In France, New Review of 35-Hour Workweek - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/business/international/france-has-second-thoughts-on-its-35-hour-workweek.html?_r=0 <comment><USER3> When I was living in France, I thought it was a great idea.

As a white collar (so not being bound to the 9 to 5 and sometimes pulling in 36h shifts...), the system worked as such:

I would work 5 days a week, and get an extra day off of my choice every fortnight.

The results were really great for me and people I knew:

I no longer needed to take days off to deal with paperwork, and other administrative tasks, I could finally get an appointment with my banker. I could afford to go to the day market to buy fresh produce.

I knew of married couples that would alternate theirs to be on days where the kids didn't have school (traditionally wednesdays) so they didn't have to source someone to watch over the kids on a traditionally very busy day for childcare.

Obviously the system is not perfect, but surely as work gets "easier" the way forward would be to reduce hours worked, not increase them...

<comment><USER4> Because of Robots- the whole world may move to a 3 day work week. Here is Larry Page on that.

 _"If you really think about the things that you need to make yourself happy—housing, security, opportunities for your kids—anthropologists have been identifying these things. It's not that hard for us to provide those things," he said. "The amount of resources we need to do that, the amount of work that actually needs to go into that is pretty small. I'm guessing less than 1% at the moment. So the idea that everyone needs to work frantically to meet people's needs is just not true."

"You just reduce work time," Page said. "Most people, if I ask them, 'Would you like an extra week of vacation?' They raise their hands, 100% of the people. 'Two weeks vacation, or a four-day work week?' Everyone will raise their hand. Most people like working, but they'd also like to have more time with their family or to pursue their own interests. So that would be one way to deal with the problem, is if you had a coordinated way to just reduce the workweek. And then, if you add slightly less employment, you can adjust and people will still have jobs."_

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/07/07/googles-l...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/07/07/googles- larry-page-on-the-40-hour-work-week-jm-keynes-got-there-first/)

<comment><USER5> The problem with that is that the best jobs (such as google) are competitive. Even if two people competing for the same job only want to work 30 hours per week, they both know that they can make themselves more attractive to the employer by offering to work more hours than the other person. This is especially true for immigrant groups competing with domestic labour.

The state could regulate the working week to 30 hours, but this will impact GDP and thus the state's ability to provide public services via taxation and also the ability of poor people to get out of poverty by outworking the more wealthy.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure I follow. The same reasoning kinda' applies now: I can work more than 40 hours per week to look like a better applicant, but this becomes both counterproductive and untenable at a certain point. (There are a finite number of hours in a week.) Sure, there are times when you have to put in overtime, like when a big release is about to come out or there's a critical bug, but largely you should be able to finish your work in the allocated time. If this is consistently not the case, then you (the 'royal you') are either understaffed, ill managed, or incompetent. (Again, I don't mean to call you personally incompetent, I mean 'you' as a member of the workforce.)

I think with the insistence that 30 hours is full time we'll see fewer worthless meetings and less overhead, since time is now a scarce commodity. Think about it: that ten hours is a two-hour meeting every day. If I say, "I will work 60 hours a week every week," to my new employer, they'll look at each other with great incredulity. There isn't necessarily 60 hours of productive mental time each week. Given, I'm neither the smartest nor the most focused person in the world, but I think I could only do 20 hours of hard, focused mental work each week at my last job. The remaining 20 hours was mindless email, bug reports, writing documentation, or drawing XML diagrams which spelled profane words when zoomed out enough.

There will always be people who want or need to work more than the standard. That's okay. What reducing the work week means to me, though, is fewer people filling in their days with useless padding. If you're done after 30 hours, that's okay -- go home!

<comment><USER7> Law firms don't see it this way.

> I can work more than 40 hours per week to look like a better applicant, but > this becomes both counterproductive and untenable at a certain point.

<comment><USER6> They might not, but that doesn't mean we should make concessions to them. I agree that it's important to consider the practical aspects of a law's use, but we shouldn't avoid making laws because some groups will ignore them. In fact, in this case I think it adds even more incentive to drive down the work week time because then all the people working 40-hour weeks will be contributing over the minimum.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The 35 hours law was implemented very differently for blue collar vs white collar workers.

For white collar workers (including software/it people), the law was implemented with a certain number of extra days/weeks of vacation per year, above the standard 5. And each company had it different.

So if one talks about the 35 hours law in France about software/it workers, please do not start counting weekly hours. Ask about how many weeks of vacation instead.

Accordingly, when I moved from France to the US, for the same company, i lost a few weeks of vacation, but boy, the days were WAY shorter.

<comment><USER9> > a certain number of extra days/weeks of vacation per year, above the > standard 5.

No doubt you mean "standard 5 [weeks]" and not "days", but note that won't be obvious to many of us in less enlightened countries like US and Japan.

<comment><USER8> Correct, 5 weeks. I got up to 4 weeks in the US eventually.

The strangest thing for me in the US is how many people are convinced they cannot take 2 weeks at a time, and how many are leaving days on the table each year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Once again, I have to point to the Results-Only Work Environment — [http://gorowe.com/pages/rowe-standards](http://gorowe.com/pages/rowe- standards). ROWE isn't the only way of doing this sort of thing, but it's a good approach.

Companies hire people to produce results, not to sit in an office for a certain number of hours. Given this, stop trying to manage where and when people work, and start focusing on whether they are delivering results.

This endless parade of articles about work hours is reminiscent of people discussing the threadcount of the Emperor's clothes.

<comment><USER11> Forgive me if I am missing something that is obvious about ROWE, but what is to stop management from shifting the goalposts in a ROWE ? By continuously requiring more from their workforce they are receiving more hours of work from them while being able to say "We do not force set hours, we only require reasonable results from our employees" ?

It simply seems easy to manipulate.

<comment><USER10> That's a great question, tanderson92.

Unless you've had a remarkable work experience, you'll find that bad management shifts the goalposts in a 40-hour work environment too. "Work harder, work faster, work smarter!" This behavior is independent of the environment. The advantage of ROWE is that it removes a lot off waste (hours tracking, telecommuