Martin Parr https://www.instagram.com/martinparrstudio/
      * Daniel Arnold https://www.instagram.com/arnold_daniel/
      * Aaron Berger https://www.instagram.com/aaronbergerfoto/
      * Alex Webb https://www.instagram.com/webb_norriswebb/
      * Matt Stuart https://www.instagram.com/mattu1/

I have dozens and dozens more if you run through those and are still interested. Street documentary work is my absolute favorite genre of photography -- got hooked after my first darkroom class at 15 -- and try to consume as much work as I can.

And no Internet post would be proper without some self promotion: [https://www.instagram.com/piffeyfoto/](https://www.instagram.com/piffeyfoto/)

Edit: Ooof, formatting troubles. Never do lists on HN. Will clean up as soon as I find a README.

Edit2: Can you really not do links in a formatted list?

Edit3: Probably easiest to link to here ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_street_photographers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_street_photographers)) for further reference too. I realized I left so many greats and their contemporaries out just rattling off what was in my head. Nikos Economopolous, Mary Ellen Mark, Danny Lyon, Levi Levinstein and Vivian Meier -- hope they'll forgive me.

<comment><USER20> I run an Instagram where I posted many of these in the first list: [https://www.instagram.com/neues.sehen/](https://www.instagram.com/neues.sehen/)

<comment><USER23> Awesome! I'll give you a follow. Always love seeing the greats come by in my feed to remind me what I'm trying to achieve and strive for in my work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Very nice shots!

</comment><comment><USER24> Why did the author mostly creepshot women and children?

<comment><USER25> The author is the (female) photographer. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikiko_Hara](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikiko_Hara)

Why does a candid photo of a woman or child have to be considered a creepshot in your mind?

<comment><USER12> > Why does a candid photo of a woman or child have to be considered a > creepshot in your mind?

As a guy the Japanese police will not be happy if you take candids of women or kids

<comment><USER26> > As a guy the Japanese police will not be happy if you take candids of women > or kids

That's true. There is a lot of fear, prejudice and prudery around gender and age in the arts.

That doesn't mean we should stop thinking: It's crucial to assess for ourselves whether a picture appears to us as offensive as we are confronted with it.

Otherwise the criticism is just meaningless, recycled fear.

<comment><USER12> > That doesn't mean we should stop thinking: It's crucial to assess for > ourselves whether a picture appears to us as offensive as we are confronted > with it.

That's an interesting thought. Do you think photographers should have a moral responsibility? A famous example I can think of is the controversy surrounding "The vulture and the little girl" by Kevin Carter.

In terms of street photography, is it OK to "creep" or invade someone's privacy, especially that of children? There is certainly a line between telling a story and trashy exploitation, the question is where is it?

<comment><USER26> Good question and I don't think I have a great answer.

I personally believe that morality lies not in the document, but in the context it is created or displayed in.

If, for example, the intention appears to me to be dishonest, exploitative or outright cruel, I'd want to criticize the person responsible for putting this document into this context. Whether this is done by creating the document or changing its context doesn't appear as relevant to me.

Regarding the declarative line you mention, I think I'm pretty much a pragmatist: I do not need to know where exactly the border is between India and China to know that Delhi is in India.

...but I'm open to a more rule based approach as well. I just don't know one.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hackers linked to terrorists arrested in Manila. - <AUTHOR> http://reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7AP06320111127?irpc=932

<comment><USER2> It sounds like it was an old school PBX style attack, and making use of voice bridging type features to make calls via business lines. This style attack has been around for a long time, and quite frankly isn't really hacking in most cases - generally the systems are using default passwords, or it can also be a social engineering style attack via the operator/secretary of such systems.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Personally, I think that without the FBI they would not have been caught. The laws here are very weak and corruption is very rampant. Without the FBI, they could just have paid their way out of the problem.

I'm glad that they are caught and would love to have more of these FBI + Philippine Government operations going on. I don't want this country to become a haven for criminals. With other governments involved I think it would be much harder to bribe themselves out of the situation.</comment>


Windows 10 is getting an easier way to update and install drivers - <AUTHOR> https://www.windowslatest.com/2019/12/25/windows-10-is-getting-a-easier-way-to-update-and-install-drivers/ <comment><USER2> >Windows Update's Optional Updates section will let you see all optional updates including drivers and monthly non-security updates in one place.

If I remember correctly, all the way up to windows 8.1, you could choose which updates to install. It was only with windows 10 that they removed the ability to select updates. It's ironic how they're touting this as a new feature, when really it's fixing a regression.

<comment><USER3> Choice is a problem with updates, but they probably went too far. When a choice is possible then people will skip updates which endangers the whole ecosystem.

The prevalence of Windows means that they can't let individuals make too many choices because bad outcomes reflect on Microsoft and not those users or admins who contributed to the problem. There is pressure from governments and companies for protection from infrastructure threats which drives some of this thinking. This is not limited to Microsoft, even Firefox introduced updater changes which limits how users can opt-out of automatic updates.

There was likely an assumption that restart-less upgrades would become a reality more quickly than they have, so the responsible teams went with a simplified update mechanism to protect the ecosystem. That backfired in a range of other ways, but at least the ecosystem is relatively safe.

