Redshift – A better flux program for Linux (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://techblog.jeppson.org/2014/11/redshift-a-better-flux-program-for-linux/ <comment><USER2> I absolutely _love_ Reshift. I've used it for years now, ever since I really strained my eyes with working in terrible lighting for too long in a strange situation awhile back... It helps reduce my eye strain dramatically-- I set it at 4000k and also have a smart bulb also set at 4000k for when I work at night. Absolutely awesome program; eye-saver; I'd love to personally thank the author some day.

<comment><USER3> me too. you can donate money for example!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >Unfortunately, it is harder to configure than F.lux. It is a command line only tool (with a GUI indicator component) and it requires creating a manual configuration file.

I've been using Redshift for years, and it didn't _require_ creating a manual configuration file unless you wanted to override the default settings. By default, it would use the geoclue2 package to try to figure out your geolocation and automatically adjust the brightness depending on that.

Unfortunately, the geoclue2 package has been broken on Fedora for several releases (it triggers an SELinux alert), so I only recently had to create the redshift conf file to manually specify my GPS coordinates. Other than that, there's no need to override any of the other default settings.

</comment><comment><USER5> >Unfortunately, it is harder to configure than F.lux. It is a command line only tool (with a GUI indicator component) and it requires creating a manual configuration file.

Sums up the Linux experience perfectly.

"I'm a Windows/OSX user and want to switch to Linux is there an alternative to X app?

Yes but unfortunately, it is harder to configure, it is a command line only and it requires creating a manual configuration file."

That's when a lot of people just nope out.

<comment><USER6> If you check out [http://jonls.dk/redshift/](http://jonls.dk/redshift/) you will note that they provide a sample configuration in what appears to be toml where each option is annotated example

        ; Global settings for redshift
        [redshift]
        ; Set the day and night screen temperatures
        temp-day=5700
        temp-night=3500

There are all of 9 settings in the default config with lots of explanations.

The level of challenge required to copy some text into a text file with the syntax

        [section]
        settingname=value

and change the values relevant to you is very modest.

People are prone to overestimate the difficulty of anything without a gui in fact its often like this.

Incidentally there appear to be a number of different guis for example on kde you could use

[https://phabricator.kde.org/source/plasma-redshift- control/](https://phabricator.kde.org/source/plasma-redshift-control/)

To see the how this looks see

[https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/widgets-linux-plasma- applets/](https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/widgets-linux-plasma-applets/)

This post sums of peoples misperception of linux perfectly.

<comment><USER7> But that is not the point. For people who have never edited a config file, this seems quite strange. They wouldn't know which editor to use, how to properly save the file and, most importantly, how to apply the config file. Chances are, I couldn't do it intuitively. My go to way would be to just use systemctl restart but not all Unix systems use systemd. And if you start it using the desktop GUI, systemd is not used, so I have to "ps aus | grep redshift", copy the PID (or process name) and use kill or killall. Sometimes this doesn't work because it gives me 10 pids because it spawned so many children and I don't have killall installed.

This is not very difficult if you have done it before, but there is steep learning curve before you can do it and quite different from "check a few boxes and click apply". I personally prefer the config file way because it gives you way better control over your system (especially if a config file causes crashes due to a bug), it is way easier to backup and restore without guessing (program X uses 5 different paths for its gui files) and you can distribute changes easier and without the help of a specialized program.

But this sums up the Linux experience quite well IMO: there are many advantages to using Linux and once you have gasped the basics, everything is less scary. But the learning curve is quite steep especially if you have never done anything like it so not many people use it and therefore there are less Linux applications. Furthermore there is also more variety which means the way I know to do might not work for your Linux distro or the old server I'm ssh'ing into.

<comment><USER8> > if you start it using the desktop GUI, systemd is not used, so I have to "ps > aus | grep redshift", copy the PID (or process name) and use kill or > killall.

Or, since you started it with the GUI, you could just choose "quit" from the menu that appears when you click on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you have a calibrated screen, make sure you proper configure Redshift[0], so you don't lose your colour curves

[0]: [https://forum.manjaro.org/t/making-redshift-play-better- with...](https://forum.manjaro.org/t/making-redshift-play-better-with- calibrated-screens/35070)

<comment><USER10> It does that by default now I believe

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is now built into GNOME. You can set it under Displays

<comment><USER12> But it can't decrease brightness: [https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=784810](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=784810)

<comment><USER13> > But it can't decrease brightness

Who said that? You can always decrease brightness on a Linux laptop since the first gnome, I myself have gnome3 installed on 2 laptops and the brightness buttons are working perfectly fine.

<comment><USER14> I could never adjust the brightness of my laptop under Linux. So many people defend Linux to the point of denying people's first hand experience with it.

<comment><USER15> Didn't work on my old Toshiba Satellite either. It wasn't a particularly unpopular piece of hardware or anything.. actually it couldn't even read the battery % due to an ACPI issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Shameless plug: If someone is interested in using a program that has X as the only runtime dependency, you could checkout [0]. It is less a works-out-of- the-box solution, than a set of two tools you can integrate into your setup to shift screen color to your liking. It was inspired by [1].

[0]: [https://github.com/graupe/brownout](https://github.com/graupe/brownout) [1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10575921](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10575921)

<comment><USER17> works great, thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sadly not available for Wayland because of Wayland's architecture. KDE and GNOME have some functionality built in but I don't know how good it actually is compared to redshift.

<comment><USER19> That's not quite true: the compositor needs to support it. There's a protocol [1] for it that's supported by a redshift with a patch [2]. It also works out the box for any wlroots-based [3] compositors, like sway [4].

[1] [https://github.com/swaywm/wlr- protocols/blob/master/unstable...](https://github.com/swaywm/wlr- protocols/blob/master/unstable/wlr-gamma-control-unstable-v1.xml)

[2] [https://github.com/minus7/redshift/tree/wayland](https://github.com/minus7/redshift/tree/wayland)

[3] [https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots](https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots)

[4] [https://github.com/swaywm/sway](https://github.com/swaywm/sway)

<comment><USER20> Footnote: Stable sway (0.15) is not based on wlroots, the next version (1.0) will be.

<comment><USER21> Footnote footnote: stable sway (0.15) supports redshift as well, albiet with an older version of the protocol.

<comment><USER22> Footnote footnote footnote: Thanks for your work on sway. I still haven't switched to Wayland full-time, but sway was definitely a huge push for me to try it out. :D

<comment><USER21> Thanks for the kind words :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Happy user here. Works like a charm on a Debian laptop and a 3-screens Debian desktop machine.

</comment><comment><USER24> Not only for Linux.

Works great on FreeBSD as well.

[https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2018/06/28/freebsd-desktop- pa...](https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2018/06/28/freebsd-desktop-part-11-key- components-blue-light-spectrum-suppress/)

... and if Redshift seems too 'bloated' with too much dependencies there is OpenBSD style SCT - Set Color Temperature:

[https://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/sct-set-color- temperatu...](https://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/sct-set-color-temperature)

<comment><USER25> I have this in my ~/.xinitrc because I found the color changes of f.lux distracting:

xrandr --output DVI-I-1 --gamma 1:1:0.5

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I have been using Redshift ever since I reverted from Mac to GNU/Linux. I am not certain if it has any influence on my sleep, but I do like the warm, comfy colors, especially in winter.

</comment><comment><USER27> I don't really like these programs. I think it's better to drop monitor brightness than adjust the color temperature. Better for your eyes and you can see the colors better.

<comment><USER28> It's unfortunate that you're being downvoted without anyone telling you why they're downvoting.

The issue isn't brightness, it's the actual color of the light. The tl;dr version is "blue light definitely messes with your sleep cycle." There's a Wikipedia page about this, with several references at the bottom: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_blue_light_technolo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_blue_light_technology) (And I'm sure a search in your favorite search engine will find even more information on this subject)

<comment><USER29> > blue light definitely messes with your sleep cycle

...and kills your eye cells.

<comment><USER30> ...eventually when your immune system declines due to age, or if you have an immune disease. The author of f.lux reviewed the recent blue light study on HN, in part pointing out that a daylit blue sky delivers far more blue light to one's eye than screens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I love these programs (or settings) on any platform I use (Windows, Mac, iOS, Linux). They do make a difference to my eyes in the evenings when working with these screens.

</comment><comment><USER32> I prefer sct -- a very simple tool for setting the color temperature:

[https://github.com/faf0/sct](https://github.com/faf0/sct)

[https://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/sct-set-color- temperatu...](https://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/sct-set-color-temperature)

<comment><AUTHOR> Does this work on macOS? The source code seems to be including X11 headers, so I guess it would require XQuartz or something to make it work? Has anyone got sct to work on macOS?

Redshift works just fine on macOS. I've been using it and I like it more than f.lux because one can write scripts around it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> You should definitely start using redshift, if the thought crosses your mind.

P.S. I am not sure what one's mileage might be in Linux without being able to access a terminal. That said I found redshift working out of the box, and there are various guis (see mentioned below). So the argument that it was harder to configure does not resonate with me really.

