To Make America Great Again, We Need to Leave the Country - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/to-make-america-great-again-we-need-to-leave-the-country/259653/ <comment><USER4> I agree with this. My eyes opened I ways I never expected by living abroad. I thought America was safe and it is compared to Somalia but not compared to may other contries. I didn't notice this because I've been trained to ignore it. I've been trained not to walk down dark alleys. I've been trained not to leave anything visible in a car when I park it or else it will get broken into. When it had been broken into Ive been trained to blame myself for leaving something visible or parking too near the wrong neighborhood. But living abroad I learned some countries don't have these issues. Then benefit from them too. There are vending machines outdoors all over Japan for example, in America they'd have long since been vandalized. In Japan there are amazing double size car stereos because they don't have to worry about car stereo theft. Sorry I don't have better examples at the moment.

I also learned many false assumptions. For example even though logically as an athiest i knew morals don't come from a deity the number of assumptions and thought paths I had ... Uh.. Thought or read about that clearly came from a christian influenced society really stuck out.

Cultural differences as well like maybe there's some positive aspects to a more collectivits society vs an individualist society like America.

It's hard to articulate how much impact living abroad had.

Another is just how much "yay us!!!" there is. I watched a Ken Burns documentary where it seemed that every other line was "Only in America". We've heard that so much we take it for granted without actually checking if it's true. Every country has this issue. It's only living outside that will make it stick out IMO

In not saying America sucks. Each country and culture has trade offs but until you truly spend time experiencing those differences you'll likely be unaware such differences even exist.

Unfortunately I don't expect enough people will ever live abroad

<comment> mike-cardwell I have never lived abroad, but everything you've said is obvious to me, because I interact with and learn about the World outside my country and have a natural tendency to question anything that politicians or people in power have to say.

People don't need to live abroad to come to these conclusions. I suspect that you're probably mistaken that living abroad did this to you, and that it would have happened anyway. It's what happens to (most) intelligent people as they age and mature.

EDIT: Re vending machines on the street, I visited Connecticut once and where I stayed, there were boxes on the street that you can put money in and take a paper out of. I'm from the UK and if you had that here, it would be fine in a lot of places, but in some places, people would set fire to them for fun. Re car crime, on the same visit I noticed that people were leaving their car windows open in a car park (it was very hot). Like hell would I risk that in this country, but I'm sure there are plenty of places where it would be fine. Every country has their share of good and bad areas. Anecdotes are fairly useless here.

<comment><USER5> > *People don't need to live abroad to come to these conclusions.

Yes, yes they do. Actually you're right, it's not a panacea, and to most intelligent people they gain this wisdom with age and maturity. However, we have a serious media problem in the US that doesn't always tell the truth. So, it's extremely difficult to learn about the world outside the American bubble.

Also, I did notice you are from the UK. It's much more culturally accepted to learn about the World outside of the UK. America, not so much.

...and how did I come to this conclusion? Because I'm American and live in your country! This isn't some sweeping generalization I heard on the news, I concluded it after having lived here. You'd be shocked how little Americans know and understand about the World.

<comment><USER6> One thing that occurred to me only after leaving the US: only in America can you consider yourself "educated" or "well cultured" and yet have never been to a place where the people did not speak your language!

Isolationism has always been the biggest threat to America's success. I wonder if it's only coincidence that the height of America's power came after it sent a large chunk of its young population overseas?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As someone who has lived in the US, AU & the EU in a few places I'd have to say this article is great. It's something you wind up doing if you live in other places.

America is #1 in quite a few things, such as software, just try naming non-US software companies that matter, it's an interesting exercise. Also the US highway system is excellent, the US's culture of entrepreneurship is also awesome. The best US colleges are the best in the world. US computer games, TV shows (Breaking Bad/Mad Men/Louie/The Sopranos etc) and other things are great from the US.

But in many things the rest of the rest world laughs at the US. US High School education, for instance, is not well regarded. The US health care system is regarded as scary and pretty poor.

There are even other countries that are really good at seeing things overseas and copying. Australia, for instance, got a points based immigration system from Canada, Universal Saving for retirement from Singapore and looked around the world for ways to reform the Australian Reserve Bank.

<comment><USER8> > US High School education, for instance, is not well regarded.

I think this is a bit disingenuous. I would say that the US high school system is not _equitable_. It works just fine for the upper middle class on up. It's the lower class that gets screwed over by the way things are set up.

<comment><USER9> Yes just try comparing Detroit public schools with that of the suburbs and you'll realize no one can make general statements about how crappy US schools are.

<comment><USER10> You both realize you're only emphasizing one of the main reasons why the US educations system isn't well regarded?

<comment><USER11> Everything is local.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _Even when it comes to the "pursuit of happiness," enshrined in our Declaration of Independence as one of the noble goals of government, our citizens are only the 15th most satisfied with their lives._

The text asserts the right of men [mankind] to pursue happiness, not the goal of government to provide it!

<comment><USER13> That is such an excellent point. I don't know if this is an issue found in other countries as much as here, but I find (especially during election times) people take such pride in what they achieve, but blame the government for what they don't. It doesn't help when politicians are publicly using this attitude as a major part of their strategy.

<comment><USER14> It is an issue that is found in other countries proportionately to the prevalence of socialism. The French, for instance, will not only blame everything on the government (or people who have had success), but _expect_ everything from it (find me a job, keep me healthy, save my company from bankruptcy, provide me with nice state-sponsored TV fiction championing the values of "diversity", etc.). You don't want America to go down that road.

<comment><USER15> Having lived in both the United States and Denmark, I think I _would_ like America to go at least slightly more down that road. It frees up a lot of individual decision-making if very basic things are taken care of. Even in the U.S., nobody expects you to contract for your own police officers to investigate a crime if you get shot. Denmark just takes it a bit further and says you shouldn't have to contract for the ambulance and hospital that treat the gunshot wound, either. That frees you up to work on things that actually matter. Not having healthcare tied to employment frees up many options as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> One area where we lag behind the rest of the world is our voting system. In 1992 Clinton was elected with 43% of the vote because Perot split the Republicans. In 2000 Bush was elected with 48% because Nader split the Democrats.

This kind of voting system has been mathematically proven to create a two- party system (Duverger's Law). In many other countries they use runoff voting, so if no one gets 50%, they hold another round of voting with the top two candidates. This way you can vote for whoever you want without worrying about letting the wrong guy win. And it works - check out these numbers from France's 2012 election:

\- 29% Hollande \- 27% Sarkozy \- 18% Le Pen \- 11% Melenchon \- 9% Bayrou

That could never happen in America. Our voting system is rigged to favor the Republicans and the Democrats. It's like choosing between DSL and cable - <USER2> may be better than the other but they both suck. How much brighter would our future be if we had more choices?

<comment><USER17> One thing I've never seen answered:

Has anyone actually stopped to figure out how multi-party systems really scale? India is the largest in the world, but also A) has Euro-style population density and B) is maybe not such a great example of a functioning representative government. France and Germany are better examples of governments that mostly work, but are dealing with a fraction of the US population and order-of-magnitude differences in density and geographic area compared to the US.

