Ask HN: STEM partners for middle school in Lakebay, Washington - <AUTHOR>

Hey, I am Jeri Goebel, principal at Key Peninsula Middle School. For 11 years, we have been a NASA Explorer school, offering students, staff, parents and the community many aerospace experiences, events, staff development, and student trips.  Over the past three years, our school has become a STEM school offering interesting classes such as CAD, Forensics, Multi-Media Productions, Robotics, and Intro to Manufacturing.
My problem is that I am looking for new partners and ideas to help work with and guide our teachers in offering more rigorous and interesting projects.  Currently we offer your typical egg drop exercise and other programs I find are limited in rigor and provided limited in-depth scientific experiences.
Could the Y-Combinatory community please help with directing me toward more interesting group activities? Also, are any of you in the area willing to help direct some of these activities? <comment><USER2> Take a look at FIRST robotics, if you haven't already. They have 3 different leagues. FTC (possibly FLL) might be the most relevant for a middle school. I'm not sure how big it is on the West Coast, but as an alumni of a high school team, it was definitely a big motivator for me and choosing a software engineer career.

It also incorporates a lot of different disciplines, from CAD to software engineering (programming) to mechanical design.

[http://www.usfirst.org/](http://www.usfirst.org/)

<comment><AUTHOR> That is a great recommendation. I found the local WA chapter, [https://www.firstwa.org/](https://www.firstwa.org/), and will contact them.

Do you have another other ideas as well?

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure how wide spread Project Lead the Way is, but that was also a great program that my school had when I was younger. They appear to have a middle school curriculum, but I have no experience in education, so not sure how wide spread it is.

[https://www.pltw.org/our-programs/](https://www.pltw.org/our-programs/)</comment></comment></comment>


Someone is wrong on the internet - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ezyang.com/2011/03/someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet/

<comment><USER2> <http://www.xkcd.com/386/> : Duty calls

<http://www.xkcd.com/438/> : Internet argument</comment>


A brief history of Apple's iWatch - Anil Dash - <AUTHOR> http://dashes.com/anil/2013/08/a-brief-history-of-apples-iwatch.html?new

<comment><USER2> I wonder who will actually buy this - or just another fad that will slowly diminish</comment>


How Google May Be Planning To Make Android Apps Faster With ART - <AUTHOR> http://readwrite.com/2013/11/07/how-google-may-be-planning-to-make-android-apps-faster-with-art

<comment><AUTHOR> There is one thing I fail to understand. I have seen the low end Android phones complaining about low space. This implementation makes apps to occupy more space that they normally would - making the above mentioned problem worse.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER2> I'm guessing like most things, it's a trade-off. I believe Dalvik was designed to be frugal with both disk and memory but if those are growing faster than CPU then it would make sense to revisit that decision.

More specifically though, I think the code in Android apps is a small fraction of the app size, compared with images, audio and video resources.</comment></comment>


Net neutrality problem explained like a boss, by Andrew Lippman - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/pcorp/status/951831890733993984 <comment><USER2> Here's the original YouTube link: [https://youtu.be/AdANAZ- bk44](https://youtu.be/AdANAZ-bk44)</comment>


Fuck you, Money - <AUTHOR> http://adgrok.com/fuck-you-money <comment><USER3> I have to say, I nearly threw this article across the proverbial room after reading the second paragraph:

> Before that point, you're just adding frosting on the lifestyle cake of your > wage-slave existence. Beyond that point, you can forget about aspirational > consumer buying of 48-inch flat-panel TVs. You suddenly confront the most > existential questions in human life: what do I do with my life? What's a > good life? No one's forcing me to do anything, so what do I do now?

I'm sorry, but that's just offensive. The fact that you can't imagine a "wage- slave" contemplating these questions is probably closely linked to why you can't imagine a successful startup founder getting off the treadmill either. If you were willing to take your $4.2M or whatever and be happy, you'd also be able to understand that you can live a good life without that kind of money too. (Free hint: it's not the 48-inch TV that makes your life fulfilling.)

<comment><USER4> I think perhaps you're interpreting what he wrote too harshly.

I took it to mean that once you have FU money, you _have to_ confront these questions because there's nothing left for you to worry about. Much of our time and mental effort is spent dealing with and worrying about survival. (Not survival in the hunter-gatherer sense, but making sure you have enough money in the next few days/weeks/months/years to live on.) When you worry about that every day, it's easier to not think about the big stuff. When only the big stuff is left, it's hard not to think about it.

<comment><USER5> What technology worker spends all day worrying about survival? It's not hard to save up a couple years living expenses on a software engineer salary, and it's not hard to find another job (or even found a successful company) if you have a couple years to do it.

<comment><USER4> Many people with wage-based jobs adjust their lifestyle so that they're always living, roughly, paycheck to paycheck. Also, I tried to get across that I mean survival in the sense of "What do I need to do in the short and long term to make sure I can get by?"

<comment><USER6> I have found my spending has decreased as my salary has increased. Granted, I have not gotten any major pay bumps in the last few years, but having bought a lot of the things I wanted to buy and I don't need to keep spending money getting a better version of the same thing. But, it's more than just stuff, spending 60$ at a restaurant is fun the first few times, but after a while there is little novelty in it. You also build up equity, I went from an 18 year old car 100$ trade in value to buy a new one and now that my new car is almost paid off I don't see a reason to replace it anytime soon or get an upgrade with my car "equity".

PS: IMO, unless you have children there is little stopping the average developer from retiring at 45.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think these guys might be the best trolls I've ever seen on the web. First the NY Sucks article, and now this.

Everything from the title, to the giant fuck you to "wage slaves" in the 2nd paragraph, to the fuck you to investors in the 4th paragraph to the fuck you to the Goldman folks later on, screams, "I'M GOING TO PISS YOU OFF SO YOU PAY ATTENTION TO ME."

Bravo!

Might I suggest a topic for your next essay? "Are you a creative type? FUCK YOU! Non-creative type? FUCK YOU, TOO!"

<comment><USER8> Agreed. He even admits as much in one of the essays he linked to:

"What's work like now? Writing code. Worrying about everything from our credit card billing to the pile of dirty dishes in the sink that will give us all diptheria some day. Writing linkbait blog posts to get us free PR (like the one you're reading now)."

[http://adgrok.com/why-founding-a-three-person-startup- with-z...](http://adgrok.com/why-founding-a-three-person-startup-with-zero- revenue-is-better-than-working-for-goldman-sachs)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> _the reality is you're doomed if you're even asking yourself the question. You know what I think? I think people who tell themselves 'if I make $X million, then I'll stop working and do what I want' never make that $X million._

I'm not sure the OP has grasped the complete psychology of FU money. Surely the value of FU money is not to allow one to stop working, it is in the emotional pay-off for the security it represents. This is a big deal, especially for people who, for example, experienced financial insecurity as children. I am guessing there are also tangible social benefits to reaching that stage, even if you changed nothing in your life upon achieving it.

<comment><USER10> In the world of high-stakes poker, it is commonly understood that the only way to make a million dollars playing poker is not to want to make a million dollars. If you care about the money, your lizard brain takes over and stops you from taking the risks you need to take. As soon as you see the chips on the table as dollar bills, you're finished. Practically the definition of greatness in poker is the ability to play the same for pennies as you would for millions - as far as the great players are concerned, it's not really money, it's just how you keep score.

I think the OP is making a similar argument about startup founders - if you're emotionally invested in the payoff, your ability to make the right decisions will be impaired. You'll choose smaller markets, less ambitious products, make safer design decisions. You think too much about making money and not enough about growing a business. I think it's no coincidence that the likes of Page and Brin and Zuckerberg never really intended to start businesses. I think it's no accident that Warren Buffett still drives an old Cadillac and lives in his old suburban house.

<comment><USER11> _I think it's no coincidence that the likes of Page and Brin and Zuckerberg never really intended to start businesses. I think it's no accident that Warren Buffett still drives an old Cadillac and lives in his old suburban house._

I can think of a few counter-examples - Bill Gates, Mark Cuban, Felix Dennis.

<comment><USER12> There are a lot of examples on an even much larger scale. I know two folks who have sold businesses and now live in Hawaii doing practically nothing. It's really not that uncommon. It's just that those folks fade into memory while the workaholics continue to work and increase in overall profile.

It really feels a lot like the 90 hour work week insanity of the tech boom. For years after that I encountered business-types who would enthusiastically tell me during interviews that they're "the type of company where developers keep a sleeping bag under their desk". Apparently that's the key to success, except that very few of the startups I've encountered actually operate that way.

<comment><USER5> A bunch of startups that I've encountered operate that way, but there seems to be a strong negative correlation between sleeping at the office and the eventual success of the startup. The ones I know that _succeed_ work hard, often 9-10 hour days, but their employees have weekends and aren't at the office all night long.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interestingly I find a similar drive within myself. Many years ago I told myself I'd start a business when I had $10k in hand. Then it became $20k, then $50k, then $100k, now it's more...