</comment><comment><USER34> Even better option is to check if your monitor supports DDC [1], that way you can adjust monitor settings without fiddling with monitor buttons. For linux I use ddccontrol.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_Data_Channel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_Data_Channel)

</comment><comment><USER35> I use it along with safeeyes. Both are awesome

</comment><comment><USER36> Happy user of redshift for years. Almost no problem except a strange one on Ubuntu 16.04 involving the Geoclue dependency. On 18.04 it is flawless.

</comment><comment><USER37> Is it a good idea to activate Redshift/flux all the day (not just at night)?

<comment><USER38> I'll go a step further: most screens even _black_ has some brightness and blueness. You can see the difference if you wear blue-blocking glasses. A pair of those is worthwhile. They're more widespread and inexpensive these days.

But yeah, like the other reply, I use Redshift slightly less blue in daytime and much less blue at night.

<comment><AUTHOR> What's your Redshift setting for daytime?

Do you or anyone else have a third setting for bedtime like f.lux has (say for 1 or 2 hours prior to bedtime)? If yes, how do you simulate this third setting and how do transition smoothly from the evening setting to the bedtime setting?

<comment><USER38> I set daytime to 6250. I try to remember to wear amber glasses at bedtime. And the KDE Plasma Redshift Control widget lets me quickly scroll over the icon to make things more red or less.

I don't have 3 different auto-settings. I would LIKE to do that though!! Is there a way to do that?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


HTML on mobile and feature ubiquity - <AUTHOR> http://mobile-html.appspot.com/

<comment><USER2> Did i just see position:sticky? I like the path chrome is taking with css. Seems to be really be making modern design trends easier

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep. Its not fully supported or implemented across the web but it will make lists and headers soon much easier to use... I made sure we had a video to demonstrate it too.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there demand for Ethereum developers? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> What is an Ethereum developer? Do you mean those with some experience including Solidity in the mix to write smart contracts for third parties?

Solidity is a small language and outputs are typically small due to gas limitations, so I doubt companies will be recruiting for it as primary, they'd be looking for smart developers with a lot of exposure to blockchain like technologies and multiple languages and years of experience in order to write safe performant Solidity where required. I'd be concerned about hiring someone calling themselves a Solidity developer unless he/she was working on the VM, then again I don't rate any people that identify themselves by a particular language or worse a framework or the junior/senior title 'Senior ASP.Net MVC C# Frontend developer' \- yuck.

I also doubt Ethereum will win out, network got thrashed by cryptokitties, and apparently in some really perfect circumstances can handle a whooping 25 transactions a second, here's to dethrowning visa and unbanking the poor. Even anti-immutable Vitalik Buterin is having his doubts - see his twitter.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes there is, don't listen to the entire comment of the user sitepodmatt.

As he has mentioned, knowing solidity can give you an edge in a company that wants to write ethereum contracts, but that generally means it isn't like a day job, you can also freelance for companies that wants it.

Don't consider his opinion about the success or not of ethereum, smart contracts are there to stay and even if you code in another platform in another SDK the basics will roughly be the same. But anyways, I believe ethereum will thrive, nobody actually said that Ethereum was scalable enough anyways, everybody knows its limitations but instead how about looking where it wants to be? :-)</comment>


Yield Curves Invert in U.S., U.K - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-14/u-k-yield-curve-inverts-for-first-time-since-financial-crisis <comment><USER2> Everyone serious knew that a trade war would set a recession in motion, and that it would be a trade war the US would lose because of the directionality of the trade. The thought has always been that the president was using a high leverage negotiating strategy (see [https://www.newyorker.com/news/news- desk/for-trump-diplomacy...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/for- trump-diplomacy-is-quite-literally-a-four-letter-word), for example) to extract maximal concessions from PRC. But in the end, most of the people involving in mid and long range investment decisions thought that they could model him as a rational actor. What we are seeing is the investment community's realization this might not be true. You can look for many recent examples of shifts in investment activity ([https://www.autoblog.com/2019/08/13/ford-gm-preparing-for- ec...](https://www.autoblog.com/2019/08/13/ford-gm-preparing-for-economic- downturn/)).

<comment><USER3> My question is what is the point of the trade war. What does trump get from initiating/escalating it, or who is directing him to do it. Seems to be a net negative for all sectors of the economy.

<comment><USER4> As Paul Krugman says, "What looks like raw ignorance and prejudice is, in fact, raw ignorance and prejudice".

<comment><USER5> Paul Krugman also said the internet was a fad, why is he worth quoting?

<comment><USER6> Besides the batting average comment, he said that in 1998 for a particular reason:

> _First, look at the whole piece. It was a thing for the Times magazine 's > 100th anniversary, written as if by someone looking back from 2098, so the > point was to be fun and provocative, not to engage in careful forecasting; I > mean, there are lines in there about St. Petersburg having more skyscrapers > than New York, which was not a prediction, just a thought-provoker._

* [https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-int...](https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-internet-quote-2013-12)

That was the year Apple was still on the ropes (Microsoft's investment was in 1997), Google was _just_ kicked off by a $100K cheque by Bechtolsheim, Amazon was four years old, and Facebook didn't even exist.

Give it a rest, it's been over twenty years:

> _I must have tossed it off quickly (at the time I was mainly focused on the > Asian financial crisis!), then later conflated it in my memory with the NYT > piece. Anyway, I was clearly trying to be provocative, and got it wrong, > which happens to all of us sometimes._

* [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-krugman-internets-eff...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-krugman-internets-effect-economy/)

How wise were you when you were twenty years younger than you are now? Sheesh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A very useful caveat from the insightful, and cautious, Howard Marks -

> In that regard, the Financial Times noted on June 1 that "the [yield curve] > has 'inverted' before every US recession in 50 years." (Note, however, that > this is different from saying every inversion has been followed by a > recession.)

[https://www.oaktreecapital.com/docs/default- source/memos/thi...](https://www.oaktreecapital.com/docs/default- source/memos/this-time-its-different.pdf)

<comment><USER8> Akin to - "It always rains on my birthday. It's raining today - it must be my birthday."

<comment><USER9> It's more like:

"It only rains on my birthday. It's raining today - it must be my birthday."

At least I'm not aware of any inversions of the 10-2 bond yield curve in the last 50 years that was not followed by a recession, however minor.

<comment><USER10> There have been inversions in the X - Y bond yield curve in the last 50 years that were sometimes followed, and sometimes not followed by recessions.

You didn't come to the number 10 - 2 independently. It was cherry-picked to fit the narrative.

<comment><USER9> The other ratios have inverted over the last 6 months, I think as early as the 5-1 ratio in January. The 10-2 is simply the more extreme indicator and the bigger signal that a recession will probably happen in the coming 12-24 months. I used 10-2 both as it is in the news this week and is the critical indicator that I studied in college. In January I was referencing the 5-1 as an early indicator that without correction would lead to the 10-2 inverting as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Key recession indicator is flashing red. Unlike the stock market, which is both backward- and forward-looking, the bond market is myopically forward- looking.

When the yield between the 10-year and 2-year US treasury inverts, a recession is months away.

This chart, showing the difference between the yield (or spread), shows recessions in grey:

[https://journal.firsttuesday.us/using-the-yield-spread-to- fo...](https://journal.firsttuesday.us/using-the-yield-spread-to-forecast- recessions-and-recoveries/2933/)

Notice how even getting close to zero spread can sometimes be followed by a recession. But a negative spread always does.

Point to consider is the effect of Quantitative Easing (QE). Here, the Fed buys long-term treasuries such as 10-years. This makes long-term rates appear lower than they would otherwise be.

The Fed only slightly unwound this policy, meaning it still holds most of the long-term bonds it bought to fix the 2008/2009 crisis.

The net effect is that the Fed could be triggering an early recession warning here.

Regardless, combining this leading indicator with others such as transportation weakness, manufacturing slowdowns, and other economies tipping into recession (despite the loosest central bank policies in modern memory) leads to only one conclusion.

Prepare for the inevitable recession. It's not different this time.

Edit: one way to play this as an investor is to buy long-term treasuries. The idea being that as interest rates fall, the value of these assets increases (bond prices move inversely with interest rates). Go as long out on the yield curve as you can. Then when the Fed inevitably rides to the rescue, begin to unwind and capture the capital gains. Or not. Instead, just continue to receive above-market rate interest payments. There's risk here because there's no way to know how low long-term rates will fall before reversing course (and eroding any capital gains you might have picked up).

<comment><USER12> I'd just like to point out that the yield curve inverted in 2018 [1] yet here we are.

> Prepare for the inevitable recession. It's not different this time.

This point is tautological. Of course there will eventually be a recession. No one can say when.

There are different factors in every cycle. The QE period is essentially unprecedented. The rise of tech stocks in the last 20 years is a once-in-a- century type structural change in the economy.

It's fair to say the market is currently closer to the top than the bottom and above the historical mean and a reversion to mean is inevitable but whether the current mode goes on for days, months or even years is anyone's guess.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-03/u-s- yi...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-03/u-s-yield-curve- just-inverted-that-s-huge)

<comment><USER13> > I'd just like to point out that the yield curve inverted in 2018 [1] yet > here we are.

As pointed out in the article you linked, what happened in late 2018 was a small section (3-5 year treasuries) inverted. When people talk about yield curve being a harbinger of recession, they're usually talking about the 2-10 year spread, which is what the parent post referred to.

You may argue "things are different this time", but you shouldn't be comparing apples to oranges.