And, tellingly, what I know of French and German politics is basically that, while in theory there are a bunch of parties and there are places where they can pick up a seat or two... they're still two-party in the sense that they tend to develop stable, long-lived pairs of large dominant parties, who in turn are the only ones with a shot at forming a government. Every once in a while a third party gets just big enough to play kingmaker, but that's about it. And that doesn't sound like enough of a sweeping change to justify rebooting the entire system.

<comment><USER16> France and Germany are not so two-party. In the 53 years of France's current government, they have elected presidents from four parties. In the 22 years since German reunification, they have had presidents from three parties and one independent.

Meanwhile, in the last 159 years, the US has only had Democrats and Republicans.

Also, even if minor parties do not get elected, they offer healthy competition and keep the main parties on their toes. Candidates in the US hate to present concrete plans or answer specific questions. They only have one opponent, so they take the least controversial stance that will differentiate them against the other guy. Offering more information than this minimum required is bad strategy.

If other parties were in the running, candidates would be forced to take positions and offer plans, because they have to differentiate themselves from several opponents.

I don't think changing how we elect people counts as "rebooting the entire system". We would have to eliminate the electoral college, but who would be against that? It is a relic left over from the days when local election results had to travel on horseback with a trusted messenger.

<comment><USER18> >France and Germany are not so two-party. In the 53 years of France's current government, they have elected presidents from four parties.

It's really two and a half. De Gaulle - Pompidou - Chirac -Sarkozy were part of the same party that morphed and changed names everytime there was a new leader. Miterrand - Hollande are the other. Giscard was a one-term president from a party that has always been a junior partner of Main Right-Center party. So he's the half.

And German presidents don't count. You have to look at the Chancellor. It has been CDU or SDP since 1945 except for nine days. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chancellors_of_Germany>

<comment><USER16> Does Germany hold runoff elections? It looks like Merkel won in 2009 with only 34% of the vote. If they use the same system that the US does, that is probably why their elections only choose between the main two parties.

<comment><USER18> Actually, the Chancellor is elected by the bundestag and not directly by voters. And yes, it is required that more than half of the bundestag votes for the candidate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Just today I was reading an interview with a Belgian journalist/writer, Bjorn Soenens, who travelled through America and wrote a boook about it's current state, on all levels. His conclusions were pretty much the same as in this article, although I'd also say 'darker'. Some claims he made, which I cannot verify but would love to hear comments about [I have the impression he's rather pessimistic and mainly lifts out the bad things; there's only a couple of good things he has to say about America. But even then, it's not exactly good news]:

\- lots of people still believing strongly in the American Dream, thinking 'one day I'll be rich'. Resulting in hardly any complaints when the taxes are lowered for the rich poeple. Resulting in an even bigger gap between poor and rich, and a middle class that is evaporating

\- it's a miracle there hasn't been a revolution. Occupy Wall Street came close, but now they went underground

\- people living in their cars

\- 'Reaganomics': low taxes, low influence of the government, maximum freedom for private initiative. Which basically resulted in the crisis. Another example: New Orleans during Katrina. Since Reagan the government didn't watch the dikes anymore nor built new ones, seems there were also holes in them, in the spirit that everyone would took ther own initiative when things went bad. Resulting in a disaster.

\- the media only report loudly on being pro or contra something. Not about the fact that there are always more poor people for instance [this is definitely differen in Europe]

\- universities like Harvard will remain good because the elite puts money in them, but the rest of the education system is a mess, resulting in students that can hardly read and write [really?]

\- a lot of Americans will either not believe claims like these, or be shocked

\- Obama is actually doing very well, but gets the wind ahead from all areas, esp Tea Party, which is a shame

<comment><USER20> If you think OWS came close to revolution you should switch the brand that you're smoking, it's not good for you :)

OWS was completely insignificant movement without goals, purpose, ideology, leadership, ability or understanding of anything that happens in the society. It was overhyped, mostly by sensation-seeking reporters that want clicks/eyeballs to run ads and by leftist press outlets because they wanted their own Tea Party (which of course no revolution either, but at least had some successes to boast).

<comment><USER12> You've misread -- `stinos' isn't the one saying these things, he's quoting a Belgian journalist. He disclaimed that he doesn't know if these are accurate depictions and asked HN for comment.

<comment><USER19> exactly. Though the fact smsm42 claims it was overhyped seems to prove the point on the way the media reports.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm an American living in AU, going to move to Canada.

Couple of thoughts.

1\. Family was discussing where to live. US didn't really come up as an option because of healthcare and education. Things are generally cheaper in the US, but standard of living for our kids was considered more important. Canada in particular is very close, nearly as cheap and has better education and healthcare. Win-Win.

2\. People in the US generally don't realize A. how cheap things are and B. how bad things like education and healthcare are.

3\. We are taking a significant tax hit in either AU or CAN...and that is OK because of what we are getting in return. I'm actually more mad at thinking of the things we DON'T get in the US for our taxes.

4\. lastly (unrelated to the article), the difference between AU and CAN consumerism culture is amazing. The change is rather drastic and, I feel strongly about this, better for overall health to not be so wrapped in the consumeristic US culture.

<comment><USER22> I'm curious why you're moving from Australia to Canada? Canada has a lot going for it, and it's _definitely_ cheaper, but in most regards I think Australia has its act together better.

<comment><USER21> Valid question because I would generally agree that AU has quite a bit going for it.

The single main reason is location. AU is FAAAAAR from things. I fly for work to the US and Europe several times a year. This gets very old very quickly in AU. To get to Singapore, which is the main hub to Europe, is 8hrs. That is already longer than the longest US flight. To get from Singapore to Europe is between 12 and 14 hrs. To get from Sydney/Melbourne to LAX is 15hrs. Do this with two kids and you'll just hate life.

Also, for the kids, the cousins, grandparents and aunts and uncles all live in the US, which is a quick direct flight away. This is the single biggest factor.

This is more a huge pet peeve of mine and I wouldn't move because of this, but I hate the nanny state that is AU. The government here is very restrictive and tends to take away rights "for the kids". There is constant talk about an internet firewall and quite a few other little things that add up to "nanny state". I told my wife that if we stayed in AU it might cause me to get into politics b/c of how messed up it is. It is that bad.

And, lastly, we've had an adventure. We are looking to settle in to a place for 10-15 years or so while the kids grow up and go to school. If it wasn't for the above, AU might have been that place, but the second item makes it hard for us to be this far away.

I say about AU that if you can leave your former life and live in AU (meaning, you live, work and pretty much embrace the AU life), AU is AWESOME. They really do have quite a bit going for it, even with the nanny state item. They don't call it 'the lucky country' for nothing!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "Imagine if a politician were to say, "France has a better health care system than we do." I can almost guarantee that politician would suffer electoral defeat "

Which America this guy is from? In the United States of America in which I am residing, lots of politicians talk all day long about pretty much every developed country in the world having better medical system than US (even though those systems are radically different and the politicians don't even bother to prove they are actually better) and they get regularly reelected. What is this thing with publishing articles in prominent magazines saying "Nobody in US dares to talk about it but I will! Yes, I'll do it and nobody can stop me!". Nobody wants a magazine opinion writer to be a hero - just a competent writer that does not insult the intelligence of their readers.

As somebody who lived in 3 very different countries, I understand learning from different cultures and countries is very useful. But in order to explain that, there's no need to exaggerate the faults of the US and present it as if most Americans are wildly opposed to any foreign ideas or experiences.