<comment><USER4> > _When a choice is possible then people will skip updates which endangers the > whole ecosystem._

There is a reason for that. Reason not being just the choice itself, but mostly that automated updates tend to range from inconvenient, through bloating up the machine, to outright dangerous to your data and software.

The reason to install updates is security. The reason to not install them is all the other things that get included. Because of that, I wish it was a standard to run security updates separately from feature updates, and keep the second type fully optional. Yes, it's more work for the developers, but it's better for the users (and our industry is going too far with preferring its own convenience over end-user value).

<comment><USER5> >Because of that, I wish it was a standard to run security updates separately from feature updates, and keep the second type fully optional. Yes, it's more work for the developers, but it's better for the users (and our industry is going too far with preferring its own convenience over end-user value).

This exists for Windows 10. It's called Windows 10 Enterprise Long Term Support Channel. It gets feature updates every 2-3 years but each release comes with a minimum of 10 years of security support.

Leave it to Microsoft to make stability as an Enterprise fearure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If this gets rid of NVIDIAs god forsaken driver update BS then I'll be delighted.

(Requires logging in with a password/profile it doesn't remember between updates and disabling pi hole for some stupid reason)

<comment><USER7> Isn't this part of the (awful) GeForce experience app? You can still just download drivers directly from the Nvidia webpage without logging in.

<comment><USER8> Yes, plain drivers are available: [http://www.geforce.com/drivers](http://www.geforce.com/drivers)

That said, Windows 10 driver handling _already_ handles the basic drivers out of the box (at least for me)

Generally though, these manufacturers have their own driver / bios update software that 1.) creates additional background / tray apps 2.) autostarts 3.) offers implicitly to download extra "helpful", "optional" software

Examples of software where all three happens: Fujitsu ScanSnap, Gigabyte Aorus Motherboard, Lenovo Advantage

So now there's a passive, consistent performance loss on the system, a tray icon hogging up space, "helpful" notifications, and unsolicited popups not offering driver updates, but to download additional software (box is already checked)

One nice thing about Linux/BSD desktops is even when Nvidia did proprietary stuff, the most you'd see back in the day is an Nvidia logo when starting X (editing xorg.conf could disable it)

<comment><USER9> I bought Lenovo laptop few days ago and installed fresh Windows. Then I enabled WiFi and left it for a hour. It installed ALL drivers including Nvidia drivers and Nvidia control panel. I checked driver versions with Lenovo support page and every driver was fresh. Windows did awesome work with automatically installing drivers. Nvidia driver was not fresh, I think it was from July, 22, 2019, but I don't think that it's that old anyway. So for ordinary users Windows does very good job at installing drivers and I would recommend against doing anything by hand, unless absolutely necessary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I built a new computer and for the first time in over a decade I wanted to try Windows, but apparently I was missing drivers for something. It never told me what I needed drivers for, and even with all the drivers for all the parts I could find on a separate USB drive, it couldn't find the drivers that I supposedly needed, so I gave up and chose to install Ubuntu instead.

Ubuntu apparently knew all the drivers I needed, fetched them from beyond the great ether, and all was in harmony.

Why is this so easy for Canonical, but not Microsoft?

</comment><comment><USER11> Now if only they'd vet the drivers in Windows Update and block these enormous bloatware turds that have become fashionable.

</comment><comment><USER12> I have a non-computer-savvy friend who regularly has to reinstall nvidia graphic drivers because windows 10 update REGULARLY overwrites them with drivers that CRASHES blizzard games (world of warcraft, overwatch). Has to be done every 4 days or something like that.

It's really weird to not know who is at fault here, if it's nvidia, microsoft or blizzard. There are no good way (other than disabling updates) to prevent windows update from overwriting drivers.

I wish microsoft would do something about this. Can't even remember if I submitted some feedback. Not to mention this computer is crazy slow since the upgrade from win8 to win10. I know the usual "get a SSD", but that computer was NOT THAT SLOW before the upgrade. Anyway this computer is a all-in-one, which has weird hardware. But still, it's a i7, with 6GB of ram. It's hard to believe it takes so long to open the start menu or just a folder.

Oh yeah, other thing: another friend bought an used laptop which had some insider preview enabled. 3 weeks ago her microphone just stopped working. Apparently you cannot remove an insider win10 build WITHOUT REINSTALLING. I was not able to fix it. I'm not even a maintenance guy.

<comment><USER13> > Apparently you cannot remove an insider win10 build WITHOUT REINSTALLING.

Well, yeah. If a beta takes a wrong direction in the design of a new on-disk data structure, do you really expect them to write a reverse-migration that turns it back into the old format? That's a lot of work for a tiny point- release on branch of development they're not even sure they're going to make public. No commercial OS supports this.

<comment><USER4> They could've warned instead of defaulting to failure.

I wish they'd ease up with signing core system files with short-lived certs either; I once had to reinstall my PC after not booting into Windows for ~3 months - when I tried to start Windows after that break, I discovered some core DLLs had expired certificates, preventing the system from booting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's the year 2019. We communicate with the speed of light across the ocean and manipulate DNA, but installing drivers is still not a solved problem on Windows...