<comment><USER14> Okay, I'll get my shorts in. What date do you think everything will collapse?

<comment><USER15> It needn't be a "collapse", could be a protracted period of little to no growth, and most indications are that it will start in a couple of years at most.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm surprised that everyone blindly cites the inverted yield curve as a recession indicator without considering the "why". Seriously, if you were to ask ten people why an inverted curve predicts recession, you'd get ten completely different answers.

I personally don't think this is necessarily the inversion that is going to be predictive of a recession because the inversion is occurring at the long end (the 10/30 years spiking as opposed to the 3 month/2 year selling off). I think the short end is far more important than the long end because the short end tells you about monetary conditions in the economy. If the short end yields start moving up, that means that it's going to become more expensive to borrow money so spending and capex contracts, which is what can bring on a recession. Even that depends on the degree to which monetary conditions deteriorate.

Why are long bonds spiking? Because other central banks around the world are even more dovish than the US Fed, so money that is looking for long-term safe haven investments is coming aggressively into US long bonds.

Take a look at three month commercial paper rates, which are actually in a major downtrend (not surprising given Fed policy): [https://ycharts.com/indicators/3_month_aa_financial_commerci...](https://ycharts.com/indicators/3_month_aa_financial_commercial_paper_rate)

Three month commercial paper rates represent the cost at which businesses are currently borrowing for short-term expenses on the open market. That cost is going down, too. I take that to mean monetary conditions are very good in the sense that there is no shortage of money floating around the economy looking for a return. Without some major fundamental change in economic conditions I don't see how equities can be expected to drop a whole lot from here. I think this is a blow off the top for rates that is going to be short-lived, especially if other central banks start tightening policy which nobody seems to consider a possibility. But if inflation starts creeping up, then they will likely start raising rates or keeping them where they are. Ironically, when central banks raise rates that is usually an extremely bearish indicator. It's a bit puzzling to me that everyone seems convinced that lower rates are bearish.

Also, I can't think of a time when literally everyone focused on a single indicator at the same time, used said indicator as a predictive tool, and were proven correct. That's just not how markets work. People get scared and excited at the worst times tactically.

<comment><USER17> I agree. For the two recessions I've lived through, we didn't arrive at them with everyone well aware it was going to happen. They snuck up and took the country by surprise. The tech bubble burst, and the real estate subprime bubble burst.

We may go into a slump because everyone is expecting a splump to happen because it's been 10 or so years of a bull run. But I don't see a full-on recession without a large bubble bursting somewhere in the economy, causing a panic.

<comment><USER18> The question is, what is the bubble? I'd argue the entire stock market is the bubble right now, with boomers throwing everything they have into the market to get some of that free money before they retire. Once they start pulling back it's going to be a sad day. Right now US household "wealth" is sitting at >500% of GDP. That's not sustainable.

<comment><USER19> Not just boomers. Robinhood has made it so you can buy stock on your iphone in a couple minutes. Everyone has stock, and I think the market is crazy overvalued right now. I think everything's a bubble right now.

People are in loads of debt, more regular americans invest in the stock market, driving prices higher, all we need is a spark to get the fire going. Could come in the form of china and Hong Kong, could be the collapse of Deutsche bank, or very high valued startups failing, or something completely unforseen. Theres a lot of uncertainty right now, and any big event could crash it all.

<comment><USER20> > Everyone has stock

everyone _should_ have stock; what reasonable investment plan doesn't have stock?

you might as well hyperventilate about everyone having drawers full of socks.

<comment><USER19> Sorry, I meant more like day traders and volatile stocks. Especially younger people, who can now become day traders and even trade options with ease. Investment plans are different in the idea that the money is in there for an extended amount of time, and usually just stays invested.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I remember the dot-com crash of 2001 and seeing companies close so fast, they didn't their employees a final paychecks; I remember one day, after the dot- com collapse a position I was qualified for got filled within three hours.

As someone who has seen this before, things are looking ominous: The stock market drop of late 2018 reminded me of the stock market drop we had in 2000, about a year before everything fell apart. The yield curve inversion doesn't look good, nor does the problems with the German economy. Uber posting a multi-billion dollar loss and Tesla having a hard time getting income remind me of the very same issues during the dot-com bubble, where highly valued companies weren't actually earning money. Moviepass's debacle reminds me of Webvan; a company which tried to get VC by having a business model which was hemorrhaging money.

I hope I am wrong, but I predict a tech sector crash in late 2019 or early-to- mid 2020.

<comment><USER22> I think the difference this time around is that the largest tech companies (Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, to a lesser extent Amazon) are generating healthy profits. So while there is likely an issue with a lot of the unprofitable unicorns, the industry as a whole won't collapse.

<comment><USER23> If anyone has done a comparison of the size of profitless companies in the (tech) market, today and before the dot-com crash, that would be incredibly valuable.

My gut feeling is that they constituted a larger portion of the market back then, but I've never seen a direct comparison.

<comment><USER21> Not enough time to do a real comparison, but Uber feels a lot bigger than all of the mid-sized startups which dominated the dot-com landscape. They are a lot bigger than Webvan was (22,000 vs. 3,500 employees) not to mention Netscape (2,500 employees at its peak); Webvan and Netscape were the most famous big dot-com flops.

<comment><USER23> Thanks for the data point. It's helpful, but I'd be worried about extrapolating too much from one outsized data point.

For one thing, BLS stats say that computer programming has grown from 528k to 1666k from 1999 - 2018 (the broad category of Computer and Mathematical Operations went from 2620k to 4384k). For another, just looking at the largest company only works if the distribution is similar.

Still, it is relevant that Uber is so big.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Question: While I'm sure economists have been studying this effect for decades, or maybe even way longer for all I know, it seems like this metric has been popularized as the key thing everyone looks at just in the last decade -- after the last recession that we had.

Given the popularization, any chance of an increased observer effect? In either direction, I mean, positive or negative.

<comment><USER25> no. also there is no "popularization." it's just a historical pattern.

<comment><USER26> That's absolutely not the case The Yield Curve is now talked about on nightly news shows and it used to be only known about by economists and people in finance.

It's completely legitimate to question whether this increase in publicity for this one metric might be causing it to be less useful.

<comment><USER24> I just went and fact-checked myself via Google Trends.

It does seem like the term had similar amount of web search traffic in late-2005 across all categories, compared to now. I didn't expect that at all. However, "News Search" only goes back to January 2008, so it's difficult to tell if 2005 also had similar news coverage. But the graph since 2008 definitely shows a massive increase:

[https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all_2008&geo=U...](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all_2008&geo=US&gprop=news&q=yield%20curve)

So I think I might be mostly wrong. (Of course, this wouldn't mean there's no observer effect... just that it would be at least partially baked-into our current understanding of how it works.)

Edit: Hm. This seems to change a lot depending on the specific term used. "Yield curve inversion" makes it sound like people only started searching for this term in the last few years, and not really back in 2005. But changing it to "Yield curve inverted" shows the 2005 spike again.

So now I'm just discounting Google Trends as a source, either way.

<comment><USER25> You were asking a totally reasonable question and I gave a needlessly curt & unhelpful response. Especially considering I heard "yield inversion" and its variations literally like an hour before I commented.

Sorry.

<comment><USER24> I've never gotten a reply like this on the internet in my life and it's such a nice thing to receive! Thanks for that!

I actually appreciated the response because it made me rethink my assumptions. But I also appreciate this note.

<comment><USER25> I'm glad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's a self fulfilling prophesy to an extent because all it takes to cause a recession is to convince everyone there's a recession.

<comment><USER28> That's partly because the market boom is itself a self-fulfilling prophecy. Stock markets go up because other people think they're going up. People who buy securities for the purpose of re-selling, rather than holding, bid prices up, based not on fundamental valuation but on the thought that it will become more popular.

Stock markets aren't the same as the economy as a whole, but stock market bubbles boost the economy when irrational exuberance increases the total apparent wealth. And when enough people decide that it's peaking, it does, and the same process works in reverse, causing a recession.

So yeah, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, but that doesn't mean there's a way to avoid it. The market prices are already high; they must eventually revert to something closer to a true valuation. But since that time is determined almost entirely by consensus, nobody knows when. Indicators like this one are a sign that people are changing their minds, but it's been that way for a while. They're just indicators of public perception, and the public takes them into account, too.

<comment><USER29> > That's partly because the market boom is itself a self-fulfilling prophecy. > Stock markets go up because other people think they're going up.

I'm really curious how the index funds will behave in the upcoming recession, afaik that was one of their main mantras and selling points, so to speak, i.e. that the market only goes up (or a certain part of the market, the most important part of the market) and that you'd be a fool not riding the wave by investing in said index funds which were in turn investing in that part of the market "assured" to always go up.

In other words, what will people do when they'll see their index funds go down 10 or 20% yoy? Will they take their money out of said index funds? Will they wait for the next uptick?

<comment><USER30> We've already seen this in 2008. The funds will go down, then once the recession passes will return to normal. Long term holders have little to fear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> the-dude German economy shrinks : [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/14/business/germany- economy-...](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/14/business/germany-economy- gdp/index.html)

UK economy shrinks : [https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/09/pound-plummets-uk- economy-shr...](https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/09/pound-plummets-uk-economy- shrinks-first-time-since-2012-10546136/)

<comment><USER31> There are articles all over the internet stating matter-of-factly that the US- China trade war has had a hand in the German recession. Why is that the case? At first blush it seems like newly un-fulfilled demand in the US and newly available supply/capacity in China would be a boon for other countries. What am I missing?

