Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/housing/2017/05/californias-legal-assault-on-nimbys-begins/525840/ <comment><USER2> IMO, it's gotten bad enough in the Bay Area that local control of zoning ought to get abolished. Make a new regional zoning commission, put together some clear and consistent rules about what can be built and where, and rubber-stamp everything that meets those rules. Literal rubber-stamp here, as in "you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day, and if stuff gets falsified on the affidavit we go after you after-the-fact".

<comment><USER3> Under existing rules, developers do not pay enough fees to allow the School Districts to build new schools to support the new housing. Now you'd like to rubber stamp this?

For example there's a new development in Fremont of a few hundred houses: the school district had to zone it as "we'll provide school for you, but it'll be wherever we have space across the entire city." That's not good.

To me the idiocy is this: the state government mandates that all cities build new housing. But they don't mandate that housing and jobs balance. A city like Fremont was master-planned with enough space for both, but is being forced by the state to build houses instead for people who will work in Sunnyvale which has too many jobs and not enough houses.

<comment><USER4> Wait, developers should pay for schools? What are property taxes for?

<comment><USER5> Property taxes pay for the schools that already exist. It's hard for a district to 'save up' because, well California, and 'surplus' money should be returned to the taxpayer. If developers don't cover the cost a district usually issues a bond but that's hard because, well, California, and direct democracy rarely votes to raise property tax mil rates whatever it would cost to cover the bond. And doesn't California basically freeze assessment values? Because why should the people who already live there pay for services for newcomers? It's all very hostile and backward.

<comment><USER6> A state shouldn't need a per-value increase in taxes to cover anything that scales with the number of residents, which would include schools; the additional revenue from the new residents should cover that. (Unless they've utterly failed at economies of scale, but that should not need _repeated_ fixes.) The cost of accommodating growth for new capacity should be factored into the ongoing existing costs. The people already there aren't paying for it; the new people in the new development are.

The hostility is built up of years of expecting each new increase to be the last, and yet continuing to receive urgent demands for more, all with the plaintive "for our schools and our children" exhortations that try to suggest only an absolute _monster_ would dare to say "enough".

<comment><USER7> I would suggest you never move to California. You will learn just how badly an entitled generation can behave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think it's really hard to overstate how deep of a hole we're in up in the Bay Area. With the kind of growth numbers we're predicting, I believe nothing short of a radical shift in planning and housing policy is going to produce any relief for the beleaguered Bay Area.

The nine counties are currently permitting about 20,000 units of housing per year [1]. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments are expecting 27,000 new _households_ (not people, households) and 43,000 new jobs per year in the thirty years to 2040 [2]. Thus, we're about 25% short of the units we need to preserve today's unaffordable status quo. To make any sort of dent in cost of living, the nine counties need to shoot far, far higher than what we're producing today.

[1] [http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Bay- Are...](http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Bay-Area- building-boom-may-not-end-housing-7223711.php)

[2] [http://2040.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/PBA_...](http://2040.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/PBA_2040_033017%20web%20display.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER9> For a bit of micro NIMBYism: my street in Palo Alto just instituted resident- only parking (I was the only one to object). Thus the people who cut our hair, serve our meals etc will have to walk even farther to work (my house is about 1.25 miles from downtown) while the wealthy shoppers park downtown for free.

Yes it was a pain having a lot of cars on the street but I didn't feel it was a hardship that I couldn't park _in front of_ my house but occasionally (horrors) across the street.

As my passive aggressive neighbor put it, "well they can just buy a downtown permit. It's just a tax." So again, the minimum wage earners get the shaft. The discount permit for low earners is $100.

PS: my kid wants to buy up the extra parking permit allotment and offer them to folks parking the next street over.

<comment><USER10> If SF housing politics has taught me anything, it's that the nastiest of human behavior is revealed by parking disagreements :(

I never understood the residential parking permit argument anyway.

Public dollars built the road, which now contains public parking spots.

Implementing residential parking permits is a transfer of value from the public domain to private land owners.

In Palo Alto (and the rest of the Bay Area, where land owners are inherently millionaires), this constitutes a transfer of wealth from the public to the wealthiest few.

<comment><USER11> I think you're right. I my observation (though not in SF) the top 2 sources of dispute are 1.) parking, and 2.) dogs. Not infrequently, there's a correlation between offensive parking and promoting bad dog behavior.

Of course it makes sense that would be the case. Inconsiderate people are likely not to care about encroaching on others' driveways when they or their guests leave their vehicles. They're also not likely to heed city leash laws, leaving their dogs deposit excrement randomly which neighbors tend to object to.

In some neighborhoods in town parking is a nightmare because there are not enough spaces on the street for visitors and residents. Institution of metered parking and permits was a price of success of urban redevelopment. Around here the residential permits aren't cheap, but most residents cough up the fee anyway. Even then there's no guarantee they will be able to find parking close to home, though the odds are improved and local dwellers say that's better than nothing.

Under the conditions operating here, I don't think there's a substantial "transfer of value" from public to private hands. It may be a different story in Palo Alto.

<comment><USER12> Sounds like the permits are still cheaper than they should be, though. Presumably if people value the parking such that it's the best use of land an enterprising person could set up a parking garage and make a profit?

<comment><USER13> That would require the enterprising person to be able to get past the NIMBYism to construct the parking garage

<comment><USER11> That's not quite the issue. Public parking garages have been proposed but getting them sited has been difficult. One reason is competition from developers of apartments, who want to use the space for residences. Rather a dilemma to resolve as both are needed. Not exactly a NIMBY matter in that case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm making what I would think to be an upper middle class salary and I can't afford a home in a modestly decent neighborhood in L.A. It seems to me that there is definitely a problem and I support loosening development restrictions.

It's not only restrictions though. Of the people I know who own property, many, if not the majority, own more than one property, some of them empty. I also know many remote Chinese that own a property in L.A. It's super frustrating.

<comment><USER15> > afford a home

Can you afford rent, though?

Isn't a bit extreme to expect to be able to own property -- like some sort of medieval lord -- in a major city?

<comment><USER16> Not at all. Renting with no road to purchase turns you into serf. Owning your dwelling is the most basic form a security a human needs.

I own a condo that I rent and live renting in other part of my city. The rents cancel each other. It works very nice for me.

I definitely wish more people own their homes. I also love highrises.

<comment><USER17> I'm not sure this rather dated precept is compatible with the exigencies of 21st century economics, and the flexibility, mobility and long hours demanded.

For one thing, houses are cash sinks. It doesn't make sense for highly paid professionals to spend enormous amounts of time or money reshingling roofs, painting, mowing lawns, treating weeds, trimming hedges, repairing plumbing, etc. The deep specialisation and constant attention that the professional economy asks are orthogonal to all those things. It's prudent to upload those demands to the cloud (aka your landlord, at scale) so to speak.

I know far more urban professionals that were hindered by the ballast of owning real estate than those empowered by this "most basic form of security". Here in the sprawling metro Atlanta area, taking another job will very likely take you to a wholly different part of this vast agglomeration and doom you to a punishing commute unless you sell your house and relocate. The uncertainty, transaction costs and other friction kept a number of people I know in dead- end jobs until they were finally laid off.

As a personal anecdote, I bought a condo in May 2007. I was drinking the very same Kool-Aid about basic form of security and whatnot. I finally let my home go to foreclosure in summer 2015. I financed at $160K, and in summer 2015 it appraised at $85K. I still owed $140K. One of the lenders sued me for a $29K deficiency and got a judgment, and I'll be paying them $250/mo for the next six years. Some security. I grant that my effort at partaking of the most basic form of security a human needs was exceptionally disastrous, but I think the housing crash educated a lot of people about just how much security it really offers. A senseless push to ownership for ownership's sake threatens to discard those valuable lessons.

The real argument for owning vs. renting is the mortgage interest deduction, and that's an artifice of government tax policy that hugely distorts the market and the incentives.

<comment><USER18> >It doesn't make sense for highly paid professionals to spend enormous amounts of time or money reshingling roofs, painting, mowing lawns, treating weeds, trimming hedges, repairing plumbing

So we pay HOA fees for high-rise condos.

Rents in SF grew $2000 over 5 years. I would be _ecstatic_ if my worst-case housing market outcome were a measly $250/mo. My standard of living is going to fall every year at lease renewal time until I can't take it anymore, and then I'll go live out my days in a soul-crushing Midwestern cost center IT department, if any haven't been outsourced or automated by then.

Housing costs that can't increase are looking _really_ good right about now.

<comment><USER17> Oh, we've got problems of that sort in Atlanta, too (at a different price scale than SF, of course). There's an enormous spread between mortgages and rent at the moment; so many fewer people qualify for mortgages after the housing crash due to tougher underwriting standards and a return to traditional down-payment requirements that many, many more people are forced to rent. That has pushed rents way up. But for those who qualify, buying has never been cheaper. Needless to say, they pocket the difference, and it's an extreme landlord's market. They've got their pick of tenants and getting a place inside the Perimeter with anything less than impeccable credit is hard.

Median rent in Midtown Atlanta, where I last lived, is pushing north of $2000, which for Atlanta is a _princely_ sum considering it's ... well, it's Atlanta. It's not Brooklyn or Chicago. If I'm going to pay that much, I want Brooklyn or Chicago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Oh my:

'During the recession, many market-rate projects that had been OK'd were abandoned by cash-strapped developers and converted into affordable housing projects because the government was the only entity doing any building. The community's reception of a market-rate project compared with the same project when it became an affordable housing project was noticeably different, says Gloria, who was a San Diego city council member at the time.