... and a modern display server is still not used by default on Linux.

<comment><USER15> To be fair, one less desire-able 'solution' to drivers issues would be to not allow the hardware to work at all. MacOS users don't have access to Nvidia graphics cards, for example. I'll take Windows' driver work over that any day.

<comment><USER16> MacOS includes drivers for (most) 700-series graphics cards. It's just, Apple hasn't shipped Macs with nVidia cards since 2013ish, so they don't ship Mac OS with drivers for cards they never used, either.

nVidia used to ship third party Mac drivers for their newer cards, but they decided to stop maintaining them a couple years ago, possibly because Apple said they wouldn't sign them them†, depending on how you interpret vague PR statements. Still, the third party drivers work on slightly older OS's—I'm currently typing this from a macOS High Sierra machine that has a GTX 1080 Ti.

† I want to note that driver signing isn't some draconian Apple thing, 64 bit versions of Windows also require signatures. You can install unsigned drivers on macOS by partially disabling SIP, but presumably nVidia didn't want to ship drivers that would require that.

<comment><USER17> It's not the driver signing that's the problem. It's that Apple is a gatekeeper for driver signatures and won't release drivers unless it suits them.

I know the GTX 1080 works on High Sierra, but that OS is at (or near) the end of its supported life.

Microsoft manages the driver signing process but doesn't play these games. If nVidia wants to write and maintain drivers for macOS, why get in their way?

<comment><USER16> I guess it just depends on what's actually happening. What nVidia has said is:

> Apple fully controls drivers for Mac OS. But if Apple allows, our engineers > are ready and eager to help Apple deliver great drivers for Mac OS 10.14.

A lot of people have decided to interpret this as "Apple is refusing to sign nVidia drivers", but I'm not ready to jump to that conclusion without more explicit details.

For example, nVidia has continued to release drivers compatible with High Sierra security updates (necessary because nVidia driver coded their drivers such that they'll refuse to launch on non-whitelisted build numbers). Apple has not suddenly refused to sign those drivers.

My personal theory: in Mojave, all desktop compositing goes through Metal, so nVidia would have needed to a major rewrite of their drivers. Given how few Mac users install third party graphics cards, this isn't worthwhile for nVidia. nVidia wants Apple to implement some type of legacy shim in macOS that drivers can plug into, and Apple characteristically said no.

That, to me, makes more sense than Apple suddenly deciding not to sign any drivers which are compatible with 10.14+.

<comment><USER18> People also seem to be interpreting the line "eager to help Apple deliver great drivers" as Nvidia having new drivers ready to go, which I strongly suspect isn't the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Windows 7 does this for some drivers, but it only seems to be for a limited list (e.g. selected Intel NICs), and the drivers are woefully outdated.

I guess this might be "enough" for people buying some of the most popular PCs (e.g. Dell), but it's certainly not going to be for everyone.

<comment><USER19> Every part of my computer, which I built myself, gets its drivers from Windows Update. Drivers have been pushed from Windows Update since... forever? Granted, I always install a more recent version myself.

<comment><AUTHOR> Huh, I've used Windows 10 for years now, and didn't realise it still had this feature - I don't recall ever seeing any "optional updates"?

But then, for most things I always install recent'ish drivers from the manufacturer myself, which I guess would disable this feature for at least those things.

<comment><USER19> Only that they are not optional, they force you to install those drivers (unless you're installed your own before). But they do indeed show up on Windows Update.

[https://filestore.community.support.microsoft.com/api/images...](https://filestore.community.support.microsoft.com/api/images/2f0c0423-8e09-4b73-bc97-c4d0359f2538)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> i love how all the way to Windows 7 (not tested any newer) it still has the same GUI for driver installation as Windows 3.1

</comment><comment><USER21> I have been using Windows 10 (and its ancestors) on a kick-ass desktop PC for the past decade or so. It's been a shit-show. I've probably spent about 2 full days totally out of action, during this period, if I'm only counting downtime caused by MSFT idiocy.

<comment><USER22> Are you a time traveler? Because it only came out 4.5 years ago...

<comment><USER21> I'd like to remind all commenters of this part the HN Guidelines:

"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."

<comment><USER23> Fair, that was snarky. But your response of offering a photo of your windows 7 disk was worse. Your initial comment didn't make sense until you edited it, and there was no need to be so defensive about that. You could have just said you meant 7-10.

And it's not the same product any more than XP and Vista are the same product. A free upgrade is still an upgrade.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


3D images of tissue may help spot and treat cancer - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17817146

<comment><AUTHOR> Paper (abstract, paywall for full text): [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002944012...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000294401200168X)

Press release: [http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authored_newsitem.cws_home/...](http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authored_newsitem.cws_home/companynews05_02300)

Alternative article: [http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-virtual-reveal- disease...](http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-virtual-reveal- disease-3d.html)

Apparently 1.45 TB data for 5000 slices of data.</comment>


What iOS 7 design should have been - <AUTHOR> http://dribbble.com/shots/1111784-iOS-7-icons-redesign/attachments/140689

<comment><USER2> Yes, the design of iOS 7 should have been a static mockup with slightly tweaked vector icons. Feel the burn, Jony.