<comment><USER5> > _Which America this guy is from?_

Really? Can you give a little more evidence to support your claim?

I'd love to see a clip of Romney or Obama saying "We're looking to copy the french healthcare system". They would get murdered for being "Un-American".

<comment><USER20> Romney and Obama are not the only people in US politics. There are multiple proponents of single-payer model (which is obviously modelled along the same lines as in countries where it currently exists), and they keep being elected. Of course nobody would just say "we are going to copy France" - that'd be stupid, US and France are different countries with different traditions, legal systems, economic and political systems, etc. But many politicians I've heard compared favorably health care systems in Canada, UK, France, Switzerland, Germany, etc. to American one and I don't see why they would suffer electorally for it - the idea that American system needs reform is a commonplace among both left and right (they of course disagree as to _what kind_ of reform it needs) and comparing favorably to certain aspects of foreign experience is nothing unexpected - in fact, in this case, there's not much choice to compare - if you want to argue "we want to change it", you'd need examples, and since you won't be able to find enough examples in the US (state experiments don't have enough timespan and may not scale well) you'd have to go international. If you wanted to show, for example, that single payer is a workable model, you won't have much choice but to refer to the experience of the countries where it was introduced.

<comment><USER5> > _that'd be stupid, US and France are different countries with different > traditions, legal systems, economic and political systems, etc._

> _(state experiments don't have enough timespan and may not scale well)_

You see, this is problem right here. America was founded on the idea that each state should govern themselves and that there should be minimal federal involvement (this is what Libertarians fight for). Furthermore, I'm not sure I agree with your line of reasoning. Your saying that we can't copy other countries because they're different, yet we can't copy ourselves because it doesn't scale well.

> _I don't see why they would suffer electorally for it_

I don't see why either, but that's the reality. Have you ever watched Fox News for more than 5 minutes? They would slander the hell out of ANY politician who said "let's be like France" in any capacity. Note - It's important to understand that neither I nor yourself need to watch Fox News. The point is, a VERY LARGE portion of America does, and they believe the stuff that spews out of these people's mouths.

I think the overall point of the article is that we are effectively "trapped" in the US because we are constantly reminded that "This is the America Way!" and to think otherwise is blasphemy. We are lucky in American to always have the ability to create a challenging opinion...always. However it doesn't mean it's popular. Popular gets you elected. Elected gets you legislation.

<comment><USER20> >> Your saying that we can't copy other countries because they're different, yet we can't copy ourselves because it doesn't scale well.

Right. That's why mere _copying_ of anything won't work. One has to actually put some thought into how to make it work without just copying something. I know, it's a bummer, but when we spend trillions of dollars on federal government, we can expect them to have at least couple of people who can think and do beyond what an average copying machine does.

>> Have you ever watched Fox News for more than 5 minutes? They would slander the hell out of ANY politician who said "let's be like France"

I'd recommend to leave aside the knee-jerk Fox News bashing, it does not add anything to the topic. I'd also recommend to actually read my response, where I specifically say that nobody would say "let's be like France" - but many politicians can and do say "let's borrow this good idea from France". France being substitute for many various countries here of course.

>> Note - It's important to understand that neither I nor yourself need to watch Fox News. The point is, a VERY LARGE portion of America does, and they believe the stuff that spews out of these people's mouths.

I strongly suspect your information about "stuff that spews out of these people's mouths" is a a distorted third-party reports and not the result of actual observation of sufficient footage and comparing it to other comparable networks and hosts - such as MSNBC, for example. FN is no better and no worse than any other major news outlet - they all are politicized and all employ some people which have very strong opinions, earn millions by voicing these opinions to the public and sometimes do not let the actual facts to stand in the way of these opinions. This however is not related too much to the topic in question, as existence of politicians that openly declare views which go directly opposite to what most of the FN viewers would agree with is the fact, be these opinions regarding health care, finances, social issues, judiciary issues or any issues whatsoever. FN or their viewers do not hold any death grip on America and are only one part of various and pluralistic public scene. They have their options, other people have theirs, and all of them "spew" them from their mouths freely. It may cause some people stop voting for some politicians, and some other people start voting for them - that's how the elections work. But assuming politicians live in mortal fear of FN and that prevents them from telling what they want to tell people is pure nonsense.

>> I think the overall point of the article is that we are effectively "trapped" in the US because we are constantly reminded that "This is the America Way!" and to think otherwise is blasphemy.

This is baloney. There is no agreement what is "America Way", and right now there are at least two, if not more, polar opposite approaches as to what is "America Way" in pretty much every issue are being actively discussed in public, with roughly equal parts of the population sympathizing to each approach. In this situation, claiming there's only one "America Way" and departing from it is seen by the public as blasphemy is to confess your own ignorance and detachment from most current events easily observable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I agree in general, but several of the specific policy recommendations he puts forward are horrible.

States having equal representation in the Senate is one of the few protections for States' Rights today. Population isn't the only reason for representation.

Direct election of the President by popular vote per state would probably be functionally the same as the electoral college, modulo faithless electors, but most proposals are for nationwide popular vote, which also hinders States' Rights -- and would allow a President to be elected by appealing just to voters in major cities (a plurality of the population).

<comment><USER24> I'm not sure a system where the president gets elected by ignoring Texas, California, New York, New England etc is really a better system than a nationwide popular vote.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've told people to leave the US before on HN, and got downvoted, so I won't.

America's #1 problem is that solutions that work are often fairly labelled socialist, because they are, and thus they immediately lose all popular support, because for some reason, you are all mentally still fighting the cold war?! (So are the Russians, but that's beside the point.)

"Socialism" needs to stop being pejorative. You're trapped by political language as much as insularity and self-regard.

</comment><comment><USER26> Much of what he lists here as weaknesses I consider strengths, especially the electoral college. Maybe it's because of length, but he doesn't give more than casual support to any point.

Weak.

</comment><comment><USER27> The USA seems to get a third world country. The step between poor and rich is huge, there is no health insurance, people can buy weapons and kill each other, the political system is broken and corruption is everywhwere.

</comment><comment><USER6> The article focuses on the same things have been hammered on for a while now (other countries do health care better, other countries do education better, other countries do education better...), but I think there's another reason to get out of America: other countries have different _cultural strengths_.

Antonio Cangiano wrote a post a while back about why Italy doesn't do enough startups ([http://programmingzen.com/2011/11/10/the-real-reason- italy-s...](http://programmingzen.com/2011/11/10/the-real-reason-italy-sucks- at-the-startup-game/)). In that post, he has a chart ([http://programmingzen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/does- su...](http://programmingzen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/does-success- depend-on-forces-outside-our-control-e1320936286945.png)) that shows that Americans, more that the citizens of any other country, believe that their success or failure is a direct result of their own actions. This is a blessing and a curse, as it means that Americans are willing to work harder to get what they want, but they are also willing to believe when a politician says that there's no need for universal health care or help getting people jobs because "anyone who wants it enough can work harder and get it for themselves".

Regardless, I would argue that this is America's defining cultural strength.