<comment><USER32> Germany exports mostly industrial goods, such as machines (for manufacturing). As such, China is a far more important market than the US. The overlap of things both China and Germany manufacture is relatively small.

Or, in economists' terms: Germany's and China's goods are complementary more than competitive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The forward looking indicators indicate recession, the backwards looking indicators indicate recession, and the general pattern of the yield curve suggests a downturn within ~20 months.

Question is; what's a normal personal investor to do? Knowing that expectations are baked into the price and timing the market is a fools errand, what can normal people do to shield themselves?

I've been 90/10 asset allocation since entering the workforce (2013) and it's been amazing for me. I obviously plan to continue to contribute to my funds but at what point would a rebalance or choosing a different fund be wise? A majority of my fund holdings are in tech, healthcare and banking/finance.

<comment><USER34> That depends on your risk profile. Are you going to freak out if your portfolio loses 30% of its value in a year? Then maybe move to a more balanced portfolio. If you are happy to wait and let things turn around again, then stay the course. Timing the market is generally not recommended because the people that do this every day have a much better grasp on what is going on than the public in general and they will have already responded en-masse before you can, so at best you are hoping to get lucky.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Yield curve inversions could be forecasting either bad stock market performance or low interest rates. If the Fed drops interest rates in a year back down to near-zero rates, nobody is going to be selling a 3 month treasury for 3%. In that case, being in a 10-year treasury for 2% will feel like a pretty good idea. Interest rates put an upper limit on federal bond yields, and it's possible that the yields represent a forecast of a very low upper limit.

</comment><comment><USER36> It literally broke the Fed: [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y)

If you go to the homepage of the st louis fed and search popular series, this is the first that shows up.

<comment><USER37> this frightens me far more than the yield curve inverting. the information- distributing capacity of the fed's website is built for routine loads, but the fact that it is down suggests that everyone is scrambling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> It will be interesting to watch a recession that hits with zero or near zero (or even negative) central bank rates together with ongoing market disruptions such as the US/China trade conflict and Brexit. By "interesting" I mean terrifying.

<comment><USER39> I agree with this, also will we try to pass another tax cut to try to stimulate the economy. It seems to me should use tax cuts, large increases in government spending, and rate cuts to stimulate the economy on a "rainy days". Doing these things during a good economy seems foolish to me.

<comment><USER40> And Mitch McConnell recently argued the exact opposite. When asked he said (paraphrising) "Why would we increase taxes when the economy is doing well, why would we want to hurt that growth?"

The mind boggles.

<comment><USER41> Mitch McConnell and the Republicans have a non-nuanced view that taxes == bad. It seems to lead to a lot of motivated cognition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I asked this in a similar thread a couple of weeks ago, but I feel like the sentiment is a lot more pessimistic today than it was then. Anyway, I've been holding way too much cash for the last two years in anticipation of a recession. Everyone was telling me that trying to time the market is a bad idea and that I should just invest and forget about it, but given the current signals, might it be a good idea for me to hold out just a little longer?

I'm really on the fence about it, I know I've lost a lot to opportunity cost and inflation and I regret holding out, but given recent news, it's hard for not to want to keep waiting... just a little longer...

<comment><USER41> Timing the marking is a bad idea, but getting good value for your money is a good idea, and has some element of timing. Don't try to figure out when _prices_ are low, figure out when _value_ is high. For instance, relatively low P/E, high dividend yield, high ROI, high ROE, etc. If you're looking to invest in an index fund, check out the S&P 500 historical P/E: [https://www.macrotrends.net/2577/sp-500-pe-ratio-price-to- ea...](https://www.macrotrends.net/2577/sp-500-pe-ratio-price-to-earnings- chart)

There's no shame in holding cash when value is low. People like Buffett are known for doing it. There are no called strikes in investing, so don't swing at mediocre pitches. But when value is high, you'd better swing for the fences, because that doesn't happen all that often.

<comment><USER43> Earnings are also cyclical, just like prices. Imagine an industry whose earnings are especially sensitive to business cycles. On an upswing of the cycle, they look like a good deal because their P/E might be low, but that's only because the market is reflecting the risk inherent in the industry. After earnings crash during a recession, investing in such a "value" company at the top starts to look like it was a bad idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Time to get more conservative with your investments. Just moved my retirement accounts from 100% in a 2050 lifecycle fund to 75% in a 2030 lifecycle fund and 25% in just government bonds.

Not all investment vehicles have a "lifecycle" fund but its intent is to be _appropriately_ conservative for a target date. As the date grows closer, the fund gets more conservative in order to lessen the risk of sudden swings right before you retire.

I don't recommend day-trading, or liquidating all your investments, or anything like that. However, if there's a professionally managed fund with the specific goal of being stable along the timeframe of 11 years, I'm gonna take it.

<comment><USER45> I'm 40% in cash, 50% in S&P and 10% in small-cap. The last few months, all of my contributions have been going into cash, so that when the fall happens, I can hopefully scoop up a deal.

<comment><USER46> Let's talk in 10 years and see if your cash will beat my S&P allocation.

<comment><USER47> It's about diversification and timing the market not simply holding cash for 10 years. I also just sold some stock, but I am still 75% in stocks.

<comment><USER48> "and timing the market"

Hmm. Isn't that known to be impossible?

<comment><USER49> not impossible, but very unlikely for a layman. it's like trying to win a 1v1 against an NBA player.

<comment><USER47> Depends on what you mean by timing the market.

Several strategies like keeping a fixed ratio of stocks to bond are effectively timing the market. You pull money out of stocks when they go up, and put money into them when they go down.

Personally, I am less interested in absolutely maximizing my returns as I am maximizing the likelihood of reaching a return threshold.

<comment><USER50> A fixed ratio like rebalancing? That's not really timing the market as you typically rebalance after a set period regardless of how the market has moved.

<comment><USER47> But you still money money the opposite of how the market moved.

Rebalancing is really taking money out of whatever the better investment was and putting it into what was the worse investment. Consider what would happen if you rebalance an asset like a stock that's slowly going to 0. Over time your portfolio also hits ~zero even if everything else was going well.

Sure, for a sufficiently diversified investment like the S&P 500 it's unlikely to hit zero. But the question stands why take money out of the better investment for 50+ years? You could be moving from 10% returns to 2% returns. The theory is about timing the market, you get better returns investing after ups than downs.

PS: Though better may in fact relate to stability more than absolute percentages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> You're not going to get a return on investment if none of your consumers have enough money to buy anything. A negative return is the market itself telling you that you need to give them money for purchases to even happen.

</comment><comment><USER52> So, somebody with a more rigorous understanding correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought it was a truism that any advice about the market appearing in print was necessarily useless:

If there is advice (e.g. Buy/Sell when X happens) and there is statistical proof it's a good indicator, then large companies with multibillion portfolios would act on that evidence. At which time their behavior would "correct" for the indicator. At which point there is no value to the layman.

<comment><USER41> As you may have noticed from the article, the point of yield curves inverting is that it is a pretty reliable recession-coming indicator: "The curve inversion to this point is flagging a 55-to-60 percent chance of a U.S. recession over the next 12 months"

Also, if your timeframe is long-term, information in print is relevant, since a stock frequently trades in a region for months or years. In fact, there is a whole school of investing, value investing, that looks for companies the market is undervaluing. Generally they do this by looking at information in print but seeing it with more wisdom than the short-termers. (Problem is, wisdom is difficult to get.) But for short-term trading, I think Bloomberg would invite you to subscribe to the terminal. "Before it's here it's on the terminal" I think they say.

<comment><USER52> >> "The curve inversion to this point is flagging a 55-to-60 percent chance of a U.S. recession over the next 12 months"

So if that's reliably actionable, why aren't billion-dollar investors shorting market indices right now?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I find the general interest of the public in inversions - similar to their interest in negative yields - a bit surprising. I suppose it must be due to these concepts seeming counter-intuitive. Some brief notes, not all of which are meant to tie seamlessly together:

1\. What's the lag time? Inversions in the past have had rather large lag times before recessions actually began (most recently they've been 24 months, 13 months, and 19 months for 2s10s). Inverted yield curves signal anticipation of future rate cuts or long-term rates staying the same or whatever (depends on the shape, obviously), but if you're of the view that global yields are just going to stay low for the foreseeable future (an increasingly common view, I make no claim as to my agreement with it) then sure the US and UK need to adjust down and get flatter. Why is there not a recognition of a new normal going on here? It's not like money is outrageously expensive or developed economies have been running hot (as historically inversions have indicated). We've had a decade of reasonably good growth in the US and UK with very low rates and the assumption was that long-term rates would be ~3-4%. Maybe money will just always be relatively cheaper now with long-term targets around 2-3%.

2\. How expensive is money? In the past when inversions have occurred the Fed Funds rate has been significantly above inflation (sometimes by hundreds of bps), making money outright expensive. Money right now is relatively expensive (compared to the past 10 years, post GFC), but historically we're still talking about money being very cheap. I'm a bit of a relativist, but I think you need to make a distinction between money that is outright expensive and money that isn't (as is currently the case).