<comment><USER3> While the original poster oversold it, admittedly they are nicer looking icons. The new safari icon apple designed is a crime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> First reaction to iOS 7 presentation on stage and web screenshots: ugh.

Reaction after using it for a day, then seeing all these alternate designs: "I see what Apple did there."

After using it, I think there are subtle decisions being made over at Apple about these icons based on how end users perceive, differentiate, and use them not on a slide but on the screen, and how they will transition to them.

I think many of these design comps miss those experience and engagement rationales.

That said, I don't get Game Center. :-)

</comment><comment><USER5> This is the nicest redesign I've seen so far. Only issues I see is that Safari looks like a compass without the 'world' iconography, and the gradients in passbook could be toned down some. Photos and Game Center could probably benefit from a subtle gradient in their backgrounds as well.

</comment><comment><USER6> The backgrounds they're using in these promotions are what get me. Chill with the abstract colors fields. It looks like they're trying to imitate the prototypical android phone.

</comment><comment><USER7> Wow, it's interesting how such subtle changes make it look so much better. This looks like the iOS 7 I was expecting to drool over.

<comment><USER8> Thanks (I'm the author). I tried to keep the Jony Ive spirit, but fully reimplemented it (with Sketch).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hey! I heard it was a developer preview! Meaning, what you see, may not be the final product. Who knew?!? :)

</comment><comment><USER10> Really nice. A lot more than I can say for the real thing. It upsets me that the actual thing looks so bad.

</comment><comment><USER11> No matter what you do to it, the Game Center icon will still suck.</comment>


Poverty is not a personal choice, but a reflection of society - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/why-poverty-is-not-a-personal-choice-but-a-reflection-of-society-79552 <comment><USER2> Regarding blaming each other for their misfortune, I have an anecdotal experience I want to share. I don't know if that's just me or this phenomenal happens to everyone else as well: That's the "fuck you/who cares/deal with it" attitude.

The "fuck you" attitude can be summarized as people won't go the extra mile to help other people. It is the non-sympathy, non-action I get from everyday people (including the police) when something injustice or misfortune happens to other people or the common interest. It is also the non-forgiving attitude when someone makes a dumb mistake. It is selfish and at the same time not wrong. It reflects somewhat in the Shit Town podcast that I listened to lately.

I won't go into the details, but personally, I have worked with the local police recently on two separate incidents, and they were surprisingly bad. It was different from my previous experiences when I first moved to the US ten years ago. That "fuck you" attitude is what I experienced and have to deal with every day when I was in Vietnam, my home country. I'm not shocked, or that annoyed to have to deal with it every once in a while, but I feel it wasn't that way when I moved. I feel I get less and less of the extra miles the more I stay in here. I can't help but feel that people are getting stiffer and stiffer somehow.

For the context, I am and have been living in the midwest. What's surprising is that I'm not even depressed, and life is getting easier for me professionally, personally, and financially. Something just doesn't feel right. Or maybe I was just romanticizing my early days in the US for me. Or maybe I'm about to have another mid-life crisis.

<comment><USER3> I grew up in a small town in the Midwest and one thing I've noticed is income stratification has had an impact. It used to be more prevalent for your police officer, postman, waitress, or hairdresser to be able to afford to live in your town. Their kids would go to school with your kids, or you might go to the same church. But a lot more families struggle while others have done very well. I see a huge disparity in incomes (even within my extended family). This is amplified by the perception that many achieved this by luck or without hard work. Unfortunately, I think that makes people much less likely to empathize with each other.

<comment><USER4> Oddly enough, I'm the first to admit that I've achieved my level of income by luck, and without hard work. I was lucky to have two educated parents, their wealth to fall back on, and an affluent, healthy environment to grow up in. My parents paid for my undergraduate education, and the government paid for my graduate degree.

I "work" in a nice office, by playing with equations and gadgets, and talking to people. Meanwhile I see people doing actual physical work, and even emotionally hard work such as teachers, police, etc. And it is virtually assured by our society that they will be less affluent than me, despite working a lot harder.

<comment><USER5> Being born to two educated parents is not luck on your part, but well deserved reward for a long, concerted effort on theirs. You're not a random happening on a clean slate; you're just the latest offshoot of a family.

<comment> Al-Khwarizmi Maybe there is a philosophical divide between us, but this argument sounds really weird to me.

From his/her point of view, of course being born to educated parents is luck, if not what else is it? We don't have any choice or any influence on the matter of who we are born to, and we cannot change it with our effort or lack of it.

The fact that from their parents' point of view it's not luck, because they worked for it, strikes me as irrelevant in this context. It can be relevant in a societal context but the post you reply to was talking about the success of an individual and how it can come just by luck, without that individual working especially hard for it.

<comment><USER6> What isn't luck? I only am who I am today because of a combination of nature and nurture. My genes and my environment defined who I am. I had no control over either of those things.

I mean, if I was born on Steve Job's birthday, with Steve Job's genes, to Steve Job's parents, presumably I would be Steve Jobs. From that perspective, it's pure luck I'm not a billionaire. And, similarly, pure luck that I'm not literally Hitler.