I recently moved to Turkey. Turkey has "hospitality" as its defining cultural strength. If you go to a little shop and look around for more than 10-15 min, you can expect to be offered a drink (free of charge, of course). When I go to the bakery, the woman who works there frequently slips me a cookie or pastry after I've already paid. Most of the malls in Turkey have systems in place that tell you exactly where there is an open parking spot so you don't have to spend 15 min driving back-and-forth.

In America, people celebrate blog posts about pricing tricks that will convince customers to part with a few extra cents. In Turkey, cab drivers regularly round fares _down_ to the nearest lira (well, assuming you aren't a tourist in Istanbul, which is a whole different issue). Now, you could do extensive studies to show that hospitality leads to customer loyalty over the long term, and greater profits blah blah blah...but Turks don't need that. Hospitality is second nature, and my anecdotal experience is that it makes for a generally happier populace, even when all the _objective_ metrics indicate that Turks should feel worse-off than Americans.

What really strikes me, though, is that I have experienced Turkish-like hospitality from one company in the US: Apple. So, now you have every MBA student in America racking their heads trying to figure out what Apple has done to become the most valuable company in the world, where if they had only spent a couple of years living in Turkey they might already have their answer...

<comment><USER28> > What really strikes me, though, is that I have experienced Turkish-like > hospitality from one company in the US: Apple.

Could you explain this? Because I haven't ever gotten a free iPhone for browsing in the Apple Store for ten minutes.

<comment><USER29> You wouldn't get a free rug in a Turkish rug store but Apple do go out of their way to appear inviting and helpful way beyond any of their competition.

<comment><USER6> This. I've found that business in America have a tendency to try and monetize the entirety of every business transaction. For example, I used to work at Circuit City, and if you came in to buy a TV you'd be amazed how quickly the salesperson would shift the conversation onto cables, power supplies, protection plans, etc. When the end of the day rolled around, and praise was divvied out by the store managers, no one ever talked about the size of the TV so-and-so sold. The praise focused entirely on the "attach".

On the other hand, a Turk will recognize that you are there to carry out a certain business transaction. Turks can haggle and negotiate with the best of them (another aspect of their culture). But you'd better believe that, as you spend half an hour negotiating the price of that rug, the rug seller will have had his assistant bring you tea and simit, and you'll have the most comfortable seat in the place (none of this "make the floor as hard and uncomfortable as possible so that customers complete their transactions quickly"...yes, that is a well known trick in the American retail industry).

Apple does the same thing, especially with their stores. Their computers are not cheap. But Apple will hold free workshops telling you how to use them. Store employees will help you transfer data from your old computer if you need it, and when you come back in a week, you'll get the same reception as you did before you made your purchase, even though you're unlikely to be buying another computer.

Mostly, it's about recognizing your customer as a fellow human being, as opposed to "the next mark"...

<comment><USER20> Note that you are comparing a big chain store (Circuit City) with small business (a Turk). Most businesses in the US are small businesses, which behave differently than chain stores. And if you think that that the Turk wouldn't get back the price of his tea hundredfold when you buy that rug, then you're very naive :) It's just different styles of conducting business - <USER3> some cultures, the negotiations are supposed to be personal and simulate closeness and friendship (even if parties are hoping to cheat each other as much as possible), in some it is supposed to be businesslike and impersonal.

As for the Apple store, I had been a number of times in Apple store in San Jose, that's abut 15 minutes drive from main Apple campus. Almost each time I had the worst experience. I had to wait for a long time, workers kept redirecting me from one to another, and since the policy is that there are no lines in Apple stores, I had no idea when I am going to be served - I just had to aimlessly wander around the store and wait for the moment where some "genius" is ready to grace me with his attention. I had to explain what I need to multiple people, which for some reason didn't talk to each other, and I observed multiple store workers not busy with anything but somehow still unavailable to help me. I am totally unconvinced about that being the paragon of customer service.

<comment><USER6> Well, you're wrong about one thing: that's not just small businesses in Turkey. Even very large chain stores have the same level of hospitality. And it's not just stores. As an example, tomorrow is the start of Şeker Bayramı (literally translates as "Sugar Holiday" but is just what Turks call Eid al- Fitr, the end of Ramadan). The holiday lasts for 3 days. I received a text from Turkcell the other day stating that they were giving everyone unlimited texting during the holiday.

 _Edit_ : Also, of course the Turkish businessman is making back the cost of the tea. It would be foolish to think otherwise. The point is that (if you want to go all Econ 101 on it...) Turks tend to think in terms of straight profit, whereas Americans are much more obsessed with opportunity cost.

<comment><USER20> Are you saying short-term discounts and freebies are unheard of in USA? [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/national-donut- day-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/national-donut- day-2011-dunkin-donuts_n_870514.html) <https://www.facebook.com/events/353010928105586>

There are many more examples of stuff regularly given out by companies for free, it's just two things I could remember immediately due to you mentioning "sugar holiday" :)

<comment><USER6> Heh...you really do need to visit Turkey. Turkcell didn't advertise that they were giving everyone unlimited texts. There was no article in the national paper about Turkcell giving unlimited texts. They did it because it was proper, and hospitable. In short, Turkish hospitality is _very_ different from the examples you gave.

Trust me, if you ever care to visit Ankara, tell me and I will show you Turkish hospitality.

(Or, as odd as it sounds, Anthony Bourdain's "No Reservations" episode on Istanbul does an amazingly good job of capturing the essence of modern Turkish culture...<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ojatA-Xqhk>)

<comment><USER20> I have visited Turkey in the past briefly, and it was nice, though I did not notice any special hospitality not encountered in other places. Maybe I just wasn't lucky.

Unfortunately, since I'm Jewish I'm not sure it would be wise for me to visit Turkey again now, due to recent developments... it seems like the hospitality for me might be a bit limited now. [http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalDetayV3&...](http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalDetayV3&Date=7.1.2009&ArticleID=915950) <http://jcpa.org/article/present-day-anti-semitism-in-turkey/>

Maybe sometime in the future... Sorry for getting a bit off-topic here.

<comment><USER6> Off topic indeed, but this year's Eurovision singer from Turkey was Jewish (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can_Bonomo>). Not to say there isn't anti- semitism, but I think it is much less in Turkey than you might think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The fascinating thing about this article is that it legitimizes the "Atlas Shrugged" response of many entrepreneurs from a progressive perspective. While there is much to be quibbled with in his analysis [1], the simple fact that we now have rationales from both sides for leaving the US and striking out abroad is extraordinarily important. Look for more people to repeat these arguments, to flee taxes, crime, and regulations while claiming they are fleeing inequality, provinciality, and an inadequate level of government control over the economy.

[1] for example, did the mass immigration of millions of unskilled immigrants without high school educations contribute to income inequality? And is bankrupt France really a country to emulate, or should we cast our eyes to the Pacific Rim?

<comment><USER31> > And is bankrupt France really a country to emulate

Yes, it really is. Its people are happier, healthier, and better educated; they work less, eat better and have better relationships with their families. And are substantially less indebted than those of the US.

<comment><USER11> The French would all be speaking German today if we (USA) had emulated them in the last century.

<comment><USER32> If you're talking about the allied victory in WWII, the soviets inflicted the vast majority of damage against the Germans.