3\. Where's high yield going? Over the past month a bit up. But this is after we've seem high yield spreads compress in to historically tight levels. Cov- Lite offerings are still being printed and snatched up despite the inversion of 3ms10s we've seen for a few months now.

4\. Is there an issue in our financial systems plumbing? In my view, yes. The yield curve has been inverted for foreign-buyers (over 2016-2018 a very important buyer of treasuries) because they don't fund around the 3m point, but rather on (OIS + Libor-OIS spread + XCCY of the relevant currency). If you're a Japanese life insurer or European pension fund you can't take FX risk (FX markets are volatile!) so you need to swap back into your local currency.

These hedging costs got to a point last October where you're facing significantly negative yields (practically speaking) for foreign buyers so they buy their local negative yielding debt instead (as it's a relatively better investment). Because US auctions can't fail - primary dealers need to act as a back stop - you've had firms like JPM and BofA taking on huge amounts of treasuries. This has really clogged the o/n repo market and is beginning to distort bank balance sheets. They can't keep absorbing the amount of issuance the Treasury is pumping out with these trillion-dollar deficits. There's also an issue of bill-issuance notional amounts and banks trying to elongate their duration which is dampening down the 10yr.

The Fed needs to cut rates further - in my view - to steepen out the yield curve to get foreign buyers coming back in. It'll probably need to be at least 75-100bps from here to get meaningful purchases. The Fed has really pushed themselves into a tight spot from a pluming perspective.

5\. Yields down, prices up. If you bought the 100yr Austrian bond you'd get negative yields, yes. Also if you bought the bond a few years ago you would have outperformed equities on an absolute basis. So, like, negative yields aren't great, but asset appreciation from a sovereign bond with no default risk going into more negative territory is good if you're a fast money player (the bond price is nearly $200 now!). In fact, it's even good for a pension fund who has no intention of holding to maturity.

<comment><USER54> > Because US auctions can't fail - primary dealers need to act as a back stop > - you've had firms like JPM and BofA taking on huge amounts of treasuries. > This has really clogged the o/n repo market and is beginning to distort bank > balance sheets.

I haven't heard about this. Any public reading material?

<comment><USER54> (Replying to myself)

I found this graphic: [https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/12/4001/3971/U.S.%...](https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/12/4001/3971/U.S.%20primary%20dealers%20Treasury%20holdings.png)

linked from this article: [https://wkzo.com/news/articles/2019/jul/30/us-seen- ramping-u...](https://wkzo.com/news/articles/2019/jul/30/us-seen-ramping-up- bill-supply-after-budget-deal/922978/)

Funny thing is, given the recent trend in treasury yields, these banks are making good money on their holdings.

<comment><USER53> You'll notice in this graphic the sharp jump in holdings that corresponds to around October. This is when - for foreign buyers - the yield curve really inverted for practical purposes, leading to primary dealers filling up their books, which I detailed a bit in my initial post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Time to buy more equities, as always. Seriously, once you have good emergency cash, just keep buying whenever you can and stay sharp at work. What happens in the future is always a buying opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER56> Let's say a recession is in the future (12-24 months), what should the average person's position be? Transition to even longer-term investments?

<comment><USER57> Yeah, same boat. I'm a pretty naive investor and through my 401k have about 50% of my net worth invested in index funds with the other 50% in cash. Are there simple strategies to limit exposure other than "sell everything"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> lol, the gig (economy) is up. us employment numbers was a sham hiding underemployment.

</comment><comment><USER59> Market conditions have changed to the point where the yield curve is likely irrelevant, and markets will continue to moon indefinitely.

<comment><USER60> What specifically has changed?

<comment><USER35> I'm not the OP, but if the Fed decides that the stock market isn't going to fall, then come hell or high inflation it's not going to fall. Some people think that the recent history of interventionist monetary policy (QE) points to a Fed that is willing to pump up asset prices in the event of trouble. Does that mean the economy won't fall apart? No, but it does mean that holding cash could be a worse idea than holding equities.

<comment><USER61> There's now also moral hazard too with the rise of indexing and retirement. They need to keep the WHOLE stock market up. Many fewer investors now do any research and chose companies based on fundamentals. The companies that exist today must exist forever into in roughly the same proportions to keep SP 500 index from falling too heavily.

Companies exploit this relationship now by destroying their balance sheets and using buybacks to boost their relative market caps vs other companies to capture more passive investment money flow.

There's a good argument (elsewhere) that because vanguard of we've entered a pseudo communist market system.

<comment><USER62> > Companies exploit this relationship now by destroying their balance sheets > and using buybacks to boost their relative market caps vs other companies.

Buying back shares doesn't increase your market cap, it increases the value of each individual stock since they now own a larger percentage share of future earnings.

> to capture more passive investment money flow.

It has no real effect because index funds will actually have to sell stock from companies who do buybacks in order to decrease their share of the company back to normal proportional levels.

<comment><USER61> In practice it does increase market cap because constantly buying back shares increases PE multiple growth which then makes the stock then sell at a higher valuations since they are showing (artificial) growth. The long term stability of those buybacks isn't taken into account with valuation models.

Every new dollar put into index funds gets invested proportionally in each company to the market cap of SP 500. Microsoft gets bid nearly 4.5c on every dollar. The top 10 stocks combined get 25c on every dollar.

<comment><USER62> > The long term stability of those buybacks isn't taken into account with > valuation models.

Really? The money that can be made in finance results in billions of dollars of wages and you think the PHDs they can hire with that money cannot properly evaluate the effect of stock buybacks in their valuation models?

> Every new dollar put into index funds gets invested proportionally in each > company to the market cap of SP 500. Microsoft gets bid nearly 4.5c on every > dollar. The top 10 stocks combined get 25c on every dollar.

What's your point?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> What would be the best asset store money? Cash ?

<comment><USER64> If there were a "best" asset store, people wouldn't bother with the other ones. In reality, it's all tradeoffs depending on your situation.

<comment><USER63> I mean during the recession not in general. Equities are clearly the best for investment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> What change if any should someone make if they have money in robo-investing services like wealthfront? Is shifting money to cash or lower risk robo accounts a sensible strategy, or have undesirable consequences crystallizing losses/gains, a somewhat expensive perturbation going against the robo algorithms that you have elected to trust?

</comment><comment><USER66> Real question:

When this doesn't happen, what becomes of the handwringing and the doomsaying? Do we just forget the errors and self-interested lies, and treat the people disingenuously emoting over this nothing, like good people?

Serious question.

<comment><USER43> Handwringing can be earnest, even if it's mistaken. Judge people by what they could have known at the time, and their intentions.

But, more realistically, yeah, people will just forget all the bad predictions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I wonder how much NPR's Planet Money contributed to the general awareness of the Yield Curve. That is where I learned about this and they speak about this multiple times on numerous episodes.

</comment><comment><USER68> For what it's worth: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-vW9ByuXTE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-vW9ByuXTE)

</comment><comment><USER69> Why'd neplus' comment below get killed? It's a bit jargon-y, but a decent analysis of the macro landscape at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER70> P(recession | inverted yield curve) = P(inverted yield curve | recession) * P(recession) / P(inverted yield curve)

</comment><comment><USER71> Still baffled that this is called a curve

<comment><USER69> Any continuous locus of points is a curve - that's what makes the Jordan Curve Theorem hard to prove :)

On a more serious note, the graph displayed in the article is a timeseries of the difference between two points on the curve. The actual curve looks something like this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_curve#/media/File:Yield_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_curve#/media/File:Yield_curve_20180513.png)

<comment><USER71> isn't that discontinuous?

<comment><USER69> Quips about the Jordan curve theorem aside, I don't think that's really a meaningful question. It is or it isn't, depending on how you want to model it.

Yield curves are bootstrapped from known bond yields at liquidly-traded tenors (1Y, 2Y, 5Y, 10Y, and short-dated). Those are the heavy black dots in the image. Outside of those tenors the 'true' rate is anyone's guess: you're basically interpolating. Whether that interpolation is continuous is up to you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> While the press will blame trade tensions with China for this, in reality the US economy has been doing well lately, however outside the US the other major economies have not been growing. Ranging from plateauing to shrinking. That is the real reason we are seeing this correction.

</comment><comment><USER73> Sensitive but not specific

</comment><comment><USER74> One of the surest signs to a recession one can find.

<comment><USER39> "As recession signals go, this so-called inversion in the yield curve has a solid track record as a predictor of recessions. But it can take as long as two years for a recession to follow a yield curve inversion."

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-watchlist- gra...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-watchlist- graphic/predicting-the-next-u-s-recession-idUSKCN1V31JE)

<comment><USER75> Just in time for someone else to come into power and have to deal with the mess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> No paywall: [https://outline.com/26v69X](https://outline.com/26v69X)

</comment><comment><USER77> HN really seems to like these stories. Previous discussions:

8 months ago - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18593407](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18593407)

4 months ago - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19463225](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19463225)

4 months ago - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19491763](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19491763)

8 days ago - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20615403](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20615403)

<comment><USER78> This is news, since it is the 2-10 year.