<comment><USER7> Do we make our own destiny, or does our destiny make us?

<comment><USER8> Both, with some effort i could get good a poker. Some games I will lose no matter what because _you can only play the hand you are dealt_

<comment><USER9> And you can only buy in with the money you have to start with.

Everyone should experience losing to a worse player who won by starting with more chips and therefore had more hands and more opportunities to recover from error.

Then they should experience a fixed buy in, no rebuy tournament where each player starts with equal opportunity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For anyone who wants to investigate the connection between poverty and society further, I can highly recommend, Rutger Bregman's book 'Utopia for realists'. It is funny to see cases in history where well researched,cost effective and progressive social programs have been stopped due to plain prejudice from those in power.

I keep hearing Ayn Rand mentioned these days. Reading those long tedious books can give you fodder for some interesting thought experiments, but beyond that I find the ideas not just damaging, but childishly simplistic. When I hear that some bigshot tech mogul is a follower of Rand I feel that they are about to make excuses for their appalling behavior by making appeal to some kind of authority. I associate Rand with white supremacists and debunked myths

<comment><USER10> Regarding Rand, I hear her referenced more by libertarian detractors than any actual libertarians.

<comment><USER11> Paul Ryan, the primary author of the House healthcare bill, gives out an Ayn Rand book to all of his interns [0].

Fountainhead and especially Atlas Shrugged are engaging works of science fiction. I recommend everyone read at least one. And then keep in mind this quote [1]:

 _"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. "_

[0] [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/7-ways-paul- rya...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/7-ways-paul-ryan- revealed-his-love-for-ayn-rand.html) [1] [http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two- novels-...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-novels-that- can-change-a-bookish-fourteen-year)

<comment><USER12> Brad Keywell, the non-lefkofsky half of Lightbank (incubator for Groupon) also gives out Rynd books to his employees for christmas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm not sure the proportion, but there do exist certain people who are self destructive yet also self entitled. It's the state of mind that drives a person to gamble everything they own. Either the universe agrees with then and they do become the greatest person they think they are, or more likely, they fail and wallow in rage. In a way, it's like a child throwing a tantrum, threatening all sorts of things, knowing that their mom will break down and acquisce to the demands. In the real world though, this mom doesn't exist. Some have pity for the child's heart that seaches for meaning and love in a world without a mother, most see the child's tantrum and are just annoyed at the immaturity.

The most institutionalized mother replacement is God, the infallible mother of mother's. A pet theory if mine is that religion served as society's safety net in this manner and was incredibly important when only a minority of people had access to knowledge as opposed to the majority today. Knowledge opens the doors to self actualization through various means. Without it you are limited to blue collar repetitive jobs, non-creative work. Without this self actualization path, it's very easy to fall into a spiral of drugs, alcohol, hookers, etc...

Online Games are the modern day less dangerous replacement for these shallow meaning makers. It's usage as a stabilizer for the poor is especially apparent in the Asian countries.

Note that money in the end will always be spent on meaning regardless of rich or poor. . The poor don't save because they can't see what to do with it. The immediate meaning makers of drugs and alcohol are much more achievable. I save and go to Costco because I know moneys power to transform into different degrees of freedom and creative pursuits. Others desire a family. Some desire an empire, a middle finger to God. (Pop culture is the main stabilizing force for the middle class)

<comment><USER14> > Note that money in the end will always be spent on meaning regardless of > rich or poor. . The poor don't save because they can't see what to do with > it.

The type of "easy come, easy go" behavior is way more prevalent among poor than rich. I remember reading an article (impossible to dig out with generic keywords I can come up with) describing a study in savings pattern where they distributed small amounts of extra cash to poor households. Some of the money went to cover bills, so deleveraging previous debts, but even at those households that ended up with a surplus of cash the savings never materialized into anything meaningful and long-term. Several reasons for that:

1) Accumulated previous debts for things like cars, medical debts, furniture rentals. Some with ballooning interests, some with predatory late fees that have their own ballooning interests.

2) Accumulated ongoing liabilities for things such as parental support.

3) Because of the way collection agencies or government can always freeze the current assets and garnish the paycheck, general distrust of US banking system and preference for hard, cold cash.

4) General feeling of lack of control over one's finances, and surprisingly rational decision to blow the extra cash immediately because #yolo, and one never knows when a relative, an ex, a random bill collector or The Man will take that money anyway with nothing to show for it.

<comment><USER15> It could also be that the frivolous purchases mean more to the poor, that they are something to be excited about and not just an arbitrary indulgence.

I used to be a lot more careful with my money before a few years ago, when I experienced being too poor to feed myself and routinely went for several days without even a small snack, just looking at pictures of food for hours on end.

Ever since that time I've found that as soon as I have surplus cash I have a strong desire to spend it on expensive food or eating out etc. and I often do. Even the cheapest meal from the local takeaway feels like a huge thing for me now and fills me with a joy I struggle to communicate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It is both a personal choice and a reflection of society. I am not sure which one has bigger weight. But if you live in the US , are not physically impaired, and high school educated. Personal choice definitely has much more weight. I know many friends who come to US from Myanmar. Don't speak English , no degrees. But almost all of them live above average several years later. But they sure need to work really hard.