Of course I realize that there's no good time to leave a good job -- just like there's no good time to have a baby. It's a moving target -- and if you want to do something, you just have to jump the nest and do it.

Because our minds work on a relative basis ("I make good money but he makes more") and because our dopamine payoff from money is never as good as we anticipate it to be ("no, winning the lottery will not make you happier"), it makes sense that more is never enough.

<comment><USER5> I try to frame it in terms of skills learned: "I'll start my next company when I've learned X and Y and tangibly accomplished Z." This is also a moving target, but at least it takes effort to move the goalposts, in the form of figuring out what your next goal is. At that point, you have to think about it anyway, so if the rational choice is "It's time to leave and start my company now," that should at least enter into your mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Beyond that point, you can forget about aspirational consumer buying of 48-inch flat-panel TVs. You suddenly confront the most existential questions in human life: what do I do with my life? What's a good life? No one's forcing me to do anything, so what do I do now?"

Actually long before the point of becoming a startup founder and possibly making to "fuck you money", you can ask that question.

Other options prior to "fuck you money" that I've considered, and having worked in a startup still might make me enjoy my life more (while working at a good "wage-slave job" 9-5)

1) Building a boat. It wouldn't be worthwhile economically, but it sure would be fun.

2) Dropping out of society and becoming a ski bum, and doing absolutely nothing every single day but ski. (did it, it was really fun, but eventually it becomes boring)

3) Working for a big established company on research that wouldn't be possible at a startup (crazy thought I know, but sometimes the big companies actually have advantages)

4) Going down the ph.D. route and becoming a professor

5) Skipping all of it and being a high school teacher and inspiring youth the way I was inspired, and coding FOSS stuff at nights and during the summer

All of them lead to meaningful and _fun_ lives in the manner that working on stupid web app designed to sell some ad impressions so I can make 8 million bucks of "fuck you money" just doesn't, at least for me.

Now a startup that actually changes the world, well I'd do that for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with "fuck you money".

How about "fuck you living", as in, I get to do what I want and say fuck you to anyone who says otherwise (including this guy), and it has nothing to do with how much money I have in the bank. It all comes down to the decisions you make.

</comment><comment><USER15> I stopped reading at "wage-slave". Let's not use language that implies that working for a wage is slavery. Slavery is always forced on you, you have _no choice_ but to work, not because you need to eat, but because the man with the whip says so. It's offensive to compare the situation of a slave and someone who earns a salary.

Slavery is force, not from nature, but from another human being, if you can't see the the distinction between adapting to our environment (sure, we have to eat) and being forced by another human being to work, or die, then sorry, I won't bother reading whatever it is you want me to read.

<comment><USER16> Hierarchy of needs: air, food, shelter. If you live in the USA and want food and shelter, you cannot get it without paying the man taxes. Even if you own your own land, you must pay taxes on it.

The counter argument (that one could be a homeless person), is no more useful than pointing out that a slave could choose to die: yes a hard choice, but a _choice_ non the less.

So the creation of a tax system, whereby a person is forced to pay taxes, a percentage of which goes to the rich that hold government debt, is a system where everyone is forced to work by men with guns. That's slavery.

But you can believe that you're not a slave just because there are slaves, or have been slaves, who have even less choices than you do.

<comment><USER14> If you don't make any money, you won't have to pay taxes. If you don't have any bills, you won't need to make any money.

Taxes are not what creates the issue you refer to, bills are.

The individual really controls those expenses. That is why any comparison to slavery is asine, out of touch, and offensive. Rolling in TAXES == SLAVERY is the icing on the cake.

You control your own expenses. I've lived very cheap. Give up your car, your house, your savings, your retirement account, you restaurent budget, your going out budget. The only thing left is rent and food. I lived for a whole winter as a ski bum with a couple guys, you split up rent in a cheap cabin and shop at the grocery store and it becomes almost free.

There is a reason people can ski all day and get by just by waiting tables or cleaning toilets - it is because they have found out that the thing holding most people into day to day salaried jobs are self imposed. If you give all of that up to do something you want, you are completely free.

So don't say it can't be done, because I have lived through it and enjoyed every minute of it.

<comment><USER17> I've known plenty of people like this in the climbing community. When you drop out of society, it is amazing how little you need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> From the comma in the title, I thought the article was about recognizing money isn't a guarantee of happiness. As in, "Say, "Fuck you" to money itself. And instead focus on living life (and running a company) that doesn't rely on a purely materialistic metric of success."

Sadly, that's not what the article was about.

</comment><comment><USER19> _I think people who tell themselves 'if I make $X million, then I'll stop working and do what I want' never make that $X million._

If that's the case, then why do so many start-ups sell to bigger companies? Every month we hear about another one. The "swing for the fences" companies that go through to IPO (Facebook, Google) or massive acquisition (Youtube) are more and more rare.

The Angel's question is meaningless unless you also know how optimistic you are about the company's chances of growing enough to deserve a much better deal.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, this guy worked at Goldman and believes that "rapacious greed" is necessary for success. Well, I don't doubt that's true in the financial world. But in the wider world there are more types of motivations. As an investor, it's reasonable to favor greed, but it's silly to think that money is the only thing that puts fire in a person's belly. Consider Stallman and Torvalds for instance... I'd argue they've added more value to the world than any partner at Goldman ever has.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm not sure how typical the angel quote is, most angels would be happy as long as the founders were happy with a buy-out.

An exit of 15 million which yields $500K to the investor after putting up $100K means that the angel only holds about 3% of the company anyway.

Also, as a rule you don't blog or write about your verbal agreement, you wait until the agreement is in writing and the money is in the bank and you've agreed with your investors that you can go public with the news.

Some people will back out of a deal if you go public like this, even if they're not mentioned by name.

A deal isn't done until the money is in the bank.

And essentially he write that he told the guy just what he thought he wanted to hear, and now blogs that he is baffled by this _and_ and that he didn't tell him the truth.

Let's hope that said 'angel' doesn't read that blog.

</comment><comment><USER22> _The company valuation he'd get in on would mean that such an acquisition would represent a 5x return, over something like three months. That's a gargantuan return on an annualized basis._

You're totally missing the part where angels invest in companies that give them zero return. Even the worst stocks give you _some_ money back. Unfair comparison.

</comment><comment><USER23> "Before anything else, let's do the numbers: money market funds yield around 4%."

What? The Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund (VMMXX) is yielding about 0.13% right now, and I think that's fairly typical.

<comment><USER24> "Right now" is a weird time for US dollar assets. Take a longer-term view and 4% is reasonable.

Incidentally, my savings account in Australia is still paying 4.6%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> To answer the authors question. Absolutely sell out, if your first success buys you the freedom to fail a thousand more times it is worth selling. He said those that would sell out are those that don't already have FU money, that they aren't in the club. Those founders that hold out might already have that FU money and are free to risk holding out. Each founder in those cases can't be compared.

A man asked me to follow him into a startup I didn't believe in, he could go in and fail completely and come out the other side without a scratch because of his previous success. The risk was too high for me because I didn't already have FU money to cushion a complete failure.

<comment><USER21> Going in to a start-up with founders that have different risk profiles is a great way to get in to very bad situations.

<comment><USER17> Can you elaborate?

<comment><USER21> Sure. Let's say that your partner has a ton of money in the bank and you are dirt poor. (Exaggerated, but that makes it easier to see where the problems can come from).

After a year or two the business makes some money and you now have a steady living. Your majority partner decides to make an all-or-nothing ploy, it fails and you lose your living. He doesn't care because he already had his steady life. Of course, it could have gone the other way but the more risky a move the bigger the chance that it will fail so that's not a 50/50 thing.

It's just one of hundreds of variations to the theme but I think it clarifies the point sufficiently.

If all the partners in a business have a similar risk profiles then they are all going to be behind most of the strategic decisions, which in turn will help with both morale and explaining things to the home front (if you have one).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is an interesting contrast to the article by A Smart Bear about why he 'sold out': <http://blog.asmartbear.com/rich-vs-king-sold-company.html>

</comment><comment><USER27> Very good, well written article.

Can someone with a wide breadth of experience like pg comment on whether the equation of rapacious greed with likelihood of getting fuck-you money out of the startup game is actually correct empirically?

</comment><comment><USER28> _Startup founders are in the unique position of having to seriously ask themselves the following cocktail party question_

No, really, absolutely not. There are a lot more people able to retire and live comfortably than you think (people running simple brick and mortar businesses I know of, for instance).

And one point: FU money is not the same amount for everyone.

For me, FU money (if I had to live until 100 with my wife and son) is around 1.000.000 €, based on our standard of living.

</comment><comment><USER29> >it's really the only binary phase-change there on the sweep from $0 to $6.3 billion.

Oh man, spoken like someone who has never earned less than $20K/year. I don't have any experience supporting myself on less (as before I made it to that tax bracket, I was living with my parents) but I imagine the transition from $1/day to $2/day is even more dramatic.

Granted, my experiences living in that income tax bracket without parental support were mercifully short, but there's a pretty dramatic difference between making $10K/year and making $30K/year.