<comment><USER79> You say election funny.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> I don't want the economy to tank anymore than the next guy but if it blows up before the 2020 elections and kills President Trump's chance of re-election that would be a fantastic silver lining.

<comment><USER81> I'm calling it now, but you won't actually see a recession until after he leaves office. The rich and powerful control the market and it has no actual real indicator to the effects a majority of people are seeing in their personal lives.

<comment><USER82> That supposes the rich and powerful give a rip about trump. They don't. If anything, they don't like his unpredictability. But, I don't think it's really tied to a person or party. For example, Obama provided the wall street bailout.

<comment><USER19> I just thought of a horrifying thought. Bernie becomes president, recession hits inauguration day. Banks start to fail, but he doesnt bail anyone out because 'bernie cant be bought'. At least obama did the right thing and saved the economy.

<comment><USER81> I think Bernie and Warren are perfectly capable to work within the constructs of a free market than most people give them credit for. However, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be transparency involved and if bankers begin manipulating the markets to try to control politics then they should be brought in for a public investigation in front of congress.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Set Up Siri to Control Your Tesla - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/SamGabbay/tesla-siri-homekit <comment><USER2> Looks great... unless leftpad gets withdrawn from npm again

<comment><USER3> bit of context: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11348798](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11348798)

Wow, I was about to comment on the first-worldishness problem statement wrt the OP title alone, but this...

I sort of missed that one. Not sure whether I should start weeping in the corner or burst out in laughter ( I've had my fair share of ruby gem hell during the past 8 years and this is exactly the reason I am sceptical about every minimal piece of JS code to be packaged into a standalone node module to begin with..)</comment></comment>


Trump wants a total ban on German luxury car imports - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/05/trump-wants-a-total-ban-on-german-luxury-car-imports/ <comment><USER2> This makes no sense since the large German car makers have huge factories in the US.

I would be bad for super high luxury brands like Lamborghini, Porsche etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems rather short sighted to trade the entire western sphere of influence for a few steel mills and auto factories.

<comment><USER4> I don't think that he cares much about steel mills and auto factories. His motives are unclear.

<comment><USER3> He's been pretty consistent on his message about trade since his talk show appearances in the 80s. That is unheard of consistency for Trump, so I do believe he thinks he's doing the right thing here. The problem is its only a first order analysis.

He's likely thinking the military is powerful enough to function without help from allies, but ships need to refuel somewhere.

<comment><USER5> And saying that he's gonna exclude ZTE from US-Iran sanctions because that would cost China a lot of jobs. Is that consistency on trade as well? Did he run on China first policy?

<comment><USER6> China approved some new trademarks for Ivanka, and agreed to fund $500 million for a Trump-connected project in Asia. Just around the time Trump started talking about saving ZTE jobs.

Trump just wants bribes.

<comment><USER5> That was a perfectly valid and factually correct observation. HN downvotes are getting a bit ridiculous. You can't say anything, you'll get downvoted. I really really don't understand this. And it seems to be getting worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder what kind of Car his donors are likely to purchase.

</comment><comment><USER8> On the other hand, the Trump administration wants Germany and German companies to stop trading with the Iranian theocracy.</comment>


Ask YC: nginx or apache for PHP? - <AUTHOR>

Since I did not find authoritative information elsewhere about which one is more preferred in production environments, I thought I'd ask here.
Based on your experience would you go with nginx (+fastcgi) or apache to run a high traffic website that is written using PHP?
It would also benefit the community if someone could post information about any HOWTO/tutorial resources describing the best ways to configure apache/nginx/php for production web servers. <comment> bbhoss-synsol I currently use Nginx + FCGI for my minimal PHP needs. I have also used Apache, and the only real differences I've noticed is how its setup. Lots of people use Nginx because it feels alot more lightweight for whatever reason than apache, plus many stats show it can handle more connections with less memory. For my setup, I am using lighthttpd's fcgi starter script, since it automates the process initialization.</comment>


A joke about the difference between mathematicians and physicists - <AUTHOR> http://www.thingspondered.xyz/2020/08/excerpt-man-who-loved-only-numbers.html <comment><USER2> > A physicist and a mathematician are flying cross-country together. Each is > keeping a diary of the trip. They fly over a white horse in Iowa. The > physicist writes, 'There is a white horse in Iowa.' The mathematician > writes, 'There exists, somewhere in the Midwest, a horse, white on top.

Reminds me of a quote from a favorite textbook [1] of mine:

> In mathematics, an argument must be airtight; that is, convincing in an > absolute sense. In everyday life ... the standard of proof is lower ... > evidence plays no role in a mathematical proof. A mathematician demands > proof beyond _any_ doubt.

It's interesting how in the sciences, we worship at the altar of the almighty Evidence. However, in math, not even evidence is good enough.

[1] p. 17, _Introduction to the theory of computation, third edition, by Michael Sipser

<comment><USER3> > It's interesting how in the sciences, we worship at the altar of the > almighty Evidence. However, in math, not even evidence is good enough.

An alternate way of looking at that is, math requires you to be explicit about basing your statements on observations: now you have probability theory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are asked to determine the volume of a red ball.

The mathematician takes calipers to determine the diameter and uses the formula for area of a sphere.

The physicist fills a bucket completely, places it in a larger bucket, submerges the ball and then measures the volume of the water that spilled.

The engineer reads the part number off the bottom of the ball, and then copies the volume from the data sheet.

</comment><comment><USER5> I remember a similar joke from a book some years ago from the school:

An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician are on a train crossing an unknown country. Suddenly, the engineer leaning out of the window says: "in this country the sheep are black!"; the physicist corrects: "in this region of the country, some sheep are black"; the mathematician limits himself saying: "at least from one of their sides."

<comment><USER6> This joke is even listed as an example of a maths joke on wikipedia: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_joke#Stereotype...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_joke#Stereotypes_of_mathematicians)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The version I know goes like this:

A physicist, a mathematician and a logician are taking the train to Scotland. As the train crosses the border they see a black sheep on a hillside. The physicist remarks, "Oh look all the sheep in Scotland are black." The mathematician replies, "Oh you can't quite conclude that, the most you can say is at least one sheep in Scotland is black." Then the logician says, "Well really the most you can say is that at least one sheep in Scotland is black on one side."

</comment><comment><USER8> Physics is mathematics with the constraint of reality.

Engineering is physics with the constraint of money.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, according to Vladimir Arnold physics and mathematics is in fact the same science.

<comment><USER10> Arnold's quip is that mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems there are many variations on this joke.

The one I know:

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician go for a walk in the countryside. They spy a black sheep in the distance.

The astronomer immediately proclaims, "All sheep are black!"

The physicist thinks for a moment and suggests, "Some sheep are black."

The mathematician ponders awhile and says, "There exists a sheep such that at minimum one of its sides is black."

<comment><USER12> There is the joke where scientists lock an engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician each in a room with a bed and a can of soup. In the morning they open the rooms one by one.

In the first room the engineer is asleep and there is mangled open can of soup on the floor. They wake him up and ask about the soup can. And he says, I got hungry so I smashed the soup can against floor to open it.

Next room the physicist was sleep and the soup can open on the floor with the top cleanly removed. And equations scribbled on every wall. When the wake him up and ask about the soup can he proudly says, I got hungry so I figured out exactly where to hit the can so the top would fly off.

Upon opening the last room they find a bleary eyed mathematician holding the soup can saying 'assume the can is open'

<comment><USER13> The joke is usually an economist saying, "assume a can opener": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_a_can_opener](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_a_can_opener)

<comment><USER12> I think economist is waiting for the free market to sell him a can opener.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is a bit related:

 _xkcd: Certainty_ [1]

Edit: Here's the text transcript:

 _> [A door seen from a hallway, with "Teachers' Lounge" on the glass, next to the door is a sign reading "Award." Inside the door are two teachers talking.]

> Megan: My students drew me into another political argument.

> Cueball: Eh; it happens.

> Megan: Lately, political debates bother me. They just show how good smart > people are at rationalizing.

> [The two teachers continue talking. A third one is seen reading a book on a > sofa.]

> Megan: The world is so complicated - the more I learn, the less clear > anything gets. There are too many ideas and arguments to pick and choose > from. How can I trust myself to know the truth about anything? And if > everything I know is so shaky, what on Earth am I doing teaching?

> Cueball: I guess you just do your best. No one can impart perfect universal > truths to their students.

> Miss Lenhart:_ ___ahem_ __

 _> Cueball: ...Except math teachers.

> Miss Lenhart: Thank you._

[1]: [https://xkcd.com/263/](https://xkcd.com/263/)

<comment><USER15> Truths in which universe?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A mathematician, physicist and biologist sit in a street café, guarding people leaving and entering the opposite house. They see that 2 people go to the house first. Some time passes and they notice that 3 people are leaving the house and start to discuss about the meaning of this observation. Physicist: "The measurement may have not been accurate enough." The biologist: "They may have reproduced inside." Mathematician: "If exactly one person went into the house now, the house would be empty again."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A wonderful and amusing anecdote that shows how both types differ. This comes from "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers," a book about the mathematician Paul Erdős.

</comment><comment><USER17> For a physicist, taking a mixed solution isn't "game theoretic", it's an "ensemble average" solution.