It's also quite disingenuous to bring up lazy stereotypes in a discussion.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4508901.stm>

<comment><USER20> While it is true that Soviets did a major part of the actual combat work, they probably could not have done it without economic help from the US. If US were unable or unwilling to provide such help, it is not at all given that Soviet economy alone would have survived the onslaught. While the heroism of the Red Army people is unquestionable, one needs a lot of material resources to wage war, and without them even most heroic people can not win. Even Joseph Stalin - a man not known for being overly modest - acknowledged that.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm probably going to be modded down like crazy for this; just remember it's not a rant, I'm just sharing my perception of America as a whole. Hopefully you'll see some value in an outside opinion :)

DISCLAIMER: I'm writing this based in a view of "average" America. HN readers are most likely far from the average. It's a view shared by many younger (<35) people I talk to.

TL;DR: European views US as being backwards, socially underdeveloped. Geared for the rich. But with great TV, films and software companies. And the "average" American is 55, Obese, and thinks that Paris is a short stroll from the center of London (that might tainted be because I lived near Stratford- upon-Avon, which is a honey pot for dumb but wealthy Boomers on their first trip outside of the US).

I'm British, moved to The Netherlands at 26 (I'm now 32). I've travelled all over the world, US (see below), Scandinavia, most of Europe, Africa and Asia.

My perception of the US is that it's like a big company: they've been the boss for so long that they have forgotten to improve. Sure, in the 1960s they were the best at everything. Only the world has moved on, and in reality they're quickly turning into a dinosaur.

From what I've seen of Americans, their ideas are stuck very much in the 1900s. They're hierarchical, the system is tailored to the factory owners.

The lower class have been conditioned to think that faux sweat-shop working conditions (40+ hour working weeks) are a good thing. They don't have vacations. They can be sacked pretty much at will. Healthcare is fubar. There's a complete lack of empathy and realism. Which is strange from a land which claims to be "Christian".

The Americans I speak to seem to fall into two groups: those brainwashed into believing that if they work themselves to death they'll "get rich", or those who're just plain religious lunatics who've thus been conditioned to "suffer" for their "faith".

The only two areas where I see the US leading are in Computing and Entertainment; and this is more a function of the US speaking one language than it is anything inherent in the attitude or politics.

Now for something completely anecdotal:

I live in the Netherlands. I have a nice house. It's smaller than the American norm, but our land is smaller. It's better built (brick instead of wood).

I have a good job, earn a good salary (3x norm). In the US I'd earn three to five times as much - but that's more a function of the market than society (higher demand in US). I work a 38 hour week, and have 25 days holiday (+ 6-8 public holidays).

My health insurance costs $150/month, and isn't connected to my employer.

My employer can't just sack me. If I were to become unemployed, I'd get enough in welfare to live comfortably. If I'm injured, and unable to work, then I receive 70% of my salary plus the state benefits (which include the healthcare).

I pay lots of tax: 40% of my salary, 21% on anything I buy (except for cars, they have a 40% tax-rate, and food which is 6%), 70% of the cost of my fuel, and $100/month car tax. $100/month in local government fees. I can claw back $300 of tax a month on mortgage interest - it'd be much more if I'd have bought a bigger place (didn't seem wise at the time, we bought in 2007, at the peak).

I had a decent education in the UK, but I'm an outlier: because I got severally bullied (my parents were religious, evangelical Christians, and the UK's main religion is a Atheism) I missed my last year of Highschool (still score in the top 10% of the exams, top 5% in the STEM) and have educated myself to University-level via the Open University (and it helps having a decent IQ ~146 in the Mensa test, for what it's worth). I speak fluent Dutch (one of the harder languages to learn. Oh, and I still have an inferiority complex because I can't help but compare myself to the brilliant people here, and I aspire to top my field :)

My wife had a fantastic education in the Netherlands, and - together with all other people in her field - is better qualified than any American (she's a Pharmacist, in the Netherlands they're as well educated as medical doctors; pharmaceutical decisions are made by the specialists here, not just by the doctors).

I can go into town, to a coffee shop, and smoke a joint. I won't be arrested. I won't do it. But if I drive 50 miles to the East I would be (European insanity).

I have choice of cable/ASDL providers. Almost everyone here has >10mb/s internet. I have choice out of lots of mobile providers. Only if I travel 50 miles to the East, 100 miles to the South or 200 miles to the West it gets expensive (because the idea of the United States of Europe has failed in the face of capitalism).

I can cycle to work. Or to town. Without going on the roads, because there are cycle tracks everywhere. Lots of people do. But I'm too out of shape to do it. I probably should, because I'm overweight.

* I've been to Florida & NYC; they were like two different countries.

* Florida (1995) was a shit hole full of rude and ignorant people with plastic smiles. The officials at the airport were assholes, they treated the black and Asian foreigners like dirt. The people who weren't being assholes were all astonished to hear my British accent, they loved how quaint and foreign it sounded, "just like Monty Python" and "just like the Beatles" apparently (I sound nothing like either).

* NYC (2008) is fantasic. The people were friendly, they didn't patronise you. The police were friendly and helpful. The people at the Airport were great - nicer than they are in London Heathrow. That was the biggest surprise of all, and says the most about New York.

<comment><USER5> Yankee living in the UK here...

I totally agree with your sentiment and let me play something out on the flip- side that I noticed about British life...

British people are brought up in a society that teaches them average is always OK and that life has dealt it's cards, so just deal with it. I know this is a sweeping generalization, and isn't how _everyone_ in Great Britain operates, but this has been my general understanding of the motivation culture in this fine country. I've had this discussion with many people, either foreign or not, and they tend to believe this is a result of being in a class-system for hundreds of years.

You see, America was built and is comprised largely of the most motivated people on the planet. They (we) came to find the country because they wanted something better. Does the American Dream still exist? Of course it does, because it's an idea and will only die if we tell the idea to die. America is NOT for everyone. As you've outlined, not EVERYONE wants to live like that. I enjoy the same comforts as you, but I believe if I have the same superior means and the intelligence a you, I can earn vastly more money in the US and live vastly more comfortable. Does that mean I necessarily want that life? Not really, it's just that America provides and culturally accepts that plausibility of it, regardless of whether it's truly a reality.

This is probably going to be a radical statement - but I really wish the poor people of America had the ability to leave the country. They are really the only ones who complain about America not being suitable and backwards. If you're rich in America, there's little to complain about and life is good. What this would do is force the rich to provide better support to the poor, because without the poor the rich won't exist and we'd have a much bigger middle class (which is something that has made America so strong).

<comment><USER33> Ahh, another outlier :)

That's a good observation about the British. They're also really pessimistic (Americans are broadly positive). And, unfortunately, they're very small minded (polar opposite of Americans). That's the result of being a fallen Empire, I guess.

I like the Dutch: they're stubborn and everyone has an opinion on everything BUT they respect that. Heck, it's expected. That's something they have in common with Americans (very direct and opinionated). They have a similar background (America was colonized by various Christian sects, The Netherlands was the central hub of lots of sects because it was the only place they managed to live together without killing each other). Yet they're pragmatic, and largely class-less. Same as the Scandinavians. They also share the same 19th century ideas over work as the Yanks (>40h weeks, retire at 67), only they have holidays. Protestant work ethic at work.