Also, I think your perceived earning ability has a lot to do with comfort levels. Right now, I'm paying myself maybe $30K year... but I think it'd take about 20 minutes to get a $100K+/year job, if I could convince someone I was ready to work for them rather than for myself, which I think makes me quite a bit more comfortable than I would be otherwise... I have a safety net. Maybe not quite as much of a safety net as a couple million in the bank, but it's still a pretty cushy net, and I use that net from time to time. No matter how badly I fail, I know I can go get a cushy job that pays me far more money than I need without requiring me to work that hard.

</comment><comment><USER30> > _So, will you sell out for fuck-you money?_

I'm not sure if the writer is serious in his use of "sell out". I think it very funny. If you sell your company for a mere $10M you're a "sell out" but if you want more and more then you're the real thing.

</comment><comment><USER31> A somewhat irresponsible and hypothetical goad.

A truly bankrupt sense of self-worth would be refusing 15MM for a germ of a business. It's one thing to entertain delusions of grandeur, but to rationalize it by concluding you're an interchangeable cog who fell backward into a successful startup is disheartening. The rapacious quality you speak of would not preclude the acceptance of an exit; rather, it would fuel it.

</comment><comment><USER32> _"if you think of the astronomical economic gap between, say, a Malian subsistence farmer and a one-man economy like Rupert Murdoch, it's really the only binary phase-change there on the sweep from $0 to $6.3 billion"_

This is clearly written by someone who's never spent time living on less than $5 per day.

There is a "binary phase change" at $1/day and another at $2/day.

Earning less than $1/day, like over 1 BILLION people do, is a constant struggle for survival. The moment you earn over $1 day, the most basic needs of food and water are much more likely to be met.

There's another phase change at $2/day, at which point shelter becomes a real option and survival rates increase significantly.

I know this isn't an article on international development, but don't bring up the Malian subsistence farmer if you think his life is somehow just as easy as that of a $100,000k "wage slave".

</comment><comment><USER33> _If they got paid $2MM that year, they'd want $4MM. Pay them $10MM, and they'd hanker for $50MM._

That's a spurious comparison, because these guys aren't motivated by "buying stuff". Sure they do buy stuff, but for them, money is about keeping score, like who's scored the most goals in a football team.

</comment><comment><USER34> I know several people who have made FU money (several millions). From my observations, their lives are not much different from the rest of us.

Who a person marries, how fulfilling the days (work or non-work) are seems to matter more than pure amount of money.

Time is limited and never enough. Money is not.

</comment><comment><USER35> I thought this blog was going to elucidate on "fuck you, money" but it just reverted down to "fuck you money." The comma makes all the difference in the world. Really, disappointing.

</comment><comment><USER36> But Scott Fitzgerald called this out in _Gatsby_ eons ago: "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

</comment><comment><USER37> Wow, this sounds like the screed of a collage freshman who just discovered that the adult world is like, totally fake and shallow, man.

<comment><USER38> Tell me more about this collage freshman. Or is this a subtle suggestion hinting at a broad but nonspecific makeup of his persona...

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Money is a funny thing.

First you want it so that you could do whatever it is that you really want to do. Then when you have eventually got the money, you're likely to be in a position where money is no longer the priority—but rather the priority is what you really want to do. Sure, you take the money, you have the money, and you value the money's worth but it's not the thing that's driving you.

</comment><comment><USER40> > Crunching more realistic numbers, 'fuck-you money' is about $4.2MM for a 30 > year old guy who plans on dying at 70 and wants to make $200K/year.

...assuming no bad decisions with the money (unrealistic).

...assuming you don't go on a spending spree (which everyone says they won't do, but a significant majority of people who find themselves in cash do in fact do).

...and so on.

</comment><comment><USER41> one thing he doesn't factor in is that when you get FU money, you suddenly find that you have a cadre -- a virtual entourage -- of friends, family, and hangers-on who you never realized were (according to them) supporting you for years with your crazy dreams, and therefore are morally justified in expecting you to enrich their lives along with your own.

This can happen in more subtle ways than "yo gimme some cash for dinner". You find that scads of folks have their own zany startup ideas; your wife is ready to fulfill her dream of big-home ownership; your peers expect you to send your kids to the same fancy schools they send theirs to (and your kids agree).

People have written about this, esp. wrt lottery winners, but the same mechanics apply to the Silicon Valley lottery.

</comment><comment><USER42> Well written, thought provoking, but nonethless nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER43> i dont can't hack the ethernet telkomflash who can help me?????

</comment><comment><USER44> _As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?_

—Alexis de Tocqueville

I agree with everything in this post 100%—it's spot on and well worth _meditating_ on over the course of several _years_ , combined with some serious reading in the ancient philosophers.

Ultimately, ain't it a bitch that the law of diminishing marginal utility causes the demand curve to have a negative slope!?

IMHO, that happens to be the best proof that a _gift culture_ is a higher ideal to aim for than an _efficiently allocated capitalist society_ premised on the _FUD_ illusion of artifical scarcity. It is better to give than to receive(or accumulate) after all. (I recommend the writings of Buckminster Fuller more than nearly anything).

Everything that everyone thinks matters, doesn't. I can't wait for the day when American "culture" gains the escape velocity to free itself from its own materialism. On the bright side, the American Empire is well on the way to smashing into the rocks, and shattering into an impoverished 3rd world nation. At least our collective happiness, sanity and basic decency will be restored.

</comment><comment><USER45> The phrase is a disgrace to the idea it conveys.

<comment><USER4> I disagree. The phrase nakedly demonstrates it's about financial freedom - <USER2> freedom from ever having to worry about money every again. It's when you don't need your paycheck that you can tell people you work with or work for to fuck off. People who depend on their paycheck can't do that.

<comment><USER45> > _you can tell people you work with or work for to fuck off._

As said. A disgrace.

<comment><USER46> I think you're confusing having the power to say something with having the obligation to say it.

<comment><USER47> If I had the power/money to tell someone anything I wanted, I think that I could muster a few brain cells to come up with something more meaningful or creative.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


PTSD: The Wound That Never Heals - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/23/dominoes/ptsd-the-wound-that-never-heals <comment><USER2> I knew a guy who had moderate PTSD. He could work and keep a steady job. His number one issue was loud, unexpected noise and sudden surprises. Slamming an office door, for example, would cause him to jump under a desk, run outside, etc.

Once we all learned of the issue, making his work-area a quiet place and letting him know to expect loud noise before it occurred, helped a lot. When walking up behind him, we let him know we were coming, start humming a song, but start it at a distance in a calm manner while approaching. These little things made all the difference.

So don't throw a 'surprise' party for someone with PTSD where everyone in the office jumps out from hiding yelling surprise! Everyone else may get THE surprise at the reaction.

And if you have PTSD, it's a good idea to let your co-workers and friends know now, otherwise, they'll continue doing things that cause problems for you. You'll find that most people are very helpful, some even understand it just like you do, but have never said anything about it.

<comment><USER3> > And if you have PTSD, it's a good idea to let your co-workers and friends > know now, otherwise, they'll continue doing things that cause problems for > you. You'll find that most people are very helpful, some even understand it > just like you do, but have never said anything about it.

I don't have PTSD (thankfully), but I went to a school with a large milvet population, and a number of my friends & classmates had varying levels of PTSD. Two of my close friends have PTSD from (separate) traumatic events that occurred during the time I knew them[0], and I've seen the struggles that they have to this day as a result.

Unfortunately, not only is there a huge stigma around mental illness in general, but PTSD is very often misunderstood. And many people with PTSD _have_ been in the position where they have trusted friends or coworkers with that information, for the exact reasons you describe, and it has come around to bite them[1]. Since PTSD is oftentimes triggered by environmental factors, this only reinforces the learning cycle, and actually _worsens_ the PTSD.

It creates a terrible cycle, where they have legitimate reasons not to want to seek support from their environment (they have real reason to distrust it), but where they can't function without the support of their environment as well.

[0] ie, after we were already friends; I wasn't present at the traumatic events themselves.

[1] e.g., a friend lets this information slip to someone that the original person didn't trust, or a coworker uses that information to trigger them intentionally as a "joke" (yes, this happens).

<comment><USER4> > It creates a terrible cycle, where they have legitimate reasons not to want > to seek support from their environment (they have real reason to distrust > it), but where they can't function without the support of their environment > as well.

It took years before I started to realize this was the case for me, particularly the 2nd part. So many things I never could find even a correlation for slowly started to "click" for me. The way you put it helps a lot, I haven't been able to describe it to anyone. Thanks :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is fantastic research being done by MAPS on using MDMA to assist in psychotherapy for PTSD.

The trust and openness brought about by the effects of MDMA appear to be extremely effective at helping patients come to terms with their trauma--"night-and-day" changes after mere hours of talking; the effects of years of therapy in a single dose.

If you are the sort of person who can see the healing potential of psychedelic experiences, please donate to [http://www.maps.org/](http://www.maps.org/)

<comment><USER6> Yep, we're getting there. Use of psychedelics in therapy isn't a magic pill -- the patient still has to be aware, but yeah, it's great.

It isn't just applicable for those with PTSD. There is a Brazilian group that is trying therapy for those who have committed heinous crimes. There's healing in that as well.

Lastly: I think the rising of VR/AR tech into the mainstream, such as the Oculus Rift, Magic Leap, and the Hololens will do a lot for reducing the stigma of psychedelic therapy. Those technologies don't even scratch the surface of the kinds of experiences of psychedelics, yet even though they are relatively primitive in comparison, they are capable of inducing existential crises. I think that, more than anything else, along with accessibility to the mainstream, will change a lot of things for us.

Now, if there are visionary artists willing to work on VR experiences ... :-D

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's another way to relate to the hell that is PTSD, and a possible cure for some:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3nzeykzpy8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3nzeykzpy8)

<comment><USER8> Here is a similar story about service dogs trained specifically for people with PTSD. They will do things like ensure no one crowds up too close behind their human, as well as offering the emotional interaction.

[http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/service-dog- helps-i...](http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/service-dog-helps-iraq- combat-vet-with-ptsd/)

Frikkin' awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Where does PTSD begin and end? Was this person predisposed to other mental illnesses before their trauma? Their illustrations seem to indicate a level of depression and/or compulsive behavior that may not necessarily been caused by their trauma. I am curious whether the popular portrayal of PTSD as an all consuming life ruining problem is counterproductive in terms of how society views and treats victims. Wouldn't it be much more positive to say "PTSD is real, but it doesn't have to define you, here are some resources that can help".

</comment><comment><USER10> There's a great Netflix doc called Free The Mind[1] that follows several PTSD patients in an experimental program focused on meditation / breathing exercises.

[1] [http://danishdocumentary.com/site/freethemind/](http://danishdocumentary.com/site/freethemind/)

</comment><comment><USER11> I'll just throw in my recommendation for EMDR therapy. There is no universal thing that fits everyone, but I've seen this do wonders for someone firsthand. Find someone properly trained in it and give it a go. Like anything, it takes time.

</comment><comment><USER12> rip tim leary

<comment><USER5> Dr. Leary's extreme approaches set psychedelic research back many years and we are just now beginning to make forward progress again.

<comment><USER12> > extreme science is bad

> it's leary's fault psychedelic research became stunted

could you elaborate?

<comment><USER5> Sure. Here's a pretty good summary: [http://www.wired.com/2013/04/psychedlic/](http://www.wired.com/2013/04/psychedlic/)

Basically, Leary grew to prominence but his scientific methods were often faulty and he turned to mysticism. He became a cultural advocate, not a scientific one. But his ties to psychedelic research it a bad name and made it much more difficult for people to get their hands on these drugs for the purposes of actual research. Eventually, mostly due to backlash against Leary, these substances were prohibited from research use for several decades. It was only in the late 90s that we began to pick up the pieces.

<comment><USER12> I don't like the idea of blaming the unconventional methods of a successful and moral scientist for government backlash against the area of his study.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Mojave, anything developers should know about before upgrading? - <AUTHOR> From what I've seen around the web, this upgrade seems less problematic than previous years, but has anyone spotted any gotchas that other developers could do with knowing about before upgrading? <comment><USER2> Very brave - I tend to wait until at least the first point release (so, 10.14.1) or later before taking the plunge. I'd run brew doctor afterwards for sure...

</comment><comment><USER3> VirualBox does not work: [https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/17805](https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/17805)

tl;dr: Mojave blocks the VBoxDrv.kext <5.3 kernel extension from loading because "it will panic the machine if allowed to load", and it's up to Oracle to patch on version >=5.3 (current latest is 5.2.18)

Systems that depend on VirtualBox such as Vagrant don't work either.

Some guy has posted a workaround but it involves disabling the SIP, proceed at your own risk: [https://silvae86.github.io/sysadmin/mojave/beta/vagrant/virt...](https://silvae86.github.io/sysadmin/mojave/beta/vagrant/virtualbox/osx/macos/2018/07/10/running- vagrant-and-virtualbox-in-mojave-public-beta.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> Downloading it so.. I hope not but Apple updates tend to cause problems rather than solving them, also upgrading Fedora at the same time which may turn out to be dumb, fingers crossed.

<comment><USER4> Dark mode is overrated, looks bad compared to what's available on GNOME but nothing blew up so far.

<comment><USER5> We (The republic of Hipsters) declare everything dark mode as our default settings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I upgraded last night and almost can't tell the difference, which I guess is a good thing.

Had to reinstall Xcode command line tools after the upgrade finished.

</comment><comment><USER7> So far no issues for me upgrading. Just missing dark mode for Chrome.

I did run `brew doctor && brew prune`

</comment><comment><USER8> Your fonts will look like shit if you use an external display. Luckily there's a workaround:

defaults -currentHost write -globalDomain AppleFontSmoothing -int 3

defaults write -g CGFontRenderingFontSmoothingDisabled -bool false

<comment><USER9> Thank you for this! My Thunderbolt displays looked like garbage this morning, and I suddenly regretted upgrading to Mojave until I found this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> No gotchas, but I recommend that you do a full backup before upgrading.

</comment><comment><USER11> Works great for me. I'm pretty surprised.</comment>


Facebook Alternative Diaspora Launches Their Private Alpha With Some Bet Hedging - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/23/diaspora-alpha/ <comment><USER2> Yes, its right in the frontpage at this moment. Whats the point of this freaking submission?

Does every story need a "TechCrunch version" to be submitted separately?

It happens _all_ the time.

<comment><USER3> I'd chalk it up to a bland title in the other, which I bypassed several times even after reading your comment. Here's the link:

<https://joindiaspora.com/>

I appreciate the commentary in techcrunch on their release. For example:

 _Interestingly enough, it sounds as if Diaspora is heavily predicated on lists, which they call "aspects". This is interesting because Facebook is going in the opposite direction, as CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made it clear that people on their service don't want to make lists._

Now I know why I hate the facebook UI!

<comment><USER4> _CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made it clear that people on their service don't want to make lists._

For the life of me, I can't figure out how they could make such an unusable UI, and then determine by it's non-use, the disinterest of their users.

I can't tell if they're being disingenuous or ignorant. One need only look at the popularity of Gmail's labels, or other user experience with categorization to know that users have no issue making lists of their contacts or data.

<comment><USER5> Categorizing emails is inherently simpler than categorizing your friends. It's so simple that you can automate a lot of it (though you could suggest friend lists by analyzing a user's relationships and existing lists). Beyond "family" and "work", friend lists are complicated.

<comment><USER4> It depends on how categorization works. If it works more like labels (ie, I can add a friend to multiple groups), then it works great. If you have to choose only one group for a friend, then it breaks down immediately.

And beyond that, privacy controls which allowed you to do "AND" type operators would make those even more useful. It's pretty easy to code, the hard part is a usable, intuitive UI, and I find it hard to believe that Facebook, with all their resources, can't come up with a way to solve that.

And plus, even if a minority uses a feature like that, it's important enough to provide, because user education will result in a gradual adoption.

<comment><USER5> It works like labels, but it's still hard, and it's not that useful anyway. The new groups are a simpler concept that provide an easier way to share with a limited group of people.

> _And plus, even if a minority uses a feature like that, it's important > enough to provide, because user education will result in a gradual > adoption._

Friend lists as they exist today allow users to limit the visibility of posts to the exact set of people the user wants to see them. From what Facebook has said, it seems like user education did not result in meaningful gradual adoption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Share what you want, with who you want"

Sorry to be a grammar troll, but shouldn't it be "whom"?

<comment><USER7> No, no. You share the "who", too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> OK, so they were to hip for MySQL/PHP. How many shared hosting users have access to MongoDB + ROR? I say fail, as in failed decision.</comment>


Life of Brian at 40: an assertion of individual freedom that still resonates - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/life-of-brian-at-40-an-assertion-of-individual-freedom-that-still-resonates-114743 <comment><USER2> "the BBC famously televised a debate ... Each side totally failed to understand the other"

Hardly. Palin and Cleese seemed to perfectly understand the ridiculous childishness of the comically pompous bishop and Muggeridge who both repeatedly avoided engaging and simply derided the film as "tenth rate" etc.

A curiously empty article about a film, which like Holy Grail has barely dated in the intervening decades.

For a more interesting take on Life of Brian at 40, see yesterday's "How we made": [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/apr/16/how-we-made- mon...](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/apr/16/how-we-made-monty-python- life-of-brian-michael-palin-terry-gilliam)

<comment><USER3> For me, that interview symbolizes a certain turning point in the political/cultural role of bishops and the church.

There is such an obvious dichotomy between the authority the clerics expected to be regarded with and the realilty. They looked and sounded so anachronistic. The moral authority just seemed gone. They just looked like python caricatures, robes, misplaced pomp and all.

Meanwhile, these _comedians_ were winning at the philosophical sparring.

I'm from the next island over. We trailed the UK by 10-20 years, in terms of secularism and church authority. But, starting from a much more religious/clerical point and reaching and arguably more secular one very fast.

There have been several key referendums recently, and the church simply failed to mount an opposition. Appearing in regalia and demanding the moral authority because "I am a bishop of the church" would have been a ridiculous spectacle. _That_ element of power was long gone. In my symbolic narration of the story, Cleese and Palin did that in that interview.

<comment><USER4> It really amazes me to even say it but I've always seen comedy guiding morality for as long as I've been alive.

I noticed during the Iraq War how much INSANELY quicker the comedians turned against the war compared to the mainstream and self-proclaimed moral authorities like journos. Institutionalized stupidity tends to be really funny to make fun of and really lame to defend.

It seems like a stupid idea for comedians to be moral arbiters when comedians themselves hardly seem like particularly moral people and comedy is such an informal thing. Yet there is this skeptical contarian spirit so fundamentally baked into the medium. Which consistently leads to Comedians being one step ahead of their moral betters.

<comment><USER5> I'd agree except that the popular comedians tend to have the same points of view as major multinational corporations and billionaires.

Want to lambaste the rich? You and Buffett both. Make fun of racist white people? Who doesn't? Healthcare is a mess? A long line of CEOs parrot that line, too.

Nobody is sitting around making fun of overreach for a good cause. Nobody is making fun of the absurd political mathematics thrown around by favored political movements.

To be fair, it's more work to actually push against the grain of the culture you live in. It's easier to be make the millionth dig at the orange skinned jackass.

<comment><USER6> Are you saying that Warren Buffett's opinions are typical of the super-rich? I'd like to see a source on that.

Lots of people from every walk of life lambast the US health care system, because the US health care system is _objectively_ terrible, in terms of positive outcomes vs. money spent.

Making these out to be rich-people opinions is really reaching.

<comment><USER5> I was just saying it's not particularly brave to side with Zuckerberg and Gates on immigration or Buffett on tax reform. I wasn't commenting on the merits of the positions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This film was initially banned in Norway due to alleged blasphemy (!).

The Swedes loved it; their movie posters dubbed it 'The movie which is so funny, it is banned in Norway!'

<comment><USER8> /cynical/ So sad that nowadays Swedes can't have a say about radical immams. /cynical/ How cool it is to have fun of Jesus but to have fun of Mahommed? How "far" we have "progressed" ;-) In 40 years from having fun about religious leaders to burning heretics like witches.

Wouldn't it be fun to watch movie having fun about Mohammed in Sweden? Or we became some kind of cultural caliphat in the mean time? Joking about Jesus respecting Mohammed? There is a reason for which our era is referred to as "new middle-ages" by some philosophers.

Sad.

By the way there is much more comedy material in Mohammed case too.

As we know since Freud hypocrisy is this what makes the best jokes. I.e. saint God messiah who is a war lord and peadophile in the meantime. Try making movie about that.

<comment><USER9> Nowhere in the world can we have a comedy about Mohammed because the comedians want to live (a funny life), too. In a few progressive countries people tried to make fun of Mohammed and they're, for the most part, dead.

(And The Life of Brian doesn't make fun of Jesus in any way, that's what people who haven't seen the film think.)

<comment><USER10> >doesn't make fun of Jesus in any way, //

Whilst they're careful in the action of the film to make it clear Brian isn't Jesus, surely the central premise is that "Jesus is Brian", that his presentation as Son of God is a [comedic] mishap, or misunderstanding.

<comment><USER9> That's interesting, it's almost as if we watched two different movies. Actually I was expecting a lot of Jesus and I was a bit disappointed by not seeing him much. On the contrary, I saw a lot of "people and times", portrayed in a comical way.

<comment><USER10> Like the way the original Terminator wasn't about cyborgs from the future because you never (seldom?) see the future? Or Lord of the Flies wasn't about how civilisation readily devolves, it was just about a group of kids?

Are you trying to tell me you don't think it is saying 'people are mistaken and Jesus was just a man'? (Or perhaps 'a very naughty boy'!)

To me it seemed carefully written to maintain deniability and skirt blasphemy regulations.

FWIW it's a film I've enjoyed watching both as an agnostic and as a Christian.

<comment><USER9> Yes, the film was about the times of Jesus, about groups of people that might have followed him, of people that might have helped to crucify him (for the same reasons - blindly following the crowd), about Romans, about Jews, about Jews hating Romans, about Romans oppressing Jews, about ridiculous laws, but... not really about Jesus. I watched the film again 2 weeks ago, hardly anything about Jesus. I can hardly believe anyone could identify Brian with Jesus, these are two completely different characters.

<comment><USER10> Then I believe you've missed the central premise.

And, you're right Brian is not the Messiah (which is just what the Messiah would say!).

You know Animal Farm isn't about a farmyard, right?

<comment><USER9> No, I believe we differ in our perception of the role of Brian, and you seem to hold the position that bishops and other offended people held: that the creators of the movie identified brian with Jesus. I agree that if you wanted. you coudl interpret the film in this way. But it's not necessary. You will watch a completely different film then. You will see a Jesus who was ridiculous, cowardly, a bit stupid. But this makes no sense - Jesus is already in the movie and he is a completely different person.

There are many examples in literature and film where the creators focus on a personage close to a celebrity and make them the main character. But I guess the film is well done if we can both claim our positions and believe the other person is wrong.

<comment><USER10> I specifically stated, twice, that I didn't believe Brian to be Jesus. I think that's the massive knee-jerk reaction of those who only saw clips at the initial release.

I don't think the writers took a post-modernist approach. Indeed, as I tried to explain, the inclusion of Jesus as a character is IMO a clear attempt to say "see, no blasphemy here" for the purposes of publishing the film. (FWIW I don't consider the film blasphemous without the Jesus scenes, not explicitly at least).

The intention is pretty clearly to say "Jesus is Brian", ie "he's elevated by the crowd to his position as Messiah, rather than that being an intrinsic part of the man known as Jesus".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I coincidentally watched it with my two sons(13 & 12) the other night.

They loved it!(thankfully)

Especially, the part where the crowd yells "We're all individuals!".

And one lone voice peeps, "I'm not."

Often silly, frequently smart, and occasionally dark irreverence.

<comment><USER12> This is the one moment that contains the whole message of the film condensed into a brief gag that seems so silly on the surface, but goes surprisingly deep. This is easily my most favorite scene of that movie.

<comment><USER13> That was the one scene that stuck with me when I first saw it in the early 80s when it came out on video. It's still probably my favourite scene.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This paragraph from the article is odd:

'Still, as gender transitioning becomes culturally mainstream, the desire of the revolutionary Stan (Eric Idle) to be a woman, to be called "Loretta" and to have babies, will strike a chord.'

In fact, actual the scene from the film will be highly offensive to anyone who has accepted the pro-trans dogma. "Loretta"'s companions point out to him the absurdity of his decision to "be" a woman, and Loretta's comments could have been transcribed from the Twitter feed of any trans woman yesterday. They are kind to Loretta, and spend the rest of the film trying to treat him as he wants to be treated, and frequently apologizing when they forget. But there is never any doubt that this is the kindness of friends towards one who is just very confused.

<comment><USER15> What is "the pro-trans dogma" that you describe?

<comment><USER14> That humans can change their sex.

Here is the scene, by the way:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PObBA2wH5l0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PObBA2wH5l0)

<comment><USER16> I look at the pace that gene tech and organ printing is going and can't help but think that these discussions will eventually seem embarrassingly obsolete. People will instead be getting outraged about the blue furry winged people with clitoris implants on their earlobes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I showed my kids the falling from the tower scene, including the commentator on the landing. They cracked up.

</comment><comment><USER18> My favorite bit of commentary was this scene: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk)

I was raised protestant and my girlfriend Jewish; after this scene I leaned over and whispered, "this is why there are too many denominations to keep track of".

</comment><comment><USER19> Over time, I've come to like the Holy Grail less and less, and this movie more and more. It's the latin lesson (making fun of schoolteachers in england), the witty banter about the naming of the revolutionary front (sorry, People's Liberation Front of Judea), and a number of other ideas in the movie that were so ahead of their time.

</comment><comment><USER20> The degree to which the nations majority religion can be criticized is a good indicator of the individual's freedom. UK and US has the most individual freedom then as may be india has a lesser degree and then the middle east has almost zero individual freedom.

</comment><comment><USER21> I would highly recommend anyone with an interest in Monty Python to watch "Holy Flying Circus". It's a hilarious docudrama about the time leading up to the TV debate.

</comment><comment><USER22> Landmark arts chain here is having a showing Holy Thursday April 18.

</comment><comment><USER23> Great quotes from the article:

>Kant put it in 1784, "'Have the courage to use your own understanding!' — that is the motto of enlightenment."

>The virtue of the film today is its capacity to offend a whole new generation of viewers for different reasons.

I wish that in 2019 we were not so quick to personally attack for unique or politically incorrect ideas.

<comment><USER24> > _I wish that in 2019 we were not so quick to personally attack for unique or > politically incorrect ideas..._

That's the beauty of the film, it deftly illustrates that the vast majority of us don't have any "unique politically incorrect ideas". We're all, kind of, members of the People's Front of Judea. (Except, of course, for those of us who are members of the Judean People's Front.)

Basically, the movie showed that most of us are "uniquely rebellious" in almost exactly the same way. Same taglines. Same clothes. Same beliefs. Same pass times. Etc etc etc. We've all become the brooding Goth teenager, who believes him or herself to be unique and counter cultural. Yet somehow we still look, sound and dress like every other "uniquely rebellious" Goth teenager on the planet.

The film makes fun of the fact that there were very few people out there with completely unique and insightful views back when it was made. The reason it resonates today is because this central fact is still true. Not many people with unique ideas out there at all. Most of what we hear, we've already heard before.

<comment><USER25> Whatever happened to the Popular Front?

<comment><USER2> He's over there.

<comment><USER26> No, that's the Popular People's Front.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Given this article, I really don't think that they deserve their self appointed strapline; 'Academic rigour, journalistic flair'.

From the crude and inaccurate broad brush descriptions of modern attitudes to blasphemy, through to presenting the song 'Always look on the bright side of life' as an example of nihilism, this reads like a poorly researched high school essay, with a Kant quote thrown in at the end to try and make it sound clever.

<comment><USER27> It's a confusingly desert-dry article about an oceanically-wet piece of classic cinema. It's almost worth reading the article to see how someone can turn a hugely fun and enjoyable film into such a bland review.

I expected wolf-nipple-tips but was delivered stale bread.</comment></comment>


Screw The Rich (Here's How) - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/15/screw-the-rich-heres-how/

<comment><USER2> Why do those against higher taxes for the rich always assume that those in favor "hate the rich"?

That, more than anything, makes me think these people are asshats and shouldn't be listened to.

</comment><comment><USER3> Arrington apparently believes that Buffett's op-ed is part of some master plan to make it harder for others to get super rich while making it easier for him to hold on to his wealth. If Arrington truly believes this, he hasn't been listening to what Buffet is saying.

</comment><comment><USER4> Super rich people should also pay up 30% in taxes instead of 17%. Just taking money from warren buffet is not going to solve any problem. The tax should be for all the rich guys. I dont think the policy is fair which supports rich getting richer and poor getting even poorer.

</comment><comment><USER5> Increased tax 'revenues' won't do anything to balance the budget, it just offers a little more spending leeway. The problem is spending.

<comment><USER6> actually, a simple equation proves you wrong.

      deficit = revenues - expenditures</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How does one become good at C/C++ - <AUTHOR> Hi Everyone, It's one of my goals to work for a HFT writing software and they mostly require c++ and I'm not really good at it. I'm intermediate at python and have programmed extensively. I do know my CS concepts but how do I become good at C++ what type of projects I can involve my self into in order to become good at it <comment><USER2> Ask yourself what makes you an intermediate python developer, do the same for c++, that's all.</comment>


Not Saying Winter Is Coming, but Where's Your Coat? - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/notes/kent-beck/not-saying-winter-is-coming-but-wheres-your-coat/1225914144108114 <comment><USER2> To be honest the dot com crash caught me unprepared, and the feeling of having 10+ million dollars in future equity go to less than $100K is not something I'd wish on anyone. But not all of my investment value was "future", I had a bit more than $500k in Sun stock that I could sell at "any time." When I sold it when Oracle bought them it was worth about $12K.

I did not make the mistake of buying a big house on the promise that in the future I'd be able to afford it. A friend of mine bought his house and his neighbor's house to combine into a larger lot, but since the stock was going up he got jumbo loans and was selling stock periodically to make the payments. When things went south he ended up selling the neighbors house at a loss refinancing his own house at a lower rate to stay in it affordably. But I did make the mistake of not paying off my house when I could have using "bubble" stock (like that Sun stock). 2001 to probably 2006 were very wintry years.

I analyzed my behavior during the last dot com bubble and my biggest driver was tax avoidance. How stupid is that? I would say "sure this stock is 'worth' $500K but if I sell it I'm going to have to pay a huge amount of tax on it and that will net out to a smaller number." I was looking at "losing" 25% of the value of the investment by turning it into cash. Ridiculous right? Well now I think it is ridiculous.

Every 3 months I take a long look at my assets and debts and future plans and re-balance as necessary to avoid a single thing from killing me financially.

<comment><USER3> A good mental game to play to counteract the endowment effect[1] if one ever ends up holding $[some_large_number] of [tech_stock] is to ask yourself "If I had $[some_large_number] in cash, what % of it would I spend investing it in [tech_stock]?"

Very very rarely will you find yourself saying 100%. Act accordingly.

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

<comment><USER4> It's interesting to use this reasoning in the context of tax-avoidance that the parent mentioned. Would you rather have $[some_large_number] of cash, or $[some_large_number + some_large_numer*(tax rate)] in [tech stock]?

<comment><USER3> Indeed. I don't think that the question I posed is the only question worth considering. Taxes matter and should be paid attention to.

Really, stepping up to an even higher level of abstraction I think the most important advice is to _pay attention_ and _think about your options._ I think that far to many people fall prey to inaction and sticking with the status quo simply because it is easier.

<comment><USER4> Exactly.

It's far from obvious whether it's better to be 25% poorer with diversification.

<comment><USER5> But you're not 25% poorer, because your basis is now stepped up. In order to access the value of your current shares, you're going to pay the taxes. You either have $100 on paper and owe $25 on it, or you have $75 on paper and owe $0 tax on it.

Unless you think the tax rate is going to be lower in the future, once you've hit the long-term capital gains threshold, I don't see a reason to believe that paying taxes now and switching investments is worse than holding investments and paying all the taxes later.

<comment><USER3> The longer you can put off paying taxes the longer you can keep that portion of the money and earn a return on it.

<comment><USER2> Yes and no. If you hold a stock you avoid paying taxes on it and if that exact stock goes up, you "win" because you get more for it later. However there is no way to get a "return" on the capital that is tied up in the stock in some other way without some shenanigans. One dubious way was taking a loan out at the full value of the stock (stock is collateral) and then using the proceeds from the loan to invest in other funds. Back when day trading was "the thing to do" I met a guy who was full of these schemes and like the mortgage crisis later, when the crash came I'm not sure how they unwound, even if they did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you think winter might be coming and want to prepare financially, the #1 most important piece of advice is this:

Lower your expenses.

Nothing gets you into trouble more than having a high expense load. Get as close as you can to spending nothing.

The next most important piece of advice is to build up cash. 6 months of your monthly burn is cutting it way too close. You should save until you have at least two years. What's more, you should save until you can actually invest some money.

These two bits of advice go hand in hand. The lower your expenses, the easier is to save 24+ months of runway up. And the reverse is true too.

Beyond that, you can do a couple other things to prepare yourself. You could join a larger, profitable company with no history of major layoffs. (Eg Google, Facebook, many others.) Or, you could take the opportunity now to start your own company, and maybe think about what sorts of businesses could benefit from an economic downturn when you do so. Focus on getting it profitable, rather than focusing on rapacious growth. Obviously, these moves (getting a job at a stable company or stating a company and getting it profitable) are more out of your control and harder to pull off. Which is why cutting expenses and saving as much as possible are the most critical endeavors.

<comment><USER7> >You should save until you have at least two years

It is a little late to be doing this.

I have pretty bare-bones expenses (Fine, my apartment is 40% of my income) but I would struggle to save 24-months of expenses any time soon.

Unless you are making like $250k and living on $50k, I would say it is a little late to be stocking up to survive a downturn. I could do it if given probably 5 years, but I couldn't pull that off in 1 year.

<comment><USER8> It is _never_ too late to start stocking up.

Yes, the sooner you make the changes, the better off you will be. Just like getting healthier.

A huge part of it is mindset. If you are striving to build 24 months of savings, you'll have to think about income and expenses and figure out which ones matter, which ones can go away, and how to improve them in general. There may not be a single silver bullet but there can be a lot of little things that will help in the long run.

<comment><USER9> A lot of people pay _way_ too much for cable, like $150/ month... Cut the wire, go OTA, if you must (free), and Netflix ($10/month)

<comment><USER10> I really wonder how many people on HN seriously pay for cable. For me and many of my friends, we just have Internet and watch whatever we want whenever we want. I wouldn't watch cable if it was free. I wouldn't watch it for an hour a night if they paid me $100 a month to do so. The idea of paying $50+++ per month for what I consider to be an absolute waste of my time is crazy to me.

<comment><USER11> you don't like sports?

<comment><USER12> MLB.TV isn't bad for baseball (might have to swing a VPN to get it to work for you, depending on if you live near your favorite team). Football is still overpriced as hell, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > I've been telling my students, "Take a chance, you can get another job on > Monday."

For students, maybe, especially if they're entry level jobs. However, for anyone even mid-level, I don't think this has been good advice for several years. Perhaps in SF it's been fine, but even for many mid-level (and certainly sr folks) I know, finding another job "on monday" has not been the case. (getting an _interview_ , especially via a recruiter, has still been relatively quick, from what I hear).

Employers have been far more picky than I think many people expect. Compounding this is that they sometimes have suboptimal folks in particular roles, and those people tend to exacerbate the problem when interviewing/finding new folks.

In any event, glad to see somewhat balanced view, vs the extremes we normally see.

<comment><USER14> I'll add another voice to the job market for experienced developers and managers. It's terrible. I have an advanced CS degree, in-demand programming skills and leadership experience. I've hunted for full-time, part-time, and contracting work for a couple of months.

Interviews tend to go the following way: pass the initial interview, pass the programming test, pass the technical interview and never hear back (even after a couple of following up emails and/or phone calls). This grind really wears down one's self-confidence and outlook. It's been a depressing summer.

I have over 12 months of living expenses in my savings account and a very supportive wife, so I'm going to do a startup and see how far I can take it. It feels like a better use of my time and promises some new learning experiences compared to more interviewing.

<comment><USER15> > in-demand programming skills

No offense, but hasn't your experience shown that, regardless of how strong your skills are, they are clearly not in demand?

<comment><USER14> Maybe, but I doubt it. I've had no problem getting interviews and navigating them. But I don't really know because most companies don't respond to follow- ups asking for feedback on why I didn't get the job and what I could do better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I just have a point about the last piece of advice:

"Make small convex investments. Learn a little bit of a lot of things–machine learning, internet of things, virtual and augmented reality, 3D printing."

I find a lot of advice to be diametrically opposed to this. Many other people advise you to "go deep" in a single topic and be the expert on that topic. (It also seems to contradict the point above it, but only if they are both read a certain way.)

So which is better advice? Is there a study out there?

<comment><USER17> They're not mutually exclusive. You can learn a little bit of a lot of things on the path to "going deep" in a single topic. I believe this is how you end up with T-shaped skills: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills)

<comment><USER18> My dad is quite fond of this adage from a journalism school professor in the 80s: "know all about one thing, a little about everything, and where to find the rest."

"T-shaped skills" or whatever you want to call them + the capacity to learn is quite powerful.

<comment><USER19> Agreed. Learning how to learn is vital, and certainly not easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I appreciate this author's "hope for sunshine but prepare for rain" philosophy as opposed so many others view that either "the sky is falling" or "the good times will last forever" narratives. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

<comment><USER21> This is akin to the mantra my wife had while working in the ICU:

"Hope for the best, plan for the worst."

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Certainly interesting. This felt out of place to me in the concrete actions you can take now: "Keep having children because a) the world needs more smart children and b) by the time they get really expensive, who knows what things will be like." Sure these are fair points but dependents do limit ones ability to make decisions 'suddenly'

<comment><USER23> Indeed. As a dad I can say having kids is by far the most financial unsound decision one can make.

<comment><USER24> Life isn't all about money.

<comment><USER25> "Having money's not everything. Not having it is"

<comment><USER26> Nice Kanye quote

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I agree with the mentality, but the advice doesn't seem great. In particular, I already follow all of it (even in good times you should have 6 months savings).

Since I wasn't around during the dot-com crash, could some of the veterans on HN give more practical advice on how to position yourself to ride out a crash?

Right now, my theory is to try to get yourself a job at a stabler tech company with proven profitability (ex. Google). Does that make sense?

<comment><USER13> > my theory is to try to get yourself a job at a stabler tech company with > proven profitability

How about just a stable company, then make yourself valuable there? Sure if you _like_ tech, you can try for google, but there's so many companies which are dying for competent IT folks (even if their hiring practices seem to fight it) that you can provide a load of value to people in almost any situation. The question then comes up about are they positioned to pay you for that value - is it valuable enough to them? Gotta spend a bit more time finding those, but... they're definitely out there.

Basic advice - have a lot of savings, and if your main income stops, be extra frugal (and... hey, even be frugal now if you can). "Cash is king", and having buffer of months or years in the bank can give you time to be more selective and avoid making panic-decisions (which generally aren't when you're in the best frame of mind to make decisions).

<comment><USER27> My argument against other large companies is:

1\. They seem much more likely to undergo major layoffs than Google et al.. If you're not growing, layoffs seem to be a constant.

2\. During layoffs, the first people to go are cost centers. IT is a cost center unless your industry is technology.

3\. The difference in pay is astronomical. Like, easily 2-3x from the times I've tried interviewing. Even small startups pay developers better (in cash) than most non-tech companies seem to.

I'm not too worried about the savings thing. I think I'm covered for a decade if necessary.

<comment><USER13> > I think I'm covered for a decade if necessary.

Really? Not doubting you, but that would mean a whole fairly big pile of money already.

I didn't say 'large' companies at all, did I? It's a balance finding smaller/medium companies, but there's definitely loads where you can make an impact and negotiate to be rewarded appropriately.

If you have 10 years of savings, why are you worried about layoffs?

<comment><USER27> > Really? Not doubting you, but that would mean a whole fairly big pile of > money already.

It would entail moving to a lower cost locale (ie. not SF/NYC), but certainly doable. It would also mean tapping everything besides my IRA.

I'm not really worried about layoffs. It's more that I would like to be prepared. Also, even if I can survive financially, I'd rather avoid going without an income for any extended period.

In terms of small/medium companies, it really seems like most of them outside tech don't value IT at all. If they even have developers, they seem to underpay them.

This might just be my bias though. I appreciate the advice and will be sure to include a few smaller non-tech companies in my next job search.

<comment><USER13> if you're already _in_ an area where those are viable options (goog, fb, etc), then by all means. I made an assumption you'd prefer to move out there to chase a job there.

good luck to you whatever happens!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> FTA: talking about a tech dip with a big external shock. He quotes: "another US genital waving adventure" as one of the shocks along with banking crises, trade route blocking, war, etc.

I had quite the wtf? moment with this one. Can someone explain to me what "another US genital waving adventure" means?

<comment><USER29> I think he means the US Invasion of Iraq

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Not a huge fan of the 'have kids, the world needs smart people' this seems to pretend that his intended audience holds the key to wisdom and the only way to keep that going is for his audience to have kids.

<comment><USER31> It's been well established that children of parents with high education levels, formal or informal (which describes the HN audience well), are themselves more likely to be successful and well educated. Nothing really controversial about that.

<comment><USER32> That's true, but in that case "keep adopting kids" would also work.

<comment><USER33> No, IQ is extremely hereditary.

<comment><USER34> The heritability of IQ is often estimated at 0.4 according to Wikipedia. Not very high, but not insignificant. Height has 0.8 heritability.

Even if you're a genius, it doesn't mean your child will be. I think 0.4 suggests environmental factors are more important.

<comment><USER33> It's 0.4 in childhood, rising to 0.7 to 0.8 in adulthood.

Saying that you can adopt a child and raise him to be smart is approximately as foolish as claiming you can adopt a child and raise him to be tall.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I don't live in Silicon Valley so this is a genuine question: Are things starting to fall apart over there or is Kent Beck just offering up some sage advice? (Either way: Thanks, Kent!)

<comment><USER36> The sky isn't falling, but there is a perceptible slowdown.

Which is probably the best time to start thinking about this, as opposed to in the middle of a round of layoffs...

Tech as a whole is still growing briskly - FB/GOOG/AAPL/etc are evidence enough of that.

But there have been some high-profile (and expensive) startup busts, and certain niches are looking less healthy now than they were before (see: edu- tech or med-tech). The net effect is that demand for engineering talent is lower than before, but not by a catastrophic amount.

If you were extremely employable before, you are likely to still be extremely employable now. If your interview skills were marginal before, you may not be employable now.

<comment><USER37> Other than the Theranos story, what makes you say med-tech is looking less healthy (or edu-tech for that matter)?

<comment><USER36> Perception matters - my admittedly unscientific feel is that there's more due diligence being done (which is a _good_ thing, good lord), which also means less dumb money flowing around to companies that have no merit. Ed-tech I think is in a similar space, though not because of any particular scandal.

More careful investors are good for the economy overall, but still represents reduced hiring demand from the previously irrationally frothy peak.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> _Defer gratification until you have six months in the bank, if that's an option._

Phenomenal advice. Having some cushion when between jobs is great. It's also peace of mind.

</comment><comment><USER39> 6 months in the bank is always nice to have and probably a must by now.

<comment><USER40> You could also live in a country where there is unemployment pay...

<comment><USER41> In what possible way does unemployment coverage make having a few months in the bank not a good idea? In my country, we have such coverage, and I've used it. It doesn't suffice to meet any but the most nominal financial obligations, and the bureaucracy involved in obtaining it is impressive - if you don't plan to cover your own bills for the month or two before the checks start coming, you're likely to be screwed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> He does not seem to state any reasons he thinks "Winter is Coming".

The earnings of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google tell a different story than his.

<comment><USER13> > Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google

We don't all work for these 4 companies.

There's lots of fluctuations in oil/energy, car makers are predicting slow downs (which may have bigger implications in the near future), Brexit effects are still being felt and worked out, and our own Fed doesn't seem confident enough in the near term economy to commit to raising interest rates in the near future.

<comment><USER43> I believe Ford actually released very disappointing figures in the past few days, so you can move that from the 'speculative' column to 'concrete'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> 6 months of gross salary, net salary, or expenses?

<comment><USER45> How about: get 6 months of expenses, then get up to 6 months of net, then 6 months of gross, then keep saving at that rate while investing anything you don't need to keep liquid? There is no ceiling past which it doesn't make sense to have money.

<comment><USER46> That assumes decent real returns on investment, which I'm not convinced really exist any more without taking on more risk than many are comfortable with. If your savings get to a level where they're evaporating to inflation faster than you can top them up, that arguably doesn't make sense any more.

Good piece on Bill Gross today which I largely agree with; key pull quote for me is "capitalism cannot function efficiently at zero-bound rates".

[http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-funds-janus-gross- idUKKCN10...](http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-funds-janus-gross- idUKKCN10E1EY?il=0)

<comment><USER47> Presently, in the US, inflation is 2-3% a year. Savings interest rates definitely don't keep up, but they don't fall so far behind that your money is evaporating.

Save up that 6 months of expenses, and each year keep adding to it to make up for the "evaporating" amount. An extra $1000-2000 a year should be more than enough.

Move the money into a CD ladder, which has a better opportunity for keeping up with inflation, once you're more comfortable (about 1 year's worth of savings). You effectively risk 1 year (but the cost of breaking a CD open early isn't _that_ bad if worst comes to worst). You put your money into 4xCDs at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. As each comes to maturity you bump them to 12 months. So every quarter you have one quarter worth of expenses accessible. Keep 3 months worth of expenses in your checking account to ride out the wait for the first CD. Now you actually have 15 months of savings. A single, competent tech worker can easily achieve this after 3 years, probably earlier, outside high cost of living areas.

<comment><USER46> I was thinking of chunkier savings, i.e. more on the order of 10-15 years' worth of expenses. The evaporation starts to hurt more at that scale, and here in the UK fixed rate bonds (which I think are the equivalent of your CDs) still pay less than inflation. Even "official" inflation.

<comment><USER48> If you have accumulated 10-15 years worth of savings, that money should be somewhere it is earning a return (easily beating out inflation). It certainly should not be in your savings or checking account at the local bank.

I have roughly six months worth of expenses in cash, that I could go take out of the bank _right now_ should something happen. I'll be fine as long as the remainder is somewhere I can get to (some of) it within six months -- and it is.

<comment><USER46> I think you missed the first sentence of my earlier comment:

> That assumes decent real returns on investment, which I'm not convinced > really exist any more without taking on more risk than many are comfortable > with.

I can't see anything right now that isn't at bubble levels based on the expectation of zero interest rates continuing forever everywhere. Maybe they will, but I think at that point you're gambling rather than investing, and gambling doesn't appeal to everyone.

<comment><USER43> So maybe hold the cash and short-term assets you feel compelled to have, and index the market with the rest? It may decrease in value for a time, but if you avoid realizing those losses, it'll likely bounce back. If you think the whole economy is in for a serious contraction with a decade+ horizon for recovery, you could go into previous metals, but you may just be screwed either way.

I actually do believe that the US is in for serious contraction due to the unsustainable infrastructure and development patterns. I'm hanging out in the market anyway, because the federal reserve and misplaced public trust in municipal bonds will kick that can decades further down the road before we ever face the facts.

Until then, I know that I don't have the forecasting ability of large banks, so I play the game with the only advantage I've got: patience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I have noticed that people who have lived through dramatic downturns tend to look for a pattern or signs of it happening again. It's probably basic human behavior, once you get burned by something you tend to flinch when you see something similar.

I am also not saying he is wrong of course... But I have noticed similar pessimism since 2012. People justifying being unadventurous with "the bubble is gonna burst soon. I have lived through it before."

I wonder where else there can be growth though?

</comment><comment><USER50> People have been beating the drums pretty loudly lately for a global downturn. It almost feels like mainstream media is trying to cheer it into existence.

Yes there are "concerning" signals if you look - a decline in China's GDP, the plunging price of a barrel of crude oil, Britain leaving the EU. There are always areas of concern in even "good" times. However Op Ed columnists and Cable TV pundits seem to be falling all over themselves warning of the impending doom. And honestly it feels like sport.

Yes its always wise to have some saving, the more the better to a point any way. However it also wise to realize that a lot of this is fear mongering by the news media. And for an industry that has less credibility and relevance in people's daily lives than it once did, a lot of this just feels very contrived. Bad news sells, bad news is always good for the news media. There's an old newsroom adage "If it bleeds it leads." I realize this was a FB post and not a mainstream news media post but the fear mongering is starting to have this effect.

My coat is in the closet right where I left it, its August now, the sun is out and I'm wearing shorts.

</comment><comment><USER51> I think this is good advice- risk management is important in managing your own career. It's easy to get complacent with recruiter outreach hitting your InMail at a steady clip but macro, micro, exogenous, endogenous factors can shift your short-to-medium term career prospects significantly.

</comment><comment><USER52> Perhaps it may not be winter everywhere all at once?

<comment><USER53> It depends on the number of nuclear weapons that detonated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I would slightly disagree with the housing. At least in some areas, owning is cheaper than renting, especially if you plan to stay in the area long term. Seattle is definitely that way. Mostly you have to be smart and buy something you can't afford. A decent fixer upper will put you in great financial shape.

</comment><comment><USER55> 6 months in the bank is pretty standard personal finance advice. The rest is just good, solid career advice that applies to a greater or lesser extent any time.

</comment><comment><USER56> > Keep having children

Really? This is fiscal advice?

<comment><USER57> I think he means: don't put off having kids because the near-to-mid-term outlook is iffy. Your kids (he says!) won't be super expensive until the long- term, and since there's no way to know what that looks like, there's no reason to put it off.

<comment><USER58> In some ways, I disagree. I've found the expenses of children to be bathtub shaped - very expensive up front, dropping until they start public school, then ramping up slowly until they make the big jump to college.

<comment><USER59> How do they ramp up until college? We saw a considerable reduction in expenses when our kid started public school, since we went from $$$ day care to $ after-school care. We expect expenses to stay somewhat the same until she hits her teenage years when she'll likely become more demanding in terms of clothes, going out with friends, etc. (at which point we plan on encouraging her to find a part-time job).

<comment><USER60> Activities become more expensive. They require more sophisticated tools and pretty much need their own computer to do homework every evening, they "need" a phone and a data plan to stay connected and do group projects, there are extracurricular activities to seem well-rounded for college applications; and halfway through high school, they start driving.

Progressive Era reforms mean it's harder to get them to make money, but they are still expected to "volunteer" in community organizations. Many high schools require "volunteer hours" to graduate, which means you drive them to their job where they make no money and then they quit once they accumulate the mandated hours. Working in one of these community organizations, I found it pretty annoying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Words of wisdom here

</comment><comment><USER62> His financial advice includes "Keep having children". OMG, lol... uh... speechless...

<comment><USER63> I guess his point was: do not let your fear for an uncertain future keep you from having children.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> And my favorite piece of advice: Don't take advice from people less successful than you.

<comment><USER65> For a professional programer, if Beck is deemed "unsuccessful", I don't know who among us you will call successful.

If you are a professional programer in 2016, you very likely are familiar with the term "refactoring". This term was placed in our vernacular by the book "Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code" by Martin Fowler [1]. In the Preface to the book, Folwer writes:

        Once upon a time, a consultant made a visit to a development project.
        The consultant looked at some of the code that had been written; there
        was a class hierarchy ..

        ...

        I must admit to some bias here. I was that consultant. Six months later
        the project failed, in large part because the code was too complex to
        debug or to tune to acceptable performance.

        The consultant Kent Beck was brought in to restart the project, an exercise
        that involved rewriting almost the whole system from scratch. He did several
        things differently, but one of the most important was to insist on continuous
        cleaning up of the code using refactoring. The success of this project, and
        role refactoring played in this success, is what inspired me to write this book,
        so that I could pass on the knowledge that Kent and others have learned in using
        refactoring to improve the quality of software.

        ...

        In this book I describe the fruit of a lot of research done by others. The last
        chapters are guest chapters by some of these people.
        ....
        I've left the final word, Chapter 15, to the master of the art, Kent Beck.

You might also have heard of xUnit style of testing. Beck had a hand in many of these frameworks.

TL;DR - pay heed to the history of your profession.

[1]: [https://www.amazon.com/Refactoring-Improving-Design- Existing...](https://www.amazon.com/Refactoring-Improving-Design-Existing- Code/dp/0201485672)

<comment><USER64> This sort of demonstrates my point perfectly -- if you look at the most successful people in the world, what percentage would you classify as a "programmer"? And of those, how many are actively programming?

TL;DR - If you want to be in the top tier of success, don't take advice from programmers.

<comment><USER66> Among _my_ most successful people, about 80%. Counting only those who are actively programming it drops to around 50%.

It's easy to forget that the definition of success is relative. Someone you consider a success might be considered a miserable failure in life by others.</comment></comment></comment></comment>