(... and, thinking of time-averaging, you all have forgotten "on at least one side, at least once during their lifetime." If programming has taught me anything, it's that variables won't yet constants aren't.)

</comment><comment><USER18> If they knew the labels were switched, they know which one held caffeinated coffee...even the physicist is too sophisticated...

<comment><USER15> They don't know if the labels were correct before, or even if the tanks were swithet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > "The physicist writes, 'There is a white horse in Iowa.' The mathematician > writes, 'There exists, somewhere in the Midwest, a horse, white on top."

I'm neither a mathematician nor physicist...but this seems like a category error to me. What the heck does a mathematician care about horses?

</comment><comment><USER20> I've heard this joke in another guise:

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are sitting in a train compartment and travelling through some countryside. Presently they come upon a field, which contains a white sheep.

"Oh look, in this country sheep are white!", exclaims the engineer. "Oh, how unwarranted!", exclaims the physicist "in this country, there exists a white sheep, on a specific field." The mathematician just tut-tuts and curses under his breath. "In this country there exists at least one field, wherein there exists at least one sheep, _at least one side of which is white_."

Oh, and another great one I enjoy:

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician sign up for a psychology experiment. They are each locked in a room with a tin of baked beans, the idea being that they will have to figure out how to open the tin with no tools in order not to starve.

Sometime later, the experimenters check up on them.

First, they come to the engineer's cell. There's a contented engineer sitting in the corner, craters on the wall, and the shrapnel of a totally shredded can strewn around. They ask him what he did. "Oh, I just battered it up against the wall." Fair enough, they think.

Next, they check in on the physicist. They find him somewhat dishevelled, the walls covered with scratched calculations, and a neatly severed can in the middle of the room. They ask him for his account. "Oh, I calculated that if I emitted a note on a certain pitch, resonance would eventually cleave the can in half. It took me some time to figure out the note, though." Again, fair enough.

Finally they get to the mathematician, whom they find shrivelled up, sitting cross-legged on the floor in front of an intact can as if venerating it, muttering " _assume the can is open, assume the can is open_ ".

:)</comment>


Average American inheritance: $177,000 - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/13/retirement/american-inheritance/?google_editors_picks=true <comment><USER2> Average income, average net wealth and now average inheritance. I'm sure that numerically literate HN readers understand why these numbers are misleading. Especially when you use them to compare America to other countries.

Arithmetic mean does not give you look into life of average American. Median should be used instead.

<comment><USER3> To break down nabia9's comment, there is no such thing as a negative inheritance, so the base is $0. Bill Gates is worth $67 billion, which is $200 per person. Warren Buffett has $53 billion, Larry Ellison has $43 billion, and so on.

Get the list from [http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2013/03/06/full- list...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2013/03/06/full-list-u-s- billionaires-of-2013/) . The US billionaires have $1872.5 billion. Assuming all of that will be inherited (after all, 3 heirs of the Wal*Mart fortune are in the top 20), then that alone is $5,700 per person in the US, or over 3% of the "average American inheritance."

Somehow, I don't think I'll get one cent of their fortunes.

To get a sense of the distribution skew, in 2012 MSN reported "the median inheritance for today's baby boomers is only $64,000, according to a 2010 study from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College" ([http://money.msn.com/gen-x/banking-on-inheritance-good- luck-...](http://money.msn.com/gen-x/banking-on-inheritance-good-luck- investopedia.aspx) , referencing [http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/how-important-are- inheritances-for-...](http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/how-important-are-inheritances- for-baby-boomers/) ).

Many web pages reference that source, but note that it's only talking about what baby boomers would get from their parents, and not what (say) a baby boomer who dies now might leave to any heirs.

There's a 2007 comment at [http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2007/04/dont_count_on_a.html](http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2007/04/dont_count_on_a.html) quoting a MoneyCentral piece: "The median inheritance was $37,700. About 1% of those surveyed received an inheritance greater than $1 million, and 5% inherited between $250,000 and $1 million."

In any case, both of these median values are well less than the $177,000 "average."</comment></comment>


Google Code Blog: Introducing Page Speed - <AUTHOR> http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2009/06/introducing-page-speed.html <comment><USER2> How is this different from YSlow?

<comment><AUTHOR> Plus it's from Google _swoons_. Jokes aside, I don't see why they don't add this to the Chrome's Firebug _ish_ feature.</comment></comment>


Facebook launches Lasso, its music and video TikTok clone - sahin-boydas https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/09/lasso-facebook-app-store/ <comment><AUTHOR> Haven't had a chance to try the app yet. Any idea why the name? When I read Lasso, I do not necessarily think of 15 second videos with overlayed soundtracks.</comment>


A once-unthinkable choice for amputees - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/health/losing-more-to-gain-more-amputees-once-unthinkable-choice.html

<comment><USER2> Great story. Reminded me of this TED talk by Aimee Mullins: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ0iMulicgg></comment>


Lesser-Known Google Projects - <AUTHOR> http://www.diygenius.com/12-lesser-known-google-projects-that-are-absolutely-amazing/

<comment><USER2> > One of the reasons why Google has consistently released new innovative > project is because of their 20% time policy, which gives many of their > employees one day a week to experiment with new concepts and ideas.

Is this still true? I thought they got rid of the 20% time policy years ago.

<comment><USER3> Regardless of whether that statement is true or not, 20% time is alive and well, based on my own experience, that of everyone else I know who's also done it and (if to a lesser extent), all levels of management having asserted so repeatedly since rumours started. I've even found it to be encouraged by certain managers to alleviate the "itch" to work on something different without having to leave one's current team.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It seems down from here. Google cache:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WGhnu5f...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WGhnu5fMSKUJ:www.diygenius.com/12-lesser- known-google-projects-that-are-absolutely-amazing/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

And Archive.org: [http://web.archive.org/web/20150419093843/http://www.diygeni...](http://web.archive.org/web/20150419093843/http://www.diygenius.com/12-lesser- known-google-projects-that-are-absolutely-amazing/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Very nice article. I wasn't aware of most of those projects. I am especially interested to see the results of "World Wonders Project", "Solve for X", "Ingress" and "Google Sky". I am sure Google is also secretly working on other projects that they don't want to communicate on yet (Same as Apple). Note: all those projects really remind me of Hailo's project XYZ in the Silicon Valley Series.

<comment><USER6> Just a small note. Ingress (Niantic Labs, actually) wasn't originally Google and had left[1] Google recently. ;)

[1] [http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/12/9145693/niantic-labs- leave...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/12/9145693/niantic-labs-leaves- google-independent-ingress)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I discovered some lesser known Google projects via it Android play store by doing a search "Google". I found Google Sky and MyTracks.</comment>


Clubhouse voice chat leads a wave of spontaneous social apps - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/18/clubhouse-app-chat-rooms/ <comment><USER2> The article gives me trouble understanding if this is Clubhouse.io or not</comment>


Caddy 0.8 Released with Let's Encrypt Integration - <AUTHOR> https://caddyserver.com/blog/caddy-0_8-released <comment><USER2> Nice work Matt and Caddy team. Simplifying this stuff goes a long way to encrypting all the things.</comment>


Gmail's 'dynamic email' will be available to everyone July 2nd - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/10/gmail-amp-available-july-2/ <comment><USER2> More Google lock in technology. Who cares if i leave my email client? Google does!

I just left Chrome this week for Mozilla. My first time using Mozilla, i cant beleive how much faster and more stable it is (for my use case).

Gmail is next on the chopping block. Im at the point where i no longer recommend any google related APIs to my company also - including Angular. React and Angular are nothing more then trojan horses when considered in the context of the bigger picture. I will not do their dirty work for them.

<comment><USER3> How does it lock you in if it's supported by other MUAs?

[https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Outlook- Blog/Support-...](https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Outlook-Blog/Support- for-AMP-HTML-preview-in-Outlook-com/ba-p/382832)

[https://verizon- postmaster.tumblr.com/post/183699380323/amp-...](https://verizon- postmaster.tumblr.com/post/183699380323/amp-support-in-yahoo-mail)

[https://postmaster.mail.ru/amp](https://postmaster.mail.ru/amp)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> September 20, 2021: Millions of Gmail users were distraught when Google announced today the immediate sunsetting of dynamic email. "Hahahahaha lol you guys fell for it AGAIN!!" said Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

</comment><comment> m-p-3 Engadget is trying to send me to guce.advertising.com before loading the URL, which is blocked by PiHole / NextDNS.

I guess this is their method of denying the site from being accessed through DNS-adblocking.

[https://outline.com/ZxXmeB](https://outline.com/ZxXmeB)

</comment><comment><USER5> Discussion about the feature:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19493378](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19493378)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16372234](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16372234)</comment>


Chest vs. Stomach Breathing - <AUTHOR> http://www.livestrong.com/article/310564-chest-vs-stomach-breathing/ <comment><USER2> Can we not promote livestrong since they just spam out nearly identical articles all day long? They make finding actual answers on health nearly impossible. Reminds me of eHow. Take a look at:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+protein+per+day+liv...](https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+protein+per+day+livestrong)

<comment><USER3> Just flag it if you think it's off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Stomach breathing is used by musicians, to get enough air to maintain the notes. It is not necessarily easy to start breathing like that, because the natural feeling is that your lungs are more filled with chest breathing. It is wrong, though, you get much more air by playing with your diaphragm.