"Whatever reason that might be, it could just be a pure no-growth approach or it could be a true fear of what affordable housing is perceived to be—and it's never what it really is—maybe this [bill] is a way to address that," he says.'

Amazing how they described this odd reaction without once uttering the words "black people".

<comment><USER12> (Former San Diegan)

While you have the general idea right, it really could be more accurately described as "poor people of a variety of backgrounds". I mean, there's plenty of poor latino (especially in San Diego), black, and white folks who need housing.

It's particularly galling when it happens in a charming neighborhood that used to be run-down and redlined but now that people are discovering trees and walkability are a nice thing has mostly $750k+ houses and residents who oppose any new construction of any sort. I mean, reading the nextdoor feed these are people who wanted to fight a discount grocer opening on an empty lot because it wasn't classy enough for them. They also oppose bike lanes and street calming, which is one of the reasons I left. (I refer of course to Golden Hill)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Right now cities have all the incentive to create office space to bring in as many jobs as possible, and the taxes that come with them, while leaving housing and infrastructure as someone else's problem.

There needs to be an incentive in place for this not to happen. Perhaps we need to force the municipalities to split their employment tax with the city where the employee actually lives?

Admittedly I have no idea what legal mechanism would make that possible, but something like this would give cities an incentive to build more housing along with increasing their employment/tax base.

<comment><USER21> Abolish local income taxes? Perhaps replace the income with state funds that are distributed based on population.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have what would appear to be a good middle class job at a state university but because I live in the Bay Area, half my paycheck goes to rent. Many of my coworkers are now working weekend jobs just to stay ahead. Positions remain unfilled for many months because the jobs don't pay enough. The chances that the state will give us a meaningful pay raise is basically zero. The California Faculty Association negotiated a 10% pay raise over 3 years and that required major arm twisting right up to a strike vote.

Forget home ownership, forget starting a family. This current situation just isn't sustainable.

<comment><USER23> It sounds like working at a university in the Bay Area is what's unsustainable. Why not just let the market sort itself out? If the university can't find staff, they'll have no choice but to raise salaries or move out. No need for union pressure. You've chosen to take the low pay and high cost of living, so it must be good enough for you. Perhaps at some point you'll be pushed over your limit and move out yourself.

<comment><USER24> The point of this article is that "the market" in housing is not functioning as one. Supply isn't rising to meet demand because it's being constrained by arguably unjust political restrictions.

<comment><USER25> Supply isn't the thing expected to raise boundlessly whenever demand goes up. Prices are.

In this case supply is said to be bounded by government. But imagine an alternate reality where SF was Tokoyo-fied to the max. The city has every last housing unit that could possibly be squeezed in. The peninsula is slowly sinking into the ocean. And there is still more demand for housing. What then? Supply isn't going to rise then, either.

So all I see is a whine that the government should prioritize one interest group's desires for lower prices over all the other desires and interest groups that coalesced to constrain housing in the first place.

Want to talk about the market not functioning like a market is "supposed to"? Look no further than consumers overpaying to pack into a city for salaries that do not offset the higher cost of living.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Currently trying to build a house in San Diego county. Red tape, permitting, and waiting on the county to review things has consumed no less than 18% of our total budget. I'm happy that California protects our environment from negative environmental impacts, but the way in which they do it makes new housing almost entirely uneconomical.

<comment><USER27> I've always suspected if not the overt aim, then a "side benefit" of this kind of activity was to restrict the inflow of people into desirable areas (rather than just protecting the environment or collecting taxes or else general bureaucratic nonsense).

I'd love to live in San Diego. If I could afford it and live like I do now I'd be there in a heartbeat. Not the case with San Fransisco which I'd have to be paid a whole lot more than could reasonably be expected to go near.

</comment></comment><comment> Paul-ish In NJ a state supreme court ruling created something called the Mount Laurel doctrine, which according to Wikipedia: requires that municipalities use their zoning powers in an affirmative manner to provide a realistic opportunity for the production of housing affordable to low and moderate income households.

How hard would this be in CA?

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

</comment><comment><USER28> Unlikely to happen, in my opinion. Locals, who have lived in the Bay Area for a long time, have all the voting rights and they either own homes and want to see their property value increase or are considered poor and get cheap housing and plenty of handouts. Only those who move here actually suffer and pay all the taxes to support the locals and end up renting forever.

<comment><USER29> More renters than owners. Renters need to get out and vote.

<comment><USER28> Too bad most of them are probably immigrants with no voting rights.

<comment><USER30> If it sucks here then don't move here?

<comment><USER28> There is no perfect place. Pick what you are willing to accept.

<comment><USER30> Right so if it's bad don't move there. I don't see what the issue is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> <sarcasm> It recently occurred to me that NIMBY policies probably are secretly promoted by US government as a way of protecting cities against nuclear attack: thanks to them cities get spread on the largest possible area, minimizing potential casualties and damages by exploding nukes. </sarcasm>

<comment><USER32> That actually was a design consideration in the 50s, especially for infrastructure. Part of the reason that highways were more favored was that they're more resistant to attack than trains.

<comment><USER33> The Interstate Highway system was also sold as a way for the military to easily move around should there ever be an invasion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Instead of growing vertically up, cities ought to consider down because it doesn't ruin existing property owners' view and the community's beauty of not turning into a concrete, brutalist jungle. Furtheremore, there's effectively infinite subsurface real-estate while the maximum usable height of buildings is finite. Musk's Boring Company transport ideas are also onto something but housing and office space should also be deployed underground to maximize spatial efficiency.

For example, the Mountain View San Antonio Shopping Center development has become an uninspired eyesore. I don't live there but it's unattractive.

<comment><USER35> Building downwards into space that has no natural light makes for housing that is unpleasant and in many cases dangerous in case of fire (on the 1st to 4th stories, roughly; windows provide a secondary means of egress; and above that, fire escapes).

Additionally, building downwards is extremely impractical where downwards is below the water table, which is the case in many parts of most major cities (since cities tend to have historically developed along rivers or shoreline for access to drinking water and transportation).

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'm glad they're starting to crack down in NIMBYs. we desperately need a vast increase in housing.

One of the long term side effects of this enormous housing shortage and the presence of prop 13, is that 50+ aged people are making up a larger and larger % of the population, as many of the younger people get pushed out (the next generation has nowhere to live). Already just in the last 10 years, % of 65 years olds and up has increased from from 13% to 18%. I'm guessing this trend will continue for the next 10-20 years, until the housing starts to correct.

</comment><comment><USER37> I am tired of NIMBY's in Bay Area and all over California. I am wondering if there is some economic analysis on the impact of NIMBY on job growth and poverty. I am convinced that at least some of the joblessness in Central Valley is due to NIMBYism in Bay Area.

Having said that, I don't believe any amount of legislation will solve the housing problem in California. The appeal for living in California extends beyond US borders and there is a large population abroad willing to move to CA.

</comment><comment><USER38> That's fine, but now they need to build new roads (or PT).

</comment><comment><USER39> > Residents might be less likely to rally against a new project, the thinking > goes, if it means their new neighbors will be teachers and firefighters in > addition to those receiving housing subsidies.

I suppose the implication here is that teachers and firefighters make a middle-income salary. The author is gonna freak when they find out how much housing a teacher or firefighter salary will buy you in a major US metro city real estate market.

</comment><comment><USER40> If they want to solve housing, they need to incentivize the hell out of "permanently remote" positions.

It is insane that so many teams in such dense areas have these butt-in-chair policies that require employees to live in expensive areas and commute great distances.

Frankly, there are tons of jobs that can be done just fine from _anywhere_. Managers have to get over this idea that they can't keep track of people wherever they are.

</comment><comment><USER41> What I really don't get is why isn't the free market working? It seems like other cities in other states would compete for high tech jobs aggressively enough to make companies willing to move to cheaper areas where they could pay their employees less and the employees have a better cost of living.

<comment><USER42> >It seems like other cities in other states would compete for high tech jobs aggressively enough to make companies willing to move to cheaper areas where they could pay their employees less and the employees have a better cost of living.

There are towns doing this, but it takes time.

[http://custom.forbes.com/2015/12/03/charleston- s-c/](http://custom.forbes.com/2015/12/03/charleston-s-c/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> The residents are blocking the construction to protect their real estate value. Nice move from the government, however I don't know how would this go through because there will surely be some intensive lobbying from the NIMBYs' side.

</comment><comment><USER44> Rule number one of using acronyms: Do not assume everyone knows what they mean.

NIMBY:

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

<comment><USER45> Rule number two: Right-click and choose "Look up" on any word you don't know.

<comment><USER44> Oh, I know what it means. That was a public service.

Acronym soup can be maddening. Sure, one can look up every acronym but this can reach the point of jarring the reader out of a story. It is often a better idea to help the reader retain the desired mental state by taking a second to clarify acronyms.

Anyone who's read legal documents know just how easy it is to do this. The first time you use the acronym you define it, just like this (JLT). Any time after that the reader knows what it means without having to run a separate search and change mental states, JLT.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It's a very anti-democratic move by California. They are willing to destroy local control of people in their communities to foster growth that will lead to further deterioration of living standards.