BTW, I would recommend spending some time living in a foreign country - as a native (INTEGRATING, not moving to Spain to live with a load of rich British ex-pats) to anyone reading. It really opens your mind, and changes the way you think about yourself (and the world as a whole). Even better if you can combine it with learning another language.

<comment><USER15> On work hours, the Scandinavians do still have the Protestant work ethic culturally, but have been trying to cut back on number of hours, out of a theory (probably correct imo) that in a modern information economy it's more about quality of work than quantity of hours in chair. The current Danish workweek is 37 hours, and followed quite religiously. Everyone is on time and works efficiently during the day (no 2-hour lunches), but few people can be found in the office past 3pm on a Friday.

Scandinavia is also an interesting option on the last point if you aren't up to the language-learning, though there are pros/cons. It's actually harder to integrate language-wise than most other places, because the languages are phonologically difficult for Americans (especially Danish), and people all speak good English so their patience for your broken language is low as they can just switch. So you'll probably learn more Spanish in Spain or Italian in Italy than Danish in Denmark. But because of the good English, it's quite possible to at least partly integrate culturally if you find the right social circles. (It also makes it easy to deal with formalities, since much government and bank correspondence can be done in English if you request it.)

<comment><USER20> It is true that quality is more important than quantity. But somehow in many cases people do use that as an excuse to slack off, and on the contrary, people delivering the best quality also those that do not skimp on quantity. If somebody knows how to do his thing in an excellent way, he'd probably also stay after 3pm on Friday to finish his thing. If his mind turns off at 3pm, then maybe he wasn't turned on too much even at 2pm. At least where it concerns professions which require personal engagement, if you just dig holes 9 to 5 (to 3 on Friday) then it's different of course.

<comment><USER15> I guess I don't think that's true. Imo, the best quality comes from companies with happy employees who have good work/life balances, not from the kind of places that expect employees to be chained to the boss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Absolutely not. Solutions implemented by people from other countries work because they've been implemented by people from different _cultures_ , cultures which are compatible with those solutions. Attempting to implement a culturally-alien solution within America would likely fail, but not before wasting a lot of everyone's time and money and not before fouling up what's already working.

To 'make America great' would require a deep cultural understanding of Americans and how American culture both helps and hinders them. It would then require solutions tailored to American culture - or if no culturally- compatible solution could be found, a plan to alter the culture before implementing the solution, fully appreciating that by altering the culture we may weaken some of America's real strengths.

This isn't easy at all to do and get right - which is why our default stance should be 'unless there's a really, really compelling reason to change things, don't tinker with it.' The Constitution's checks and balances are in place to enforce this stance, so people like the author can't rashly tinker with things on the strength of a single election, and cause more problems than they fix.

</comment><comment><USER35> This.

I've spent most of my adult life outside of the US, after having spent my childhood and university in Florida. Now, when I travel in the States, I see a _lot_ of good everywhere I go, but it's undeniable that other countries are doing certain things better (I'd argue that nobody has it all together, though Singapore comes mighty close in my book).

This is actually a great thing for the US in many ways -- we've spent almost a century in the lead, having to figure out what works through trial and error. Now the entire world is participating in this trial and error, and we are (in theory, if we're willing to be a bit humble and admit we don't know it all) able to benefit from the discoveries made without paying for the trials.

There will probably never be a repeat of the 1950s, where the United States dominated the world in almost every category, but ... who cares? The 1950s sucked in a lot of ways for a lot of people, most Americans included. That doesn't mean we can't maintain parity, and exceed in certain areas in which we've made priorities.

<comment><USER10> > Now the entire world is participating

The entire world has been "participating" for centuries, long before the US even existed.

You may have picked up on that in your life outside the US.

<comment><USER36> Now the entire world is participating _in the way of doing things that the US pioneered in the 19th and 20th centuries_.

The US was indeed exceptional for most of this time. It's not anymore, but it's more because the rest of the world caught up, not so much because the US stopped (although resting on laurels has certainly slowed it down).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The word "freedom" appeared in this piece exactly 0 times. Ditto for "liberty." A society cannot be both free and equal. Amidst America's large geographic size, high population, and many different cultures, there are two warring factions that will ultimately split the country in two.

There are those that espouse the views of the author, where privileges are derived from a central government composed of only the most intelligent and gifted members of society. The means of production are centrally controlled and wealth is distributed by whatever means dictated by the core elite.

And then there are those that want to live free. Those that believe that rights come from nature and from god, and that government cannot create rights, only take them away.

These two ideas cannot coexist in one nation. America has survived with both so far because of our size. But soon the division will be too great and we will hopefully go our separate ways. We tried once before.

</comment><comment><USER38> He hasn't been mentioned yet: Rocky Anderson <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Anderson>

</comment><comment><USER39> It's pretty telling that even an article trying to question the culture of unquestionable-exceptionalism is still chock-full of jingoistic language that says "if we just fix a few things we'll be the best country on earth again", as if such a thing was or is factual or even possible.

Not "exceptionalism is a myth" but "exceptionalism needs a new paint job". This is what passes for dissent in mainstream American discourse.

<comment><USER40> awesome point. you hit the nail on the head i think - this is an article soaked with deep cultural ego. unfortunately, these sorts of self-centered attitudes are probably necessary to rouse the interest of the average american reader. after all, america as a country is divorced from reality. kind of makes you wonder if there's any hope for the place in the long-term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Maybe there should be a moratorium on non-technical stories.

There are many more socio-political interest stories on HN than there used to and the rhetoric in the comments sections tends to be poor.

<comment><USER40> surely articles such as this are of value in challenging and expanding the perspective of the average american HN reader? after all, good entrepreneurs are well-rounded. and as this article (and the comments) makes it clear, the software industry in the US is something of a bubble, insulated from the troubling problems of contemporary american society. problems american entrepreneurs ignore at their own long-term risk.

as for the level of rhetoric in this comment section, I think it is high, and contains many interesting points to consider.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> "We are on strike, we, the men of the mind."

</comment><comment><USER43> It is already great, there is no need!</comment>


Imgp – Blazing fast image resizer and rotator - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jarun/imgp/blob/master/README.md <comment><USER2> If it meets the guidelines, this might make a good 'Show HN'. Show HN guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't edit the subject to make it a Show HN post. The edit option is not available.

<comment><USER2> Maybe if you ask the moderators using the | contact | link at the bottom of the page, they will change it.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you like a service to teach you etiquette? - <AUTHOR>

I'm working on such a service right now, and I have to ask: would you pay for it? I think a lot of people in this world today don't know how to carry themselves properly. The way you present yourself is extremely important and it can make or break opportunities for you. So, what do you think? <comment><USER2> I might pay $5 for an app that would be sort of my wikipedia on etiquette, but I don't know how you could monetize this as a service - much of the information is available for free online, so it would have to have a strong value-add.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is it properly internationalised?

In the workplace some places expect you to take your jacket off and roll up your sleeves. You're not working hard enough if you don't. Other countries expect you to have sleeves unrolled and tie nice and straight, otherwise you're a sloppy worker.

I can definitely see someone (but not me) paying a small amount for that kind of information - the cultural notes you need when visiting some other nation.