<comment><USER17> I anecdotally know far more people who coast and don't do well than I know who either coast and do well or don't coast and don't do well.

I think part of the problem is a combination of a bias against impugning others effort because "you don't know their struggle" and just enough counter examples (where hard work doesn't pay off) to feed confirmation bias.

The question that I have is this: is the growing narrative about the United States not being a meritocracy a self-fulfilling prophecy. If so, does not thriving because you believe that narrative a personal choice?

<comment><USER18> I think you are complicated the issue too much.

Who cares if a society it's a meritocracy or not? The point, it seems to me, is, is it a meritocracy that work for most of the people? Because what is the point of a society that doesn't work for most of the people?

I know that if I train hard every day I could improve my 100m sprinter time. I also know that never mind what I do, not in a million years I could beat Usain Bolt.

If we live in societies where the life of the average guy improve at the same time that the pie grows there is not a problem.

If we live in a society where, even when the pie grow my life is worst, and when I complain, you point to Usain Bolt and say "see? it can be done!"; well, I don't think that it's going to work for long.

It seems to me that feeling explain a lot of the "populist" movements around the world.

<comment><USER17> > never mind what I do, not in a million years I could beat Usain Bolt

Maybe this is just a bad analogy, but if you're objectively worse than Usain Bolt then in a meritocracy you should justifiably be worse off. That's a bad expectation anyway, at a population level 0% of people are Usain Bolt. This ultimately leads to a question I've been thinking about a lot; should we as a society be okay with a hard working naturally gifted person being higher paid than an equally hard working non-gifted person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "It may be said that of this hard lot no one has any reason to complain, because it befalls those only who are outstripped by others, from inferiority of energy or of prudence. This, even were it true, would be a very small alleviation of the evil. If some Nero or Domitian were to require a hundred persons to run a race for their lives, on condition that the fifty or twenty who came in hindmost should be put to death, it would not be any diminution of the injustice that the strongest or nimblest would, except through some untoward accident, be certain to escape. The misery and the crime would be that any were put to death at all. So in the economy of society; if there be any who suffer physical privation or moral degradation, whose bodily necessities are either not satisfied or satisfied in a manner which only brutish creatures can be content with, this, though not necessarily the crime of society, is pro tanto a failure of the social arrangements."

John Stuart Mill, _Chapters on Socialism_

[https://archive.org/stream/chaptersonsocial00mill#page/264/m...](https://archive.org/stream/chaptersonsocial00mill#page/264/mode/2up)

</comment><comment><USER20> I have no idea how to solve the poverty issue. I don't think there is a way other than subsidizing a portion of the population. Even in Soviet Russia you had some very dedicated people (say scientists and bureaucrats who made things happen) and you also had very unproductive people who retained jobs they had contempt for.

That said, with regard to health wellbeing we need a few things:

-Reduce costs (cost per person is astronomical compared to other developed countries)

-Provide Basic Universal healthcare for all citizens (elevate the health of the average person to a sustainable level)

-Allow insurance for people who want to insure against grey swan health issues. Ensure this remains "affordable".

<comment><USER21> Government regulations created the twisted non-market for healthcare that exists in the united states. Pretty please don't sign us up for more government.

You know there are 7 big health care providers in my state building spectacular facilities as fast as they can, and they don't have to compete with each other? There's no competition. Every pleb goes dutifully to the assigned provider his employer sends him to.

You think it's an accident there's weak consumer protections in the U.S. of A? You think it's just dumb luck that health care has no market forces to control costs? We're all about rapacious crony capitalism here!

<comment> Al-Khwarizmi Why do most people in the US seem to never look abroad when it comes to healthcare?

The US healthcare system is probably the most privatized in the developed world. The systems in other developed countries (e.g. any European country) give more weight to the government, and have been shown by all sorts of metric to work much better. How can you still say "don't sign us up for more government"?

<comment><USER22> > Why do most people in the US seem to never look abroad when it comes to > healthcare?

The Brits were _just_ debating how much nurses should get paid. When government runs your organization, math and economics become subservient to politics.

> The US healthcare system is probably the most privatized in the developed > world.

It has privatized profits, but the whole system is heavily regulated. Prices for things are certainly not set on open markets.

<comment><USER23> > Prices for things are certainly not set on open markets.

You say this, yet Americans pay twice as much for care that is of considerably lower quality than other civilized countries. Do you think it's a coincidence that in one of the most privatized for-profit healthcare industries in the civilized world, we pay more? Sure, other systems have issues and are not perfect, but that doesn't excuse America's substandard healthcare system.

<comment><USER22> Again, it's private and for profit, but it's not market based. It's just a big ball of bureaucracy, unintended consequences, and corruption (at least in the sense that the system isn't following its intended purposes). If it were market based, there would be a trivially discoverable price for commodity operations and such.

How much does it cost for a skin cancer screening in Topeka? It depends? Well, that's a routine procedure that isn't really offered in the open market. It should just have published (and even advertised!) prices so normal consumers can shop around for quality screenings at fair prices.