Wouldn't it be better to try to grow tech outside of California in places like the Dakotas and Idaho where there is plenty of land and people in need of work?

The American heartland could be a place rich in opportunity if we invest there as a nation. Considering urban/rural income differentials it would ease inequality also.

<comment><USER28> Not a lot of people want to live in places that you mentioned. The really smart people will find a way to stay in California forcing all others to gather around them.

<comment><USER47> How far is it from Silicon Valley to a really good trout stream? In Boise, it's a lot closer.

How about hiking in a wilderness area? Skiing?

Now, true, if you want high-quality Chinese food, Boise may not be your cup of tea (pun intended). But I bet there are enough tech people who like the outdoors more than the big city to make a small-ish tech hub in someplace like Boise.

<comment><USER48> Ever heard of Micron Technology? They have a bit of a presence in Boise:

[https://www.micron.com/about/locations/USA/Boise](https://www.micron.com/about/locations/USA/Boise)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I've been in Silicon Valley for close to 20 years, and I have been concerned about this for a long time. I want to say it was somewhere around 2010 that I began noticing a sudden increase in the number RVs I see in non-RV places, such as large parking lots and along industrial area roads. Now it seems like I hardly go anywhere and not see several RVs that are clearly out of place - they used to only be found in sideyards, RV parks, or driving down the highway.

Next, the homeless situation has truly grown to epic proportions. Take a peak into any of the inbetween areas, and you'll find a small encampment. How many of these exist, I can't say, but once I began to understand where the homeless go, I started to venture and take small peaks - they're everywhere.

Next, the homeless started showing up, en masse, in large public places. The most obvious is the parks near San Pedro square in San Jose. Yes, this area has always had an "element" to it, but that element used to live in the nearby housing. Now, the element is in the park.

I was talking with a friend who lives in a very expensive and beautiful home near this park, and this friend was really annoyed at how the homeless population around this house has really exploded. At the same time, this friend had not identified any link to the homeless population and crazy median home prices, now approaching $1 million for San Jose. I asked this friend to please consider the statistic of a $1 million median home price in a city with a population of 1 million, and what does that really mean for its residents?

My feeling is that, in time, this is going to be incredibly bad. The first problem is an increase in property crime. When people are forced out of their shelter, they will become desperate. Some percentage of any population is going to be pre-disposed to considering crime, so increasing the number of people who are desperate will increase the absolute number of people who will turn to crime.

Police forces do not exist to protect - they are really just for cleanup, and currently there is a new trend that will eventually get reported of how the nature of burglaries, especially in the San Jose area, have changed. It used to be that perps would case and then burglarize when owners were out for a weekend or vacation. Now, the owners are out for only a few hours and return home to find they have been burgled. Obviously they are using some more sophisticated surveillance or network tech of some sort. In at least one precinct, the police have yet to catch anyone performing burglaries in this manner.

With this new trend, a group of, say, five clever people can do 10s of millions in property damage annually. As these small groups are increased, the dollars in damage become very real, plus the emotional impact of feeling insecure in your own property will often push people over the edge to sell their homes or at least move away, converting their residence into a rental unit.

The second trend that I fear will begin to occur is the less clever criminals who simply mug, loot, and smash-and-grab.

Finally, there will simply be violence against the property owners. People are not dumb, as we can see by this article that even the politicians and bureaucrats are beginning to get concerned for their jobs. In San Francisco, there was the violent demonstrations against the Google buses. I don't know in exactly which way the violence comes out or is directed, but when you force enough people in to desperate circumstances, you will eventually have enough of those who are pre-disposed to violent "solutions" that they will find a target.

In all of this, people will begin selling and moving out. The property values will drop, not because of increased supply of housing, but because of an exodus of existing buyers coupled with a sharp reduction in new buyers. Eventually, companies start moving jobs or entire companies to other areas (owners, executives, and managers don't want to live in all of that), and demand for residential housing falls yet further.

As the prices drop, people will consider selling to get equity, so the prices drop further (selling encourages selling). Getting things to go up from here will be a serious problem. All of the governments are maxed out, credit-wise, and their revenues will tank.

At this moment, today, it seems like increasing housing is a bad idea for cities and property owners because they will lose at least some of the current equity in their homes, but depending on the property owner's time-horizon, they may well lose all of their equity.

<comment><USER50> There's a very simple solution here: build more housing and pay better wages _in the first place_ , so as to avoid the awful dilemmas of French Revolution- style situations.

<comment><USER49> Inadequate wages is not the issue. There simply isn't enough housing. In the most recent 6-year period for which there is data, 500,000 net new jobs were created in Silicon Valley, but only 65,000 new residential units were built in the same area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> It's fascinating to see how the NIMBYs couch their arguments in terms of environmentalism and morality, when they are motivated by nothing else than greed and shallow personal interest at the cost of everyone else.

</comment><comment><USER46> Maybe the answer is to stop growing and let other parts of the country grow. The brain drain to SV has been disastrous for other communities. It's contributed to inequality and deep geographic/political polarization.

Yes, you can downvote me but consider formulating a counter-argument.

<comment><USER52> That's... not really how it works. Or, you could also argue that's what the area has been doing for the past 40 years, and look at the current state of housing.

EDIT: I didn't downvote you, but I will elaborate: there's very little you can do to stop people from moving to California, short of forcefully putting them on buses and sending them away (which is what some cities actually do[1][2]). What you _can_ do is figure out a plan before they show up to provide them decent housing for a fair price, or else they'll figure something out, something likely to be illegal/extremely uncomfortable/look a lot like homelessness.

Some anecdotes: one friend of mine lived in a house-boat in Berkeley for 2 years while going to college. Another lived out of his van in Los Angeles. These are regular young people, both born in California, trying to make things work.

It has been extremely hard to build new buildings in hotspots throughout the state for quite a long time. You could argue that preventing growth to meet demand is, in a sense, what it means to "stop growing" (short of turning folks away at the state line). This is what I meant by my comment.

1: [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/nyregion/29oneway.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/nyregion/29oneway.html)

2: [https://thinkprogress.org/nevada-gets-sued-for-dumping- homel...](https://thinkprogress.org/nevada-gets-sued-for-dumping-homeless- patients-with-mental-illnesses-onto-buses-271e5c518016)

<comment><USER30> But how many people are going to move there to live in a bus? I certainly wouldn't. If property values get too high I'll just not move there. I don't understand this mentality where everybody thinks they should be able to afford to live in the best cities in the country, especially in California. It's just simple supply and demand. If housing prices get too high and people can't afford to live there they will live somewhere else. Period.

Now that's an oversimplification. There is a lot to be said for mixed income communities and whatnot, but just saying "oh I can't afford to live here this sucks" is not good enough.

<comment><USER53> I think you both have the causality backward. Vanishingly few people are moving to California to live in a bus.

People are moving to California to get better jobs, and most of them can comfortably afford to live in California. The people who are ending up in buses have lived in California since housing was cheap enough that they didn't have a problem, or since they were children.

People who can't afford to live in California anymore also can't afford the cost of moving. So they end up on the street and unable to find work or leave the state.

<comment><USER54> > The people who are ending up in buses have lived in California since housing > was cheap enough that they didn't have a problem, or since they were > children.

Most of the people I know who complain about the housing cost in California are young people who make considerably less money than their parents do but expect to be able to maintain the lifestyle they had growing up. That's incredibly unrealistic and I doubt that's ever been attainable unless you're exceedingly wealthy.

When my parents moved to the area I grew up in, it was not even close to the desirability that it is when I eventually moved out. I've done what they did. I bought a house further away in a less expensive neighborhood because I can't afford to live there.

The amount of young people who think they have a right to move in the opposite direction and maintain their lifestyle is strange to me. Tons of people I know moved to bigger, expensive cities out of college/high school but they had to live with 3 roommates to do so. Eventually, when you want your privacy back, you have to move away.

For most young people, you can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to where you choose to live.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Moving power away from local bodies to State is a bad idea. This is a recipe for corruption.

</comment><comment><USER56> Does the state have a plan for the water crisis that keeps getting worse if it were to make it easier and easier for more and more people to settle down in it?

<comment><USER10> Only ~10% of California's water use is residential/urban (varies a little bit year to year) [0].

The majority of non-environmental water is used to grow cash crops in the central valley, like almonds, which take 1 gal/almond.

Overall, urban residents have far less impact on climate than exurban residents who drive around in SUVs. It is in the best interests of everyone on planet Earth to make our cities denser and more inviting [1, 2].

[0] - [http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108](http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108)

[1] - [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/)

[2] - [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/23/city- dwe...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/23/city-dwellers- smaller-carbon-footprints)

<comment><USER47> One gallon per almond? But... one gallon of bottled water is more than a dollar. I know there's packaging and transportation, but there's packaging and transportation for the almonds, too. And almonds are not one dollar per almond.

Do the almond growers receive subsidized water? I don't know how else the economics of this works out. (Unless the water used to grow almonds isn't up to the purity standards of drinking water, and they're counting on the tree to filter it...)

<comment><USER57> I think people (especially urban dwellers) are disconnected from how agriculture works. It takes lots of water to support plants, and even more to support animals (including people).