</comment><comment><USER4> Not at all. The very phrasing "carry themselves properly" makes me bristle. From what I've seen of etiquette teaching services, the rules taught have about as much relevance good behavior as as "Elements of Style" has to how English is actually used. Modifying from Pullum's criticism of the latter, it's "uninformed bossiness ... and the result is a nation of educated people who know they feel vaguely anxious and insecure."

<comment><USER2> As is the case with both The Elements of Style and etiquette or any 'art,' you need to know the rules before you can break them.

<comment><USER4> My point is that many of them are bad rules ... easy to memorize, but bad rules. As a simple example, "However. In the meaning nevertheless, not to come first in its sentence or clause." That's not how English was used 100 years ago, nor how it's used now, so it's pointless rule to learn. And famously, three of Strunk and White's four examples of how to rewrite the passive into better form don't actually involve a passive. Only in retrospect do I understand why I was so confused about "avoiding the passive" during school - my teachers didn't know what a passive was!

Etiquette rules are often the same. Why stand for the "Hallelujah" chorus? Because that's the done thing. Why do people in the US eat with the fork inverted from the way used in the UK? Why is port always passed to the left in the UK, and how is the Bishop of Norwich involved?

The real answer is two-fold. Knowing these practices indicate the you are a member of a certain group. By not knowing them you can feel like an outsider. If there really are a set of easily-learned rules to follow, then you can make the transition to that group. (Jumping back to Element of Style; follow these rules to become a better writer.)

But only rarely is there a simple set of rules to follow - like if you were to meet the Queen of England. It takes years to learn the little rules that a given subgroup acquired over decades, not the few weeks these classes usually do. Plus, etiquette classes usually promote etiquette rules specific to a certain style of upper-class culture, and direct their marketing to people of lower social/economic class. The end result is that they encourage a feeling of vague anxiety and nervousness in their target audience, and perhaps also a sense of superiority in those in the upper-class who learned these rules growing up.

The other fold is that there are some bad things which are easily avoided with preparation. Don't wear orange at a big, rowdy St. Patrick's Day party in Boston unless you're itching for a fight. Those especially occur when mixing very different cultures; eg, in part of the world "Chopsticks should not be left standing vertically in a bowl of rice or other food" because they have a funeral connotation. Cultural awareness training for this case, especially for people moving overseas to a radically different culture, can be very fruitful.

However, as the original poster said "carry themselves properly", I presume the courses are of the first fold - promotion of certain economically upper- class practices - and not the second - avoiding culture clashes.

In any case, it isn't a matter of learning rules before you can break them. It's a matter of learning specific rules in order to appeal to those who believe that those rules are meaningful, whether it be an editor who rejects ".. or less" as valid English, or a person who thinks only buffoons wear white after Labor Day. With that in mind, "carry themselves properly" is not longer absolute but only meaningful if you want to get something from that subgroup of people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have difficulty imagining how this would work. Etiquette is very context specific and rooted in having substantial background knowledge to employ it properly. Since you seem to think there is some nice, neat little set of rules to follow, I have difficulty believing you are even qualified to teach such a thing. Feel free to try to enlighten me. This is simply not computing for me.

</comment><comment><USER6> That's what AskMen is for.</comment>


World first as artificial neurons developed to cure chronic diseases - <AUTHOR> https://m.techxplore.com/news/2019-12-world-artificial-neurons-chronic-diseases.html <comment><AUTHOR> It's interesting to imagine we might one day scale this up to simulate enough neutrons to have something that could be considered conscious</comment>


Aphyr Uses This - <AUTHOR> https://usesthis.com/interviews/kyle.kingsbury/ <comment><AUTHOR> I run Debian (hi Jess!). It's mostly stock except for ZFS, and using OpenBox+GKrellM+xfce-panel as my window manager. I love having virtual workspaces and configurable bindings for everything. I use irssi for IRC, Mutt/Geary for mail, Chromium for browsing, and Pidgin for IM. I edit photos in darktable and The GIMP, and do my vector work in Inkscape. Morganastra sold me on the Fish shell a few years ago and I've never looked back.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Aphyr.com is a big mass of custom Ruby+Sinatra running on a Linode. Jepsen.io is a Clojure site, running on Skyliner. The articles are written in Markdown and preprocessed with Pandoc. There's a lot of LaTeX in my life, come to think of it.</comment>


Shimmers are the newest tool for stealing credit card info - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/shimmers-criminal-chip-card-reader-fraud-1.3953438 <comment><USER2> How is this possible? Wasn't the point of chip cards to sign specific transactions using an internally stored secret? Or is it actually just an obtuse way to move a shared secret around?

</comment><comment><USER3> What "tap" function is the author talking about?

<comment><USER4> I believe they're referring to "contactless" use. Here are the reference I found:

[https://www.shopify.com/blog/36816197-emv-chip-cards-are- com...](https://www.shopify.com/blog/36816197-emv-chip-cards-are-coming-to- the-u-s-heres-what-merchants-need-to-know)

 _Tap (Contactless)

Data between chip card and a payment terminal is exchanged wirelessly when the two come into contact. In most cases, the customer will be required to provide no verification for smaller transactions. New forms of mobile payments like Apple Pay will also work this way._

Here's another article describing it (and potential issues):

[http://globalnews.ca/news/2295763/tap-and-pay-cards-its- fast...](http://globalnews.ca/news/2295763/tap-and-pay-cards-its-fast-and- convenient-but-is-it-more-secure/)

I'm by no means an expert! I just used google. Clarification and corrections most welcome!</comment></comment>


Mapping the Haunts of Locals vs. Tourists - <AUTHOR> http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/10/locals-and-tourists.html

<comment><AUTHOR> These maps were created by a friend of mine, by mining the geotags of photos posted on Flickr. It's neat to look at, for example, the map of New York, where the tourists have hot spots near midtown and Times Square, while the locals favor the East Village and Brooklyn (not surprising, if you know anything about NYC hipster photographers).

<comment><USER2> Hi, whoever you are that knows me! I was the one who plotted these.</comment></comment>


DigitalOcean – More CPUs, memory, and SSD storage for less money - <AUTHOR> https://go.digitalocean.com/index.php/email/emailWebview?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlRFMVpXUmpabVppWWpFeiIsInQiOiJob3hET29meVNhYkovc3JSZmNMTnMxQ04zTCswYUZXU01XT2laWnUwV0RXNlFaR0xkbHRPcWVXR0d1YURiTytQT1VPMXdHTmhkTTJXTWdBWHBtdkJFYkJpQ0FKakVVcTgzQ2JHNTNwaC81andLSnhCMDFNaUtWcHlqNkNZakNuRiJ9 <comment><USER2> Still about 4x as much as Hetzner cloud. Too bad they're only in Europe..

<comment><USER3> Don't go with Hetzner if you value whatever you're working on. I was working on a machine learning project and they deleted everything in my account without any warning. One of their employees did this deliberately because they weren't sure if my last name was correct. There was no attempt to remedy this by contacting me, and they had no way to restore the data. They told me that I would just have to start from scratch.

You get what you pay for.

<comment><USER2> I've used them with vps, dedicated server and cloud services and never had any issues. Are you sure you didn't get email warnings that you ignored?

Apart from that, having off-site backup is crucial either way and should be done with any provider.