I'm very critical of the American healthcare system, if that wasn't clear. But its failings are certainly not being _too_ market based or _too_ unregulated.

<comment><USER24> "Golly, I may be having a heart attack. I think I should take a moment to shop around for a cardiologist, so I can get quality treatment for fair prices."

Don't expect market forces to come to the rescue. It doesn't work that way.

<comment><USER22> Emergency rooms and insurance makes a ton of sense for heart attacks. They makes little sense for routine things like cholesterol tests.

 _Some_ things are very expensive but also predictable. Like giving birth. Or reparative plastic surgery. Or non-emergency heart surgery. People would shop around for those things as appropriate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The more time goes by, the more I am wary of the false dilemma.

Almost anytime I see someone argue "you might think it's because of X, but it's really because of Y," the person speaking is selling a particular ideology. That ideology magnifies Y and minimizes X.

It would be perfectly fine to say "you might be aware of X, but you should also be aware of Y." But pieces like this don't do that. They seek to tell you you are wrong if you think X. It doesn't sit will with people who have personally experienced X.

<comment><USER26> Sometimes, perhaps often, "people who have personally experienced X" don't realize their experience is an exception to the rule.

<comment><USER25> I think this overestimates our ability to establish a solid "rule" when it comes to a complex social phenomenon.

It's so reductionist to think that complex systems can be boiled down to simple, all-encompassing explanations. This has failed over and over, from nutrition to economics. And yet people of all political persuasions still want to argue that "the REAL problem is Y" and claim smug superiority over anyone who disagrees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> As a really poor immigrant to the US who succeeded financially, I can tell you with absolute certainty, poverty in the US (barring mental illness cases or health issues) is the result of poor choices. Most of it stems from society's lack of planning for the future of the young people. Young people are consistently being told lies like "you can be anything you want", forgetting to tell them that most of the fun choices lead to very low pay in the future. Young people regularly send $50-250k on financially useless degrees. They like, say, art, so they spend 4 years studying something they could learn in a library or on YouTube, only to find out that the market for painters is crowded and tiny.

We need much better guidance for the young.

<comment><USER2> >As a really poor immigrant to the US who succeeded financially, I can tell you with absolute certainty, poverty in the US (barring mental illness cases or health issues) is the result of poor choices.

I'm an immigrant too, and I used to think I was in a bad situation. However, I think you don't understand how bad it could get for some American people. Being a poor immigrant won't give you a free pass when you talk about being in a shitty situation.

The other day, I talked to an white male American student worked with me in the same lab for an REU program. He was attending college in computer science, not a "fun choice" like you said. He had to deal with and provide food for a drunk dad, an ill mom, and a sister. The whole family depended on him and at the time had no social security. He complained to me about his sister's boyfriend stealing food from his fridge. Now, how the fuck do you blame him for being poor because of making poor choices? What choices could he make?

>Young people are consistently being told lies like "you can be anything you want"

They have been told that way since forever. Why should that all the sudden make a difference?

>They like, say, art, so they spend 4 years studying something they could learn in a library or on YouTube, only to find out that the market for painters is crowded and tiny.

You're ignorant in thinking that people can learn art by watching Youtube and go to the library. That's what all the people who did MOOC thought, and guess what happened to the MOOC hype? The reality is way more nuanced than that. People learn to draw by taking long lessons and looking for hours at real scenes, real people, real sculptures in the studio, not watching 10 minutes youtube video and looking at the 2D Instagram picture on the 25 inches screen. We're very far from that "learn shit from Youtube" pipe dream.

>We need much better guidance for the young.

We need it but we also need people to understand not to blame people for being poor. You were poor due to no fault of your own, so why do you think others are poor because of their fault? You were given your chance to success, so the best you can do is to think that way about other people.

<comment><USER28> I have friends who grew up in situations like that. Nowadays, they are doing ok. Solidly lower-middle-class, but considering where they came from, that's a huge deal.

But even with these success stories, I think, nobody should have been in the situation they were in to begin with. No 16 year old should have to pick up a second job so they can pay their parents rent. Nobody should have to deal with a drug addicted parent that has no clinical route to sobriety. Nobody should have to take on their parents massive debt because their single mother got breast cancer in her early 40's.

If you want to blame people who make bad choices, fine. But at least try and remember the people in their orbit who are solid people who could really use some help dealing with a situation they are in by absolutely no fault of their own.

<comment><USER22> > No 16 year old should have to pick up a second job so they can pay their > parents rent.

I helped pay the bills as a teenager. It wasn't the worst thing in the world. It's not preferable, but it's not cancer.

> Nobody should have to take on their parents massive debt because their > single mother got breast cancer in her early 40's.

Agreed on this, but at some point we're angry at nature, not society. I'm not sure at what point I'm supposed to be mad at society or individuals or whatever about natural disasters, disease, and death.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think the most important experience a poor man can have is "Selbstwirksamkeit", the experience, that one can influence ones own destiny and not remain a puppet to be pushed around, slaved and sheparded by bosses, police and landlords.

We should make that epxerience part of any curiculum on public schools.

<comment><USER23> In America as globalization and large multinational corporations have taken root, workers have lost leverage. The idea that poor people have the strength and stability to not be pushed around or controlled by the rich simply is not possible at the moment. Union-busting, globalization, student loan debt, rising cost of living, and stagnant wages mean poor Americans can do less and less with each passing year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'd say poverty is a reflection of Pyramid schemes.

<comment><USER31> Like the pyramid scheme on the back of the one dollar bill? That floating eye makes me poorer every time I see it.

<comment><USER7> Sorry if I'm killing a joke or something, but could you please clarify?

<comment><USER31> Yep, you're killing it. The Great Seal of The United States [0] is printed on the back of USD $1 bills. The motif on the obverse side of the seal is an uncapped pyramid with a floating eye on top. Thus, the pyramid "scheme". Then, the "All-Seeing-Eye", being some kind of symbol for God, is used to represent authority, or higher power, thus making me, a mortal and a peasant, feel less empowered, thus "poorer". Hope that clarifies things a bit. (note to self: stop joking on HN)

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> As a person who was extremely poor by western standards (in 2002, I earned 10 USD per month in Uzbekistan) and who lived among poor people for 22 years, I can say that poverty is a personal choice, period.

Here is my answer on Quora with more details:

[https://www.quora.com/Are-poor-people-lazy/answer/Eldar- Gayn...](https://www.quora.com/Are-poor-people-lazy/answer/Eldar-Gaynetdinov)

I copy this answer here:

I born in Uzbekistan in relatively poor family. At age of 18 (2002 year), I started work in internet cafe (~5 computers) as a network administrator (although, I was blatantly ignorant at that moment) for salary … 10 USD per month. I didn't studied at school and dropped of university since education system in Uzbekistan is just literally fake.

Since then, I lived and worked in Moscow, Stockholm and currently in Amsterdam and receive good salary as a software developer (pretty close to upper bound according to GlassDoor). Although, I still don't have any degree!

So I think I'm qualified to answer this question.

Short answer: From my long and close experience living among poor people I can say that most people stay in poverty all their live because they are lazy. And in most cases, it's their fault that they stay in poverty (especially for those who live in english speaking rich western countries like US).

Long answer:

You may wonder how poor people can be lazy if they do hard manual job 10 hours per day. I think laziness have several different dimensions.

In general, I consider laziness as unwillingness to do some actions which could be beneficial for you in long term but require sacrifices in short term.

What does it mean for poor hard working people in practice?

It means that although they are willing to do hard job for 10 hours per day, they are unwilling to invest their free time to learn skills which can give them higher income in distant future.

They consider it's easier and more realistic to do hard work right now because they almost instantly benefited from their job even if it's hard labor job than studying something which don't bring them instant profit and require commitment over very long period of time.

It may sound counter-intuitive but it's fairly logical. If you wash dishes, you guaranteed to get almost instant profit (by end of the day, or week, or month). If you are reading some theory in a book, you don't get instant profit at all. For them, it seem a big sacrifice to do something and get nothing in relatively short term.

Also, they have little time aside from their main job. For them, it looks quite irrational to read some technical books instead of drinking beer and watching football.

So poor people are quite lazy for learning new skills and prefer to do any hard job with instant profit instead.

All my life, I heard from poor people that I read completely useless stuff and waste my time. Learning mathematics and algorithms for them is completely nuts, useless stuff. I very often heard popular jokes like (this joke was popular in my post-soviet school in Uzbekistan): Why anyone need an integral? Integral is needed only when you need to get some stuff dropped into public toilet (they refer to stick having form of integral symbol).

So they drank a beer for years while I studied "useless garbage". Now, they are still in Uzbekistan struggling to feed their new families and I'm in Amsterdam, able to travel around the world.

To me, it's very unlikely to image highly curious person who are hungry to lean new stuff and still staying in poverty for years.

Those who are not lazy to learn get out of poverty soon or later. Just like me :)

<comment> Al-Khwarizmi Interesting life experience. However, I think you will agree that being lazy in the sense you describe is a trait of most humans, rich or poor. Non-poor people are just conditioned by their social environment to study, get a degree, etc. instead of not to. Many successful people would have been poor if they were born in your situation, because they don't have the personality or guts to go against peer pressure. And many of the poor Uzbek people you mention would probably have been successful if they had been born in a social environment where people were highly qualified and studied.

Taking this into account, I can agree that it's possible to get out of poverty, but I don't think one can say being poor is poor people's fault.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Staying out of poverty is simple. By in large it takes three things: graduate high school, maintain employment, and don't have children out of wedlock. These three things are important to remember whenever we're discussing social policy. Any policy that subsidizes or encourages people to not do those three things is a social policy that behaves like a poverty factory.

<comment><USER26> That's just far too simplistic to be accurate. Poverty is a complex issue and avoiding it requires substantial luck that those who have managed to do so often don't seem to realize they've benefitted from.

<comment><USER34> Its actually a quantitative result from the (left wing) Brookings Institute: Of the people who do all 3 of these things, 98% are not in poverty.

<comment><USER26> That may be. The contentious part is how simple that is. It's simplistic to suggest that it's simple, in other words.</comment></comment></comment></comment>