<comment><USER5> I learned it when I took martial arts lessons in college. I think a lot of athletes are taught to do it. I belly breath all the time now, but I don't know if it's because I was trained or I was always doing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I stutter and was taught that trying to breathe using the stomach might help as it reduces tension in the vocal cords and is more relaxing. I usually forget to do it but seeing this reminded me of that advice.

</comment><comment><USER7> I used to always breath like that. For some reason, I was very stressed those past weeks and now I notice I am barely breathing. I felt out of breath all week.

Thanks a lot for the link. Wouldn't have noticed how bad my breathing is otherwise... !

It's crazy how stress can affect a body. I really have to get back to doing yoga. Never felt as healthy and good as when I did yoga.

<comment><USER8> If you suffer from stress as I do, you'll breathe too much from your lungs, and it can be very good to lie down, do the one hand on each thing and consciously change your pattern into a better one (at least for the duration of the lie down).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's weird, I've always breathed with my stomach. If I'm not thinking about it, my chest is almost still and my stomach moves in and out as I breathe. I assumed this was normal until I started reading articles like this. I had terrible asthma as a kid and I wonder if that contributed to learning to breathe this way.

<comment><USER10> FWIW, I'm also a "natural" stomach breather and also asthmatic (though it was never "terrible").

<comment><USER11> To add more anecdotal evidence, I too had childhood asthma (was on a ventilator when very young, inhalers until ~16) and am a "natural" stomach breather.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm surprised to see something on this topic as I've never really thought of stomach breathing as something with health implications.

Trained singers and some instrumentalists (those that require wind, i.e. not violinists) will already be very aware of this difference - using your diaphragm to breathe is emphasized early and often during lessons. I can recall my 7th grade choir teacher having a new kid in choir lay down on the floor to practice his breathing. It turns out it's quite a bit easier to breathe deeply with your diaphragm when laying on your back. You notice it almost immediately but it takes time to get used to doing it while standing up.

</comment><comment><USER13> If I'm reading this right, it's saying that _sole_ chest breathing is bad, but it's not recommending "shorter" _sole_ stomach breathing, either, but a "longer" inhaling that fills the stomach _followed_ by the chest? It also doesn't say anything about nose vs. mouth; should I go for nose-in/mouth-out or nose-in/nose-out, and is it different for, say, general cubicle sitting vs. jogging?

<comment><USER14> In some breathing exercises I've done as part of a self defense and training course we focused a lot on breathing, especially controlled breathing under very stressful situations. We'd spend good portions of the glass matching breathing with strides, punches, and grappling. That being said it really showed me the importance of breathing, even for random stress. We always did in through the nose and out through the mouth. The nose is a bit more restricted so it allows your diaphragm a little more resistance and seems to allow deeper more controlled breathing, plus it just feels good. When under heavy stress we often would take little bursts of fresh air through the nose and out of the mouth to help get oxygen to the muscles that needed it under said stress.

I didn't really stick with the class after finding some flaws with it but I learned some stuff in the long run, and the breathing thing has stuck with me after feeling it's effects.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz- PkaaImCE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz-PkaaImCE)

This was my instructor, dude had a pain threshold that was unbelievable. You can see him using the techniques while being... abused. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD4_RfEmWBg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD4_RfEmWBg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> _Place your right hand on your chest, and your left hand on your stomach and breath normally. If your right hand rise more, you are a chest breather, and if your left hand rises more, you are a stomach breather._

I couldn't help find it humorous that it's harder to determine the answer when my left hand starts in a position that's significantly higher than my right hand.

</comment><comment><USER16> If you try to breath with you stomach, you are going to have some gaz to evacuate. Better breathing with your lungs ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> If you sit still, exhale a little, and let go of any conscious effort to breathe but also don't hold your breath, you will eventually start stomach breathing automatically. Or at least you will if you're me. It's kind of interesting.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's simple things like this, that blow my mind. How ignorant I was the whole time, about a very important thing!

Anyway, long term catastrophe averted.

<comment><USER17> A curious thing is that you can also breathe by lifting your shoulders. It's not very effective (or comfortable) but it works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Breathing is the most natural action for humans and other living creatures."

here's an article on how to do it.

<comment><USER19> Just because you're doing something naturally doesn't mean that you'll do it efficiently.</comment></comment>


Show HN: PyExPool – Tiny Multi-Process Execution Pool for Python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/XI-lab/PyExPool <comment><AUTHOR> PyExPool is a single-file lightweight implementation of Multi-process Execution Pool with per-Job and global timeouts, opportunity to group Jobs into Tasks and other features, which are not available in the Python multiprocessing pool. Unlike Pebble library, which is designed for the asynchronous execution of Python functions, PyExPool is designed for the asynchronous execution of modules and external executables.

PyExPool can be embedded into your sources and customized, having permissive Apache 2.0 license and production quality, being used in the core of one high- loaded scientific benchmarking framework ([https://github.com/XI- lab/PyCABeM](https://github.com/XI-lab/PyCABeM)).</comment>


Show HN: A curated set of colour combinations - <AUTHOR> https://duo.alexpate.uk/ <comment><USER2> I pasted a couple of these into ShapeFactory's Duotone and got really nice results ( #3 [https://duotone.shapefactory.co/?f=3a97d4&t=1a2037](https://duotone.shapefactory.co/?f=3a97d4&t=1a2037) ) For the curious, what their tool seems to be doing is: 1) grabbing a photo from Unsplash, 2) cranking down the color saturation to "-100" (essentially making it B&W) , 3) embedding it into an SVG and applyig a filter that leverages 'feColorMatrix'. Very clever.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wasn't sure what _" only AA accessible"_ referred to, but apparently it's a rating[0] to mean at least a contrast ratio of 4.5:1 (a "AAA" rating requires a 7:1 contrast ratio).

This site[1] lets you check the rating for any color combination, if you're curious.

[0] [https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio- cont...](https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast- contrast.html)

[1] [https://accessible-colors.com](https://accessible-colors.com)

<comment><USER4> Recent version of Firefox have the ability to check ratios built right in. I use the tool daily.

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Tools/Accessibility...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Tools/Accessibility_inspector)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can never figure out a nice color combination by myself, no matter how hard i try. I have to resort to online resources such as this in the end.

</comment><comment><USER6> 19, 63, 73, and 89 are nearly unreadable to me. Not as bad as the red on black error text in my linux terminal though.

<comment><USER7> I agree with you, 63 is terrible to read :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wish there was a curated set of color palettes. I'm really bad at colors, but occasionally enjoy drawing/designing things. But colors always confuse since I have no idea which ones to pick, there are infinitely many of them!

<comment><USER9> I think you'll appreciate ColorHunt, a wonderful 4-tone palette library (no relationship to the site, just a happy user).

[https://colorhunt.co/](https://colorhunt.co/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is nice and I like lots of these combinations.

I'm curious about accessibility. Are any of these combinations harder to use for people with colour-blindness? How would i test for that?

<comment><USER11> You can test individual colours using tools like [https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/](https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/)

To check the colours on a page (and many other accessibility violations) you can use a bookmarklet like HTML Codesniffer ( [https://squizlabs.github.io/HTML_CodeSniffer/](https://squizlabs.github.io/HTML_CodeSniffer/) ), the tools that are integrated with Firefox and Chrome's devtools, or CLI tools like Axe or Pa11y.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very nice. I don't know if it would be useful but it would be interesting to have a link to where a combination was seen on the web (for the ones that were found there).</comment>


Google Ignores Links to # - happy-go-lucky https://www.seroundtable.com/amp/google-ignores-pound-links-24367.html <comment><AUTHOR> Also, please don't do this. It isn't really a link if it doesn't link anywhere. If you want a thing that looks like a link, then style it that way, and if you want it to have behavior when interacted with, code the behavior.

Doing it this way, when your JS breaks (or you forget to `event.preventDefault()`) these will scroll to the top of the page, perhaps abruptly. Feels bad man.</comment>


Ask HN: How to get sponsored AWS credits? - <AUTHOR> I'm part of a machine learning team at my university and we are trying to do the latest Kaggle competition but we not able to compete due to lack of computational resources.<p>Does anyone here have any tips on how to get sponsored AWS credits? <comment><USER2> Apply for AWS Cloud Credits for Research [https://aws.amazon.com/grants/](https://aws.amazon.com/grants/)</comment>


Icons for Web Designers - <AUTHOR> http://webdesignledger.com/freebies/20-fresh-sets-of-free-icons-for-web-designers/

<comment><USER2> I don't want to be mean or rude, but those icons aren't _fresh_. I'd say a good hundred new sets of icons are developed every week. They all, from my viewing experience, look almost exactly like those ones in the link you posted.

New icon sets can be very interesting and entertaining. These, however, are just icons- some almost identical to normal ones.

</comment><comment><USER3> Note: at least one of these icon sets is for "non-commercial use" which is of little use to a start-up.

</comment><comment><USER4> I can never find enough free icons for design work. There needs to be some sort of effort to compile all the free icons out there and add more over time too.

<comment><USER5> <http://www.iconfinder.net/> is a good resource. You can filter commercial/non-commercial.</comment></comment>