<comment><USER3> I got a singular e-mail that said I needed to address a ticket attached to the e-mail, which wasn't attached, and I needed to address this by logging into their website, which I couldn't since they deactivated my account. By the time their phone support opened in the morning everything was gone.

Adding offsite backup was literally my next task as well. I think I just got too comfortable from never having a problem with any other VPS host in the past. Lesson learned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Original announcement was Jan/16\. [https://blog.digitalocean.com/new-droplet- plans/](https://blog.digitalocean.com/new-droplet-plans/)

</comment><comment><USER5> previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16159214](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16159214), [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16185593](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16185593)

</comment><comment><USER6> Wow, this pricing is great. It's been a few years since I looked into Digital Ocean, it seems like they've made a lot of improvements since I last used them for a small Rails app.

</comment><comment><USER7> This means that for me, Vultr has lost its primary selling point

<comment><USER8> So what is DO's primary selling point then?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Would really like the ability to use custom iso / os on DO instances.

<comment><USER10> That would be nice indeed. On a separate note, I love the fact that they support freebsd!</comment></comment>


Apple rejects Hey.com app update and demands cut of sales - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21293419/hey-apple-rejection-ios-app-store-dhh-gangsters-antitrust <comment><USER2> It's baffling to me. I can buy a USD1k+ device and still not be able to install on it the apps I want because the manufacturer doesn't want me to, and this is legal? Such horsecrap.

People get annoyed when folks on the internet repeatedly bring up Libre/Free software and software freedoms, but just look at this shit.

There's essentially _no_ way for me to install an app on my iPhone if Apple doesn't want me to, even though I paid over $1000 for it.

<comment><USER3> Why buy apple then?

<comment><USER4> I'm a diehard Android user, but you cant deny the benefits of Apple's tightknit ecosystem.

Apple is a very "my way or the highway" in their approach to software design. This doesn't really matter to Apple as a company because an overwhelming majority of their customers wont know or care about this controversy or limitation and will continue to use the apps Apple allows and only those.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's been an established practice for several years now to exclusively allow in-app purchases through websites to avoid the cut on in-app payments. A while back apps would display the catalog of available purchases in app and kick users to a web browser when they went to buy. Apple didn't like that. IIRC this was another big deal with Fortnite. Originally Epic was going to have users download the APKs to get around the play store tariff. I think this prompted Google to offer more favorable terms.

More and more it feels like Apple isn't selling hardware so much as licensing hardware. Google has similar issues but it's much easier to get around them. At least they still let users install arbitrary APKs if they enable it in settings.

</comment><comment><USER6> But ... this is a free front-end onto a SAAS, right? Like spotify, netflix etc. none of whom pay Apple's menaces - unless I'm mistaken.

Besides, if Apple want to undermine their platform and have mobile web continue to take over - that's up to them.

</comment><comment><USER7> Paying for email service has nothing to do with their store. What sort of in- app purchases would this be, paying to Apple a couple of cents for each email you send and receive, how ridiculous can it be?

</comment><comment><USER8> Does anyone know how Apple deal with other email providers such as Outlook, ProtonMail, Gmail, etc. that offer consumer paid services with a custom client in the App Store?

Does Apple get a cut of Outlook Premium, ProtonMail's monthly charge, GSuite, etc?

<comment><USER9> One vector is if you pay in the app, Apple gets its cut.

Platforms that are "mobile first" are at a disadvantage (I'm not sure what Hey's split is).

But in your list, a desktop web UI is primary, and billing can happen there without addition costs. If a company wants to offer payment natively and via an iOS app, Apple gets their 30% on the mobile payments.

<comment><USER8> So what you're saying is as Microsoft (as an example) does not let you signup/pay for Outlook Premium within the Outlook iOS app Apple do not get a cut?

If so why is this approach being denied to Hey.com? Reading David's tweet it seems Apple are saying Hey.com _have_ to add an option to subscribe and pay for the Hey service within the app and give Apple a 30% cut. Or am I not reading things right?

Edit: further reading shows Apple are comparing "business services" and "consumer" products as being the difference.

As in a "business service" can charge externally to the App Store and provide an app for said service without Apple getting a cut but as a "consumer" that exception is void.

Not really sure how that makes any difference though as Microsoft (again as an example) allow anyone to buy their services be it a business or a consumer. I don't see how this is any different for Hey.com.

<comment><USER9> I'm not suggesting that Apple applies its policies uniformly, nor that Apple's economics are good nor bad. A company like Microsoft has leverage that Hey does not, and that may be a problem.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Is the DOS Path Character ""? – Larry Osterman's WebLog - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/larryosterman/2005/06/24/why-is-the-dos-path-character/ <comment><USER2> Cruel irony? Both HN and MS's blog seem to treat the backslash as an escape.</comment>


Generative Art with CSS (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://generative-art-with-css.commons.host/ <comment><USER2> Codepen Links for the curious:

[https://codepen.io/yuanchuan/pen/ZqbVVL](https://codepen.io/yuanchuan/pen/ZqbVVL)

[https://codepen.io/yuanchuan/pen/wZJqNK](https://codepen.io/yuanchuan/pen/wZJqNK)

[https://codepen.io/yuanchuan/pen/Lwyjxd](https://codepen.io/yuanchuan/pen/Lwyjxd)

[https://codepen.io/yuanchuan/pen/YoqWeR](https://codepen.io/yuanchuan/pen/YoqWeR)

<comment><USER3> >[https://codepen.io/yuanchuan/pen/Lwyjxd](https://codepen.io/yuanchuan/pen/Lwyjxd) This is perfect for my SG1 inspired reskin of webwormhole p2p file transfer project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another awesome generative art web component, inspired by <css-doodle> is <shader-doodle>: [https://github.com/halvves/shader- doodle](https://github.com/halvves/shader-doodle)

It's basically a ShaderToy that you can easily drop on a page. Some examples here: [https://shader-doodle-overview.glitch.me/](https://shader-doodle- overview.glitch.me/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I love articles like this! This reminds me of an article from back in the day on using multiple backgrounds to create a non-repeating infinite tiling image. It used varying ratios to make it possible to use a specific set of sprites to create variance. Sadly, can't find it anymore. It was about 15 years ago in the A List Apart heyday.

<comment><USER6> This is probably not that article you referring to, but similar one: [https://www.sitepoint.com/the-cicada-principle-and-why-it- ma...](https://www.sitepoint.com/the-cicada-principle-and-why-it-matters-to- web-designers/)

<comment><USER5> Yes, thanks for digging it up!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Gorgeous, thank you. To me this is generative art for people who don't like generative art. Most generative art doesn't strike me as beautiful, but many of these creations do. It's also a good way to learn CSS graphics painlessly.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is super neat and appealing. Thank you for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER9> This is insane! Amazing work

</comment><comment><USER10> no fiddle :/ ?</comment>


The Trouble with TypeScript - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/ryansolid/the-trouble-with-typescript-4fpp <comment><AUTHOR> "If you treat TypeScript as a language in its own right, with albeit a smaller feature set than JavaScript, you will do just fine. If you treat TypeScript as JavaScript with types you will be disappointed."

Idiomatic TS done right looks very different from dynamic JS done right. The old "TS is just a superset of JS" sounds like the good old "embrace, extend, extinguish" MS was infamous for in the past.</comment>