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/food-water- footprin...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/food-water- footprint_n_5952862.html)

some highlights:

1 gallon of coffee - 1056 gallons of water

1 pound of chicken - 518 gallons

1 pound of beef - 1847 gallons

1 gallon of wine - 872 gallons

1 gallon of lentils - 704 gallons

<comment><USER58> The disconnect is with whoever decided that desert farms should receive water that could instead be used by cities. No one has a right to farm the desert. Quit subsidizing that, and agriculture will move back to areas that have plenty of water. Dairy, in particular, should be concentrated in the Midwest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Some of us just wanted a 3 bedroom house on a 5000 sq ft lot -- so we could have a small yard with room for a dog and BBQ. Maybe a kid playing outside.

Now we're being told we're greedy, and our neighborhoods should be replaced with 3 story townhouses on 1200 sq ft lots. No room for Fido.

Makes me wonder what we're working insane hours for -- to settle for permanent apartment style living. At least we don't have cage houses yet.

<comment><USER59> Heavy down votes, wow. Did I offend someone?

<comment><USER60> I didn't downvote you, and I'm not offended, but I sure as hell rolled my eyes at your comment.

Nobody in a city deserves their own yard. Public parks where everyone can BBQ make far more sense. Want a dog? Move to Montana, or get a housecat instead.

You seem to want sprawl; cities need density.

<comment><USER59> Thanks. But what are we defining as cities? Are suburbs included? Where are suburbs allowed to remain, as we force zoning shifts to high density?

The YIMBY movement is strong throughout the Penninsula, between SF to San Jose -- areas previously considered suburbs.

Clearly a 5000 sq ft lot is unacceptable in SF, but where _is_ it acceptable? San Bruno? Menlo Park? Mountain View? Sunnyvale? Pleasanton? Oakland? And for how long?

The article is talking about State laws. Presumably they would apply to all cities, not just SF.

<comment><USER21> Cities area already defined. Yes suburbs are included. They should allowed to remain as long as it's economically viable to do so.

If you're neighbors want to sell for $10MM each to a developer who wants to build an apartment, they should be allowed to. If your other neighbor wants to tear down their house and build a duplex and rent the other out, they should be allowed to. If you want to keep your dog and bbq, you should be allowed to.

The general idea is to allow people the ability to extract the wealth from their property. It's possible that they are "drinking your milkshake" by extracting wealth from surrounding properties too. But everyone was given the same opportunity.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Don't Become a Scientist - <AUTHOR> http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html

<comment><USER2> Thu May 13 12:39:11 CDT 1999

When I started my degree in Astrophysics (1989), the department head fully expected there to be a glut of openings due to the retiring old guard. However, these people didn't retire, and if they did leave their position they weren't replaced.

Luckily, I was aware my dedication was lacking, and I segued into software development and sysadmin early.</comment>


Wouldworks: My non-software startup - <AUTHOR>

I wouldn't quite call it a startup yet, but I was inspired by Jeremy McAnally's WickhamHouse startup and when he posted about it a few weeks ago (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1795302) and this led me to start http://wouldworks.com.
I recently started tinkering in my garage, building little things out of wood.  My tools were limited to a rotary tool, a jigsaw, and a drill -- extremely basic stuff when it comes to woodworking.  Given what I was working with, I was never extremely satisfied with the quality of what I building.  Despite that, I decided to show off one of my creations (a laptop stand) to my coworkers, and to my surprise they were all very impressed with what I had built.
Several of them were interested in a stand of their own, and someone suggested that I should sell them online.  Well, I really like doing stuff with my hands -- building stuff, fixing things.  So I started thinking about it, and after hearing Jeremy talk about his business (we're coworkers) and how well it was doing, I thought why not?
There was one problem, my shitty excuse for a woodshop.
I didn't have the money to go out and but a bunch of nice tools.  Hell, I didn't have the money to buy a bunch of cheap tools.  I had all these ideas for other tech/gadget-related accessories to build, but no means to do so.  I thought, how could I make this happen?
I tried setting up something through kickstarter.com, but unless you're making an indie film or back-to-the-future shoes that tie themselves, they're not interested.  I found another site that wasn't so picky (gofundme.com) and set up a donation site there.  I just launched it earlier today and I've already gotten a handful of donations.
http://bit.ly/wouldworks
Check it out.  If you like what you see, make a donation and I'll send you something cool and hand-made in return.  If you don't like what you see, but you think there's something I can do to change that, then let me know. <comment><USER2> As somebody who runs a small non-software related online business, selling products, my first question is - why in the world do you need funding?

Just start a website selling the stands and see how many orders you get! You can obviously build a few with your existing crappy tools. Rather than going through all the trouble and distraction of raising money, when you are not even sure if there is much of a market there - just start selling and find out! You will soon know if this is something worth perusing, and you can use the income generated to buy better tools and scale up the business.

In the unlikely event that you start to become flooded with orders you can either create some kind of waiting list people can add their e-mail addresses to, or just increase your prices until you have a level of demand you can deal with.

To pull some advice from the software related start-up work, If you are not embarrassed by version 1, then you have waited to long to release.

<comment><AUTHOR> Essentially that's what I'm doing. If people make a donation, then I send them a product. I could continue to build them with my existing crappy tools, but with more appropriate tools I can be more efficient and maintain a more consistent, quality end product. It'd be different if I were asking for donations and promising nothing in return. In the end I think it all works out the same.

Just out of curiosity, what's you non-software online business?

<comment><USER3> > If people make a donation, then I send them a product.

I've seen that else where, and it really peeves me. Why can't you just say you're selling your product online? What is it about calling it donation? (Other than Paypay being really picky about it.) If it's a _donation_ , then it's a donation. If I give you money, and you give me a product, that's called _buying_ and _selling_.

<comment><USER4> Paypal being picky is a real issue though. This kickstarter-style compensated donation does seem to get around that, but I expect it's a loophole that will soon be closed. Then again, I don't know of any other setup for doing a pay- what-you-like model with Paypal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you are in the bay area, check out <http://www.techshop.ws>

They have woodworking tools and machines. The most awesome of which are: 2 CNC Routers, and a lathe

Also: chop saw, table saw, jigsaw, and some other stuff I don't know about.

I use the metal stuff there, it's a wonderful place to make stuff, plenty of people making interesting projects too.

I'm a member there, and don't benefit (other than getting to see other peoples crafts) from recommending this to you :)

<comment><USER6> Techshop isn't strong for wood. However, there's Sawdust in Santa Clara.

<http://www.sawdustshop.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Do you still have a link to a picture of the stand? I don't seem to be able to find it in the comments.

Your post made me register for a HN account after lurking for a long time because I too run a non-software online business. I manufacture my own products, do our own web development etc.

You don't need to be distracted with raising funds and the what-nots like Luke has pointed out. When I first started out, I made a few samples and took a few pictures of them. I coded up my own website, loaded the products in and launched. All this was done with around $700.

With the amount you have raised up now, you should quickly start putting your products online (your own site, or perhaps even marketplaces like Etsy). Focus on getting customers and then keeping them.

My business is still young and I am nowhere near what some HN'ers have accomplished, but if you ever need a little help, feel free to contact me.

</comment><comment><USER8> The lack of scale is probably cooling people's interest in investing in this - realistically it's not going to escalate into something that produces returns by a factor of N. It doesn't mean it's a bad idea - but this is basically hobby / small business / home business territory.

Meanwhile, if you have good ideas, have you considered working on the design side, getting together with a few people and moving towards small scale mass production for your gear?

edit: sorry, mass production as in finding a manufacturer somewhere who can make bulk quantities of your furniture, wood or otherwise.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, to be honest its not really investing since you'll get a product in return, but yeah I see what you're saying.

For right now its just me doing the design and fabrication. I'd like to keep it that way as long as possible. I think the fact that they're not mass produced is what people really like about it.

If it does somehow get to be more than I can handle, then I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. ;)

<comment><USER8> Can relate, I work in the arts so theres always a 1:1 cap on the production / profit aspect of it (excluding soft copies like prints and digital editions). Though, given, that's completely discounting the return of the enjoyment of the craft itself.

You could very well do both, produce and sell the originals, shell out a second business that mass produces the more popular designs, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The stands look awesome, but I had some thoughts.

I don't have a lot of use for a (really cool looking) laptop stand. But there are other things that I do have a use for. Mostly chairs, tables (maybe a coffee table with a great design or concept), trunks, boxes, etc.

Those things in a dark finish are really what appeal to me.

I guess what I'm saying is that while the stands look awesome, don't forget the classics that have just as much, if not more, of a market, but also keep doing what you like to do. This is obviously heavily slanted towards what I like to see in woodwork, rather than what I'm sure you really like to make.

I don't know what your intentions are (just doing this for enjoyment or one day hoping to leaving your job for your craft), but there is always a market for quality woodwork and I think your stuff is phenomenal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the compliment!

At this point, I'm mostly interested in smaller items since they're easier to ship to people. Initially I'm just planning to steadily increase the quality and detail of what I build.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here's what comes to mind when I look at what you're doing.

I have a monitor problem where one is too short, and because of how my desk is I'd have to raise both of them different heights for them to fit right. If I had a couple books the right size, it would solve the problem- but that would look ghetto- and I don't have books the right size anyway.

What if customers could send you a photo of something that could be solved by custom woodwork that they don't have the means to do themselves, so you could exchange measurements & sell a solution like that?

<comment><AUTHOR> Send me some photos to give me an idea of what you're talking about. brent at wouldworks dot com

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Have you checked around your community for a shop you can use/rent time in?

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought about looking into something like that, but I have two young children and it can be a bit of a challenge to get out of the house sometimes. Being able to just step into my garage makes it much easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Sweet, keep it up! I build furniture in my free time, my house(an a few others) is filled with my creations. I also find it therapeutic after long periods of staring at a screen.

</comment><comment><USER13> You need to open an Etsy shop ASAP. You are providing the perfect answer to the _very timely_ question "What do I get my boyfriend/husband/dad for Christmas?"

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://wouldworks.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hope this works for you, but have you looked at the price of good tools? $1500 isn't going to get you much more than a nice 14" bandsaw and decent table saw.

<comment><AUTHOR> No doubt. But if I can make a decent product with shitty tools, then I can make an even better product with mediocre tools. If I start turning a real profit, then I'll invest in real quality equipment.

<comment><USER15> A few really good tools will last you a lifetime. Don't waste time, money or potentially your safety with inferior tools. And stay far, far away from dull tools, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> clickable non-bit.ly link - <http://funds.gofundme.com/z5b0>

</comment><comment><USER17> Any pictures of the iPad stand?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not yet, but only because I don't yet have the necessary tools to finish it. But if the donations keep coming in like they have been, then I'll have what I need very soon! I'll post some pics as soon as its done. You can count on that.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What skills to learn to land a job at a startup? - <AUTHOR>

HN, I'm hoping to get a job at a startup in the Fall or Winter. My resume is not the greatest: long stretches without a job when I was traveling.
Coding skills are obviously something I can work on, but besides that I might want to work in product dev, or as a growth analyst. What skills should I work on that would let me get one of those jobs?
Thanks. <comment><USER2> Hustle. Show that you will add value more than you will cost. Can you improve, sell or promote the product before you even join? They need a compelling reason to hire you, and by the sound of it, it won't be something on your resume (and it definitely won't be something you learned online over a month). Do something bold to show them your value.</comment>


Top ES6 features by example - <AUTHOR> https://blog.pragmatists.com/top-10-es6-features-by-example-80ac878794bb <comment><USER2> "Who doesn't like explicit inheritance, like in Java language, instead of writing magic code for prototypal inheritance?"

There's nothing magical about prototypal inheritance code, and I'd suggest the class keyword is more magical since it's "primarily syntactical sugar over JavaScript's existing prototype-based inheritance" [1]. Furthermore, encouraging classical inheritance constructs without mentioning the classic pitfalls is somewhat harmful [2].

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Classes)

[2] [https://medium.com/javascript-scene/javascript-factory- funct...](https://medium.com/javascript-scene/javascript-factory-functions-vs- constructor-functions-vs-classes-2f22ceddf33e)

<comment><USER3> I never understood the whole confusion about prototypal inheritance. It's not harder to grok than classical inheritance.

"Which Java developer doesn't miss classes when switching to a JS project?" ... That's the biggest problem here. Java != JavaScript. You shouldn't blindly carry concepts from one language to the other.

Adding syntactic sugar with the only goal of pleasing developers coming from other language goes against my view of what features should be added to a language. That's code bloat.

<comment><USER4> > I never understood the whole confusion about prototypal inheritance. It's > not harder to grok than classical inheritance.

In theory no, but Javascript has such bad support for it that it's syntactically inconvenient and you have to understanding significantly more details of the implementation to manage it than just "you add the other class after the extends".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What? The mentioned Array methods (map, reduce, filter, etc..) are not new ES6 features

<comment><USER6> Nowhere does it say "new" features.

<comment><USER5> "New cool helper functions appeared..."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The article is not very good, with both factual mistakes and missing important sub-properties

> 2\. Array helper functions

`map`, `filter`, `reduce`, `some` and `every` were actually added in ES5.1. Only `find` and the unlisted `findIndex` come from ES6.

Meanwhile Array.from which _was_ added in ES6 goes unlisted.

> 3\. Arrow functions

While the reduction in definition boilerplate is great, missing is the very important (and convenient!) fact that arrow functions resolve `this` lexically (as a normal variable rather than a special case).

> 4\. Classes

Would have benefited from mentioning the most convenient feature of classes by far: the `super` proxy to calling a method of the superclass on `this` (most useful with constructors): the ES5

        <Superclass>.prototype.aMethod.call(this)

becomes:

        super.aMethod()

which also helps a lot when moving methods around.

> 6\. Template strings

Missing: you can "tag" template strings to invoke user-defined functions on the contents and do intermediate processing and interpolation yourself e.g.

        sql`foo ${bar}`

will invoke `sql(['foo ', ''], <value of bar>)`.

> 7\. Default function arguments

Missing note: unlike e.g. Python, default arguments are dynamic and sequential (similar to let<star>[0]) so you can define a `function foo(a, b=a)`.

> 8\. Rest and spread operators

Actually the opposite for once, mentions that rest and spread operators can be used with object content, sadly that's currently a stage3 proposal, definitely not part of ES6.

> 9\. Destructing

Missing notes:

* the destructuring is recursive (you're not limited to a single level)

* you don't _have_ to "[assign values] to variables _of the same name_ as properties" when destructuring objects:

        let {name: a} = a_call();

      will bind the value of the property "name" to the "a" local variable.

* you can provide default values to the destructuring pattern e.g.

        let [a, b=3] = [1]

      this can be combined with renaming for object destructuring

[0] [http://docs.racket- lang.org/reference/let.html#%28form._%28%...](http://docs.racket- lang.org/reference/let.html#%28form._%28%28lib._racket%2Fprivate%2Fletstx- scheme..rkt%29._let%2A%29%29) can't use an actual star there because HN comment formatting remains a complete trash fire and thus decides to emphasize half my comment and swallow the mark of the first list item. And still does not print let∗.

<comment><USER7> Bad article, the author should have indeed put some more time into understanding what he is writing about.

      var firstTeenager = people.find(teenager)

Stuff like this, when you write about ES6 features but use var makes my eyes hurt :(

<comment><USER8> I agree that the article needs some work, but there really is nothing wrong with still using var. I'm in the Kyle Simpson camp and just use var for everything except if I'm actually creating a constant or block scoping comes into play or I need to prevent the hoisting of a variable. That way, it's clear what I'm doing and what my intentions are.

<comment><USER4> > That way, it's clear what I'm doing and what my intentions are.

It's the exact opposite since you're defaulting to the most permissive binding style.

Defaulting to `const` would actually make it clear what your intent is: you use `let` if you need mutable bindings and you use `var` if you need hoisting.

If you default to `var` your intent is apparently to make use of mutable bindings and hoisting everywhere, at which point I can only expect that you put your variable declarations at the bottom of your function blocks after the `return` statement.

<comment><USER8> Defaulting to const does nothing. If you or someone else decides later that it should be reassignable, then they'll change it and not think about it. If const is rare in your code, people will be aware of what const means in that context.

If you're putting your variable declarations after your return statement, then you probably have other problems. I also don't know why you would ever expect someone to do that.

<comment><USER4> > Defaulting to const does nothing. If you or someone else decides later that > it should be reassignable, then they'll change it and not think about it.

Which they'll do regardless. `const` is an indication that the binding is not updated in the rest of the scope and thus that said scope can be perused without needing to consider an update to the binding itself. It is a guarantee of SSA, nothing more and nothing less.

> If const is rare in your code, people will be aware of what const means in > that context.

The same as above which you apparently assert is "nothing"?

> If you're putting your variable declarations after your return statement

Why would _I_ do that? I'm not adamantly using `var` when I have no reason to.

<comment><USER8> If everything is a constant then nothing is a constant.

Code bases change and some things that a coder did not foresee needing to be reassignable may later need to be reassignable. There aren't frequent cases that switching them becomes a problem, and as a result, people switch them. Since they do get switched so often, people stop thinking about when it really matters or if there was some intent to it originally being written that way. If everything is a constant, then the cases where it matters and the cases where it doesn't get blended together and it's impossible to differentiate the two.

When real, true constants are the only things declared with const, then it's abundantly clear what the intention of the coder was and that the value should never be changed nor should it ever be switched over to let/var.

Likewise with let, in the few cases where it's used it draws others' attention to the use of block scoping or the avoidance of hoisting. It's rare that those things really come into play, so the few cases where it's present really stand out.

tl;dr Block scoping and constants are the exception, not the DEFAULT, so you should write code accordingly.

> If you're putting your variable declarations after your return statement

What I meant here is that people shouldn't keep using var just so they can continue writing bad code.

<comment><USER4> > There aren't frequent cases […] Since they do get switched so often

They don't. In fact they almost never do.

> tl;dr Block scoping and constants are the exception

That's literally the opposite of reality. Constant bindings (single- assignment) and block-scoped bindings are by far the most common state of affairs even if not formally stated.

> What I meant here is that people shouldn't keep using var just so they can > continue writing bad code.

Maybe you should tell the you of two comments ago who's apparently arguing for exactly that?

<comment><USER8> What's with the hostility? I'm just trying to express my opinion. You can disagree and state your point without being insulting.

Sure, when I say frequent, I don't mean its happening all the time all over the place, I just means it can and does happen without consequence. Block scoping and constants, in the sense that it's important that they're block scoped and constant, are the exception. Most variables are single-assignment not out of necessity. And I bet most people think in function scope, regardless of how the compiler works.

It all still comes down to intent. If you're always defaulting to using const, your intention is not really showing through.

<comment><USER9> As an outside observer I have to say that _they_ are not the one who came off as hostile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> With such lagging browser support forcing you to compile ES6, it generally makes more sense to jump to TypeScript. You get all the E56 plus things like interfaces and enums and, of course, strict typing.

<comment><USER11> Strict typing isn't always desirable, depending on the application of the language. With it you give up a certain level of developer productivity; appropriate if you're using Javascript for backend logic with Node, not so much if you're building simple views with React.

<comment><USER12> I don't think so, or at least it doesn't feel like it. Typescript's type inference is so good that you only need types maybe 15% of the time. It also has shortcuts like constructor property initializers and support for async even when targeting ES5.

I would bet money that you actually write less code with Typescript than regular javascript because of all the streamlining and shortcuts. And with the type inference you almost get static typing for free.

I hear this argument come up frequently against TS and all I can say is I'm fairly sure it's from people that haven't used it.

<comment><USER13> Sometimes it's also from people who use JavaScript in a more functional context, e.g. with currying. Suddenly it requires a lot of effort to still have TypeScripts benefits. [https://gist.github.com/donnut/fd56232da58d25ceecf1](https://gist.github.com/donnut/fd56232da58d25ceecf1)

<comment><USER14> I've been working with Typescript for the past six months. Javascript is starting to shine as a functional programming language, and the communities who develop the useful tools that we actually need are moving in that direction too.

Typescript feels like a step in a completely different direction. The problems that TS tries to solve have other solutions. Solutions more idiomatic to javascript development. Redux style architectures, grouping code by feature, libraries over frameworks, GraphQL and so on. And these solutions are solid and dependable. Unlike the made up brittle and often incorrectly defined types that Typescript and Flow demand. If you want to use Typescript, then I hope you really really REALLY like Generics, because they're absolutely everywhere in Typescript. They're the solution to the fundamental flaw with TypeScirpt, it wasn't designed with the actual job that Javascript does in mind.

It's Javascript for people who don't like Javascript and don't care to learn it. Well that's fine, each to their own. But people sing it's virtues without pointing out any of the flaws in both the approach or the implementation (maybe because they simply don't see anything wrong), and that really rustles my jimmies.

<comment><USER9> It absolutely is a step in a different direction.

Not a bad one, but very _intentionally_ different.

I personally prefer a style/practice that doesn't work well with TS, but I appreciate it exists and typedef files for libraries are very nice for developing in things like VSCode.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Many comments are saying that the article is not good as it is not accurate. (e.g. @masklinn) I agree. The author could have spent a bit of time reasarching this since bullet-point-articles are probably the easiest to write down.

However, it's interesting (yet sad) how its catchy title "Top ES6 features by example" is making darn popular.

<comment><USER16> The current "GitHub/your blog is your resume!!" movement has led to people who have little business writing didactic resources (not because of programming skill, but lack of research, teaching experience, and writing abilities) to do so in hordes.

It's hard to complain without sounding like a jerk because these are free to read, but they can waste people's time or confuse them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Quite a bit of negativity in the comments here. I liked the article. Typically I rely on code samples in articles like this, but I found the paragraph descriptions very readable.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is very helpfull. I never know that js has linq. Very similliar. Also using lambda. Just rename select keyword to map keyword

</comment><comment><USER19> Is there a good description somewhere of how to use new methods like Object.freeze, Object.defineProperty etc?

<comment><USER20> These are not new ES6 features. I think you can get a really good explanation from the you don't know js serie.

[https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know- JS/blob/master/this%...](https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know- JS/blob/master/this%20%26%20object%20prototypes/ch3.md)

The whole serie of book is worth it and free to read on github

<comment><USER21> Object.defineProperty is actually quite ancient yeah.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Excellent post. Just the right amount of information to get the point across.

</comment><comment><USER23> This website is shit on mobile with its fixed top bar taking up 20% of the screen space.

<comment><USER24> Ironically, without JavaScript, it works fine for me on mobile.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How remote is your job? What is missing for 100%? - <AUTHOR> A software developer can easily perform 100% of his tasks remote. A retail employee can perform 0% remotely.<p>I am interested in the 70-99% remote spectrum. What do you need to achieve 100%? <comment><USER2> 1\. I find that a good office environment combined with an easy commute is way better for my productivity and mental health than working from home.

2\. Having _some degree_ of in person communication with your team makes everyone's work better. This isn't an argument for meetings or small talk, my point is that _some_ meetings and conversations can only be done well in person.

3\. I live in a big city, rent a single room and can't afford a home office - working, relaxing, eating and sleeping in the same space isn't my ideal lifestyle.

So to be willing to work remotely all the time, I need to have an employer who is willing to pay for me to set up a productive home office environment - separate room, good desk, screens etc. Only to make me 80-90% as productive as I would be if I had a good office environment and got to meet my colleagues.

In a previous role, the office environment was great and my commute was a 20-minute walk - I never took the option to work from home even though I could have.

</comment><comment><USER3> Whiteboards - I still find that no software can beat a room of people and a shared whiteboard for talking through certain things. It's such a simple yet effective tool for so many things.

<comment><USER4> Unpopular opinion: I think whiteboards are overrated. I have been software engineer my whole life and never needed a whiteboard to do my job.

<comment><USER5> That doesn't help. What do you use instead? For multiple people designing a system with many related components at the same time, I've never encountered something that works as well. There are probably other ways _possible_ , but I haven't seen one as effective. I also use the to explain such systems to other people interactively.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can easily do 100% if I want to (and I am at the moment), but doing so means working at 70-80% efficiency. The difference is not a technical thing, but purely a mindset thing. At work I have my work space with my work things and can work distraction free. At home I'm surrounded by Not Work people and Not Work things which are always competing for my attention.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have never had a video call that had less friction then sitting together with someone. In my experience this mostly comes down to UX: almost everyone working is trained on how to behave in an on-site meeting, but not everyone knows how to behave in a remote meeting (e. g. muting and unmuting etiquette). In my experience there is also a bunch of jobs in the technical field that in principal could be done remotely, but suffer due to lack of technical knowledge of the person you are interacting with. An example I think everyone can relate to is tech support for your parents. In my experience that is a lot easier when standing next to them. And a lot of tech jobs are about explaining technology to people who don't have experience with that specific tech yet.

</comment><comment><USER8> Probably better end user tools. Better software, microphones, cameras, situational awareness.

I can do everything remote, but 30% is slower because the tools get in the way. In my team, things are arguably better. Crossing team boundaries sucks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is this a culturual issue or a tool issue? Mic and cam can be bought in decent quality. Shared slack (no affiliation) channels can cross team boundaries.

<comment><USER8> A little bit of both.

My team of 40-50 is going from a 20% occasional telecommute model to 100%. So we're learning and adapting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm design equipment and automation for biology labs. Much of my work is done at a computer and now I'm 90% WFH. Takeaways so far: \- Remote meetings are better than 10 years ago. But still room to gain. \- remote design reviews of physical products are lacking engagement from the team. Being in the same room helps a ton. \- running actual chemistry needs a lab of course \- managing a team of software engineers, hardware engineers and scientists is ok in JIRA, but nothing beats in person discussion for a diverse team.

</comment><comment><USER10> Making sure everyone has broadband and a strong WiFi signal In the room they are using for videoconferencing. One person dropping audio and glitching can dramatically reduce the quality of a meeting.

</comment><comment><USER11> I can never be 100% remote in my current role. I'm a DoD contractor and perform some of my duties on networks I can only access from secure facilities. I can do the rest remotely.</comment>


Get Paid to Type CAPTCHA's - <AUTHOR>

http://www.megatypers.com/
Note: THIS IS NOT MY SITE. I'm posting this here in the hopes of generating discussion about a pretty important topic.
A few sites exist specifically for breaking CAPTCHA's. These are known as "CAPTCHA farms" [1][2]. You can find a bunch of them on Google, but a few examples are DeathByCaptcha [3] and ImageDecoders [4]. These two sites charge about $1.35 per 1000 solved CAPTCHA's.
This is a relatively well known industry, but most of the articles I've seen only talk about the demand side of the market. Nobody has bothered to find the sites paying the suppliers to type the CAPTCHA's. So today I did a little bit of research and was able to find one.
MegaTypers [5] pays its users to solve CAPTCHA's. Signing up is kind of difficult because you need to track down an invitation code, so I took some screenshots and put them in an album for anyone interested, including pricing table, CAPTCHA entry, and statistics board. [6]
When typing CAPTCHA's, I was limited by the speed they were offered to me (hence the ability to buy "boost packs," I presume). In 60 seconds, I was able to type 12 CAPTCHA's, 11 of them accurately. Assuming I sustained this rate for an hour, I would type roughly 700 CAPTCHA's.
Assuming average price of $0.65/1000 (it varies by hour), I would earn 45 cents. In an 8 hour day, that's $3.60.
CAPTCHA farms are making a profit of roughly $500 per day.
I'm wondering: What does the (largely libertarian) userbase of HN think of this?
Note: I ran into the character limit, so will post more in a comment.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/technology/26captcha.html?_r=0
[2] http://arstechnica.com/security/2008/09/captchas-flummox-bots-but-may-be-doomed-by-captcha-farmers/
[3] http://deathbycaptcha.com/
[4] http://www.imagedecoders.com
[5] http://www.megatypers.com/
[6] http://imgur.com/a/QevOc
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country <comment><AUTHOR> So, in summary: CAPTCHA solving companies charge $1.35 per 1000 CAPTCHA's. They pay less than half of that to the people typing the CAPTCHAs. Some of these CAPTCHA farms claim to be solving 700,000 CAPTCHA's per day (according to the NYT article), which equates to roughly $500 per day in profit, or $15,000 per month, or $180,000 per year.

According to Wikipedia [7], a wage of 45 cents per hour is higher than the minimum wage in 40 countries where the number is listed, and more than double the minimum wage in more than 12 countries.

Personally, I'm divided. People are clearly using these services, and many of them are working from home, not from a sweatshop as many people imagine (although I'm sure those places exist). That means conditions must be "somewhat" tolerable. In some countries (like the dozen with a minimum wage under 20 cents per hour), a wage of $0.45/hr could actually be really good.

Of course, then there's the issue of spam. Personally I see that as ethically orthogonal to the labor issues here, since it almost exclusively affects "first world" people, and hardly in any meaningful way. So I'll ignore that question for now.</comment>


2048 showcase - <AUTHOR> http://abimaelmartell.com/2048-showcase/

<comment><USER2> This is nice. Is this all of them?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think i'm missing some

i'm doing a search in hn for "2048" to get more games.</comment></comment>


Vimeo page effect: Honda Insight - Let It Shine Ad  - <AUTHOR> http://www.vimeo.com/4281939

<comment><USER2> The behind the scenes "how it's made" <http://vimeo.com/4295148>

</comment><comment><USER3> This reminds me of the ad for Wario Land on YouTube. Unfortunately, it isn't as effective anymore because it's using the old YouTube design. <http://www.youtube.com/experiencewii></comment>


The diary of Stalin's man in Churchill's London - <AUTHOR> http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/10/07/the-secret-diary-stalin-man-churchill-squad/iCGkqUynjw62nqXpSdXVVN/story.html <comment> guard-of-terra Is the whole thing available? Pity if it only surfaces on per page basis.

<comment><USER2> In Russia, his diary published an edition of 800 copies. Only 800! In the educational program of schools it is not present. What to say about the West?) Translation matches to the original, but cut his more emotional statements about the criminal policy of Chamberlain and Daladier

<comment> guard-of-terra After some searching I've arrived at the text:

[http://modernlib.ru/books/mayskiy_ivan_mihaylovich/vospomina...](http://modernlib.ru/books/mayskiy_ivan_mihaylovich/vospominaniya_sovetskogo_diplomata_19251945_godi/read_1/)

They even have fb2

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hmm, very interesting, someone should summarize this, put things into context. Would be a great book.</comment>


How Are the Kids? Unemployed, Underwater, and Sinking - <AUTHOR> http://baselinescenario.com/2010/11/20/how-are-the-kids-unemployed-underwater-and-sinking/ <comment><USER5> Some of these unemployed liberal arts majors can be really frustrating to me. A few months back, I was talking to an old roommate of mine, who graduated 1.5 years ago with a BA in PHL and a foreign language (3.9 GPA), who has not had any luck finding a job.

So now he basically sits around surfing the internet all day and looking at foreign films.

3 months ago, I told him I would help him by getting him the right materials he would need so that he could pick up some design skills, since he seemed really interested in graphic design. Initially, he seemed interested, but then he refused because he didn't like the idea of using pirated materials such as a copy of Photoshop or Lynda tutorials. At the same time though, he refused to pay for anything that would actually teach him what he needed to know.

I just don't understand how someone can drift sideways like that for so long. The guy is not picking up any new skills or making any real progression in his life. The other day he complained because he thinks all the clerical jobs he is applying for are automatically going to women. It's like he makes up excuses to cover up for his own laziness.

<comment><USER6> It's not clear that a self-trained design novice would have much more luck finding work, unless he turns out to have a natural genius at it.

He'd be competing for work against experienced designers, and against newly- graduated design students.

<comment><USER7> I've seen novices do amazing design work. (Usually they go on to a portfolio school after working for a few year or building a studio, though.)

Practice and good taste is pretty much the only things in design. Low-end design is pretty much just keeping up with the lowest common denominator in design style, anybody moderately trained--or self trained--can do it.

<comment><USER6> "I've seen novices do amazing design work."

Sure. It happens. But that's not the way to bet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "In order to combat such structural problems, the need for investment in _education_ and jobs is clear."

Um, didn't they say just before this that 50% of Bachelor's graduates cannot find jobs requiring that degree? So how is funding even more Bachelor's degrees going to help in the current environment?

<comment><USER9> There is more to education than Bachelor degrees. Investment in the trades and advertising them as legitimate and respectful career paths is one path that could use more funding. Too many people push for a BA due to external pressures saying you need a university degree to be considered a success today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I should be careful when I say this (but I'm not so take it with a grain of salt and don't be offended.) The crash in the housing market is definitely a good thing for young people. Here in Australia the prices of houses are getting so expensive I don't think I'll ever buy one at this price, ever; It'd just mean mortgaging myself to the hilt just to make some baby boomer rich enough to retire comfortably. A housing market with house prices kept high artificially is called robbing the next generation.

<comment><USER11> Well I live in America, and at 32 I suppose I'm more gen x than gen y, and to me the offensive thing is how much the government has bent over and used _my_ tax dollars to prop up the housing market, even though the whole thing was based on people buying houses with loans they couldn't afford. The constant specter of "falling home values" makes me sick, since it essentially means that I can't afford to buy a home so that people who already _did_ buy homes they couldn't afford get to keep them.

This type of mentality is why the US will lose to China. The government and Wall Street only care about how the numbers look on paper. As markets evolve and become more and more sophisticated, there is an increasing disconnect with what these numbers actually mean for public prosperity.

<comment><USER12> "This type of mentality is why the US will lose to China. The government and Wall Street only care about how the numbers look on paper."

I was with you on the first paragraph, but this I have to LOL at. Have a look into China's property market if you have a spare hour somewhere. It's in a lot worse shape than the US one is, except that the bubble hasn't burst yet. House prices have gone up 100's of % (yes, that's two 0's, and it's not a typo) over the last few years basically because Chinese have little to no other options available to them to store value/wealth in. There are whole cities that lay empty and whose owners only bought the real estate for 'investment' purposes, forced government lending is being misappropriated for unproductive real estate development, insolvent loans are kept on their feet by the government by rolling them over. Taxi drivers and maids own two or three apartments - <USER2> all over the place, in tier one Beijing and Shanghai but also tier two like Kunming, I mean this is not just some localized big city phenomenon (Kunming is still huge by my standards, but well ;) )

The bursting of the Chinese bubble is going to hit China like a sledge hammer, and I'm curious to see what their response is going to be. One way or the other, it's going to affect the West in a major way, so I'm really hoping for a soft landing, but we'll just have to wait and see.

<comment><USER11> Good point. I am clearly ignorant about the Chinese housing market, and probably Chinese economic weakness in general.

However I think my larger concern still holds, which is that fundamentally Americans seem unwilling to face the reality of competing in a global economy. Desperately clinging to bubble home valuations is but a minor symptom. China has some bad problems to be sure (environment, demographic decline, etc), but being competitive in the global marketplace isn't one of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Definitely correct that the great-recession is structural unemployment - <USER3> just lack of demand.

The industrial revolution spawned public schools for giving all of society the ability to take part - now we need another similar revolution.

However, whereas before it was the capitalist class doing this to get more workers for their factories, it's now those very people trying to restrict education into the same old mold.

We need a model that suits the emerging model: global, info rich, distributed, open-source, democratized, etc.

This means we need: basic programming (using FOSS) for everyone, teach stats before, teach FabLab tech, teach media literacy and research at a young age, show them the vast amount of resources at their disposal.

Our kids really will be our future...

<comment><USER14> Or better, we need a generation of kids that are interested in science and math and actually go into professions that _make_ things.

I haven't seen any specific numbers that break this down by degree. Given what I've seen in computer science, I'd bet that engineers and other "hard" degrees are doing just fine.

<comment><USER15> Generally yes, but not always.

The blind belief that getting a "hard" degree is a guaranteed path to gainful employment is fraught with much of the same false logic as people getting "soft" degrees. I saw much of this during my time in college.

The majority of the class did the work they were assigned and that was that. There was very little effort put towards professional development, networking with industry people, or building a solid portfolio of past work that is _key_ to succeeding in any enterprise.

When I left school, the people who were passionate about the subject - <USER4> who pursued applications of their craft above and beyond the paltry requirements of getting the degree, they were the ones who found jobs easily. Of my peers from university, many are still underemployed today, or are employed with poor prospects of either vertical or horizontal movement.

This goes beyond "hard" degrees. I'm heavily into photography besides being a coder, and the number of people who go to art school for a photography degree, clearly have not shot enough pictures, or put together a substantial portfolio, but expecting to find employment or contracts is pretty absurd.

I see the same problem in CS and engineering - people who are under the incredibly false presumption that just by finishing the degree that they are employable. They're only _more_ employable right now because of the gigantic shortage of qualified coders, but this situation won't last forever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The authors are so brainwashed by the system, they don't even know that the policies they advocate for are the ones bringing the economy down. They recommend more government investment in education, and a massive push for government funded "Green Jobs". This seems ludicrous as government jobs tend not to go to young people.

How about using scaling government back a bit to encourage a better business climate? Look at the policy differences between Texas and California. It's no surprise where the jobs migrate to.

Government needs to step back temporarily and let business flourish. A lower corporate income tax and tax breaks for early stage startup investments seem like it would go way farther than a huge push to add more government employees.

<comment><USER17> When government is in ascendence, the results are unstable.

When commercial interests are in ascendence, the results are equally unstable.

Neither lower taxes nor more regulations are a solution.

Nor higher taxes, nor less regulations.

And for those that hadn't noticed, government did step back from its designated regulatory roles, and we then saw the largest economic crash in a half century, we saw lies and fraud, profits from the increasing privatization of two wars, and (what should be distressing to any capitalist) socialized losses.

Reprehensible numbers of (legal) techniques for bypassing taxes, including the so-called "Double Irish" of recent reports.

And what has been one of the largest transfers of wealth seen in the US. (Which seems good if you're among the rich, until you realize you might not have an economy nor enough potential customers.)

The numbers of corporate leaches is as troubling as the numbers of folks claimed to be government leaches; commercial organizations that are increasingly extractive, rather than productive.

As a startup, I want a level business playing field. As part of that, I want cogent and adaptive regulation. And I don't choose to operate a business in those regions that are increasingly or entirely commercially-focused; that have ineffective or failing governments.

As with all things, balance. Less government is as bad as more government. But that's just not a good sound bite.

<comment><USER18> > And for those that hadn't noticed, government did step back from its > designated regulatory roles,

In what universe is pushing mortgages "stepping back from regulation"?

Regulation is systemic risk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Even with good credentials, it is difficult for young people to find work and keep themselves afloat."

I would like to see this statement better qualified. Of the dozens of people I've worked with over the years, I can think of exactly three who had good credentials out of college. Of those three, I know for a fact that at least one had good credentials going in.

Conversely, some industries are still healthy and hiring. But it seems that training and qualification often lag demand. I remember trying to peddle my (albeit infant) UNIX skills in 1993 (also an economic recession). It took me a while to get myself into the a geographic location with sufficient demand for my skills. After which, I had zero trouble paying the monthly on my loans. Fast forward to 2003, and the systems administrations market is glutted with a bunch of fresh, young faces who've installed Ubuntu a few times and are willing to work 80+ hours a week for 30K a year. That was my clue that it was time to move on. One of them, anyway.

Kinda comes across as "F--- you, Jack, I got mine," I guess. But I don't like this sort of doom and gloom pity party.

<comment><USER20> You might come across as indifferent to others but I choose to interpret your post as an straightforward reminder that for most of us resume pips don't mean shit. A degree's nice, internships are cute, but with or without them you've got to hustle to make it.

Ten years ago I was intermittently working in the trades between bouts of pizza delivery and crashing unemployed on a friend's couch. I get paid mostly to write open source plugins for web CMS's these days. Occasionally I consult if the project's interesting. I've got a decent house and an incredible wife. My change of fortune is utterly unremarkable. No luck involved, just 10 years of hustling, looking for the next angle, working on my skills and networking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Student loans are not able to be discharged in bankruptcy, is that right? Assuming so, what will be the likely result if the current situation keeps up for say 5 years - no job means no payments on the student loans, and at even a low rate of interest, not making payments on the loan for 5 years will greatly increase the amount due.

Some amount of defaults/resetting will be likely - the question is, who will take the haircut when the loans are not repaid?

<comment><USER6> The government, because't the loans are likely underwritten by the government.

<comment><USER22> You mean the citizens, because the government doesn't have any money of its own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Author's problem description: Students went too far into debt getting an education that didn't lead to jobs

Author's solution: Invest more in the same education system

</comment><comment><USER24> Problem: No one is hiring people with degrees Proposed Solution: Spend more money on education so that more people have degrees.

How does this make any sense? Shifting supply to the right will only reduce the equilibrium wage.

<comment><USER6> Alternately, the solution might be to spend money on education so that the same people have more degrees.

Of course, when they get their second, or third, and still can't find work...

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is it really that astonishing, given that kids are all but pushed through 'til they get "their" BA? Degrees are used as a quick proxy for minimum competency, right? Well, if our highschools act as little more than babysitting systems that push kids through no matter what (qualification to say this: I date a public highschool teacher in Maryland, which is supposedly the best public school system in the country. Consequently, I see it first-hand.), HS diplomas will be rendered irrelevant.

This, in turn, means that college degrees become the base level qualification required for a showing of minimum competency. Compare the ability of a recent college graduate to secure employment with that of a high school graduate in the 1970s, and I'd bet they're not far off...

<comment><USER6> The 1970s high school grad likely had it better, as there were more decent- paying factory jobs then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> in our increasingly technological society, jobs require better logic skills, that's a big change for humanity, social skills used to matter more.

</comment><comment><USER27> And who says there actually is genuine need for such masses of employees? Many say that there ought to be, or that they wish there were, but that isn't the same.

</comment><comment><USER28> Not to boast, but merely to inform.

Technical degrees (like engineering) don't have problems like this. I'm a Junior with ample internship offers for next summer, and my friends who are seniors all have job offers coming in. Last I checked our school was ranked in the 80s nationally, so it's not like we are MIT or Stanford.

</comment><comment><USER29> If you aren't, (or worse, can't even imagine), doing something without being paid, people won't want to pay you to do it unless it's a real shitty job. People call this "passion"; I call it being what you say you are. Otherwise, you're just phoning it in.</comment>


Ask HN: Are there systemic reasons for contractors being unreliable? - <AUTHOR> Why are home contractors often unreliable? Typical example: a contractor is scheduled to come in on day x, but creates delays and comes later than expected.
From what I've seen, both through personal experience and anecdata, it seems that home contractors are frequently unreliable both with respect to time commitments and quality of work.
I am wondering if this is fundamentally because contractors overbook and over-commit themselves because they can only compete with rates that force them to try and do too many jobs at once.
Or is it something that can be explained other reasons? E.g. - typical contractors simply don't have the background, training or perspective to build completely reliable service levels in their business? <comment><USER2> I've spent years wondering about this and living it and I've come to understand the problem in terms of scheduling theory...and when I did, it was both a moment of amazement at the clarity it brought and disappointment at the tautological obviousness that the scheduling problems of contractors were explained by scheduling theory. I'll skip a description of scheduling problems and the difficulties and tradeoffs of creating a schedular because these are well described in computer science literature. Not because I would not get something out of writing about them at length.

Because the scheduling problems of contractors are much worse. There's no central schedule. Contractors schedules must be built around client's schedules which they do not control. Contractors have multiple client schedules to work with. Contractors have a different scheduling weights than clients, like cash flow which prioritizes tasks closer to billing points and the expected lifetime values of clients and the cost of pushing each project to the back burner.

Even worse, when initial cost rather than lifetime economic benefit is a primary consideration of the client when selecting a contractor, the contractor must default to running as lean as possible. Without surplus staff, the contractor can only scale up by employing subcontractors. Subcontractors have exactly the same scheduling challenges and considerations.

To put it in a nutshell, a contracted project where low initial cost is a primary consideration is dependent on the schedules of the clients of the contractors subcontractors. And the initial low cost pressure runs all the way down to resource constrain those subcontractors.

The last thing I will add is that many projects start by the client and contractor sitting down and having no idea what the project actually is, how it will be done, or how long it will take. But the client wants a fixed price and a low one.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> The subcontractor dependency is thought provoking. I hadn't thought of that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I have dealt with contractors that are on-time, get work completed on schedule and those that are late, if they even turn up, unreliable, late on finishing and often require remedial work after hand-over.

In my experience, most contractors come from a trades background so they have never learnt the principles of effective business management. The reliable ones seem to have an intuitive sense for what their clients expect and how to satisfy their needs. The unreliable ones think that all they need is their trades skills.

</comment><comment><USER4> In my experience, only underpaid and/or inexperienced contractors are unreliable.</comment>


Ask HN: Distributed Tracing in Node.js? - <AUTHOR> Hi all,
I worked for a company more than 1 year which most of our stack is using Node.js architected in micro-service way.
I found difficulty on finding the best way for tracing context and error (distributed tracing) to detect issue faster. Anyone has experienced this too and been willing to share the way for dealing with this  in production system?
P.S: I believe most people usually passing context in function call and combine it with open tracing. But I'm not sure if there are any better ways than that in Node.js. Example of distributed tracing in Golang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm2A80PfYww <comment><USER2> In JS you use (if using zipkin) [https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin- js/tree/master/packages...](https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin- js/tree/master/packages/zipkin-context-cls). If you have further questions, feel free to come to [https://gitter.im/openzipkin/zipkin](https://gitter.im/openzipkin/zipkin) and people will help you with more details.

</comment><comment><USER3> > I believe most people usually passing context in function call and combine > it with open tracing.

What about that is not working for you? I haven't used Node at all but I imagine it would work about the same as described in the video you linked.

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe that's working but it's kind of pain because we need to passing context across function call. So I wonder whether there is better way to do that.

I believe node.js has async_hook feature that can capture context without passing function call, but it's still in experimental phase and won't work for tracing

<comment><USER3> Like I said I've never worked with Node but being explicit seems like a better pattern than having some background async process do it.</comment></comment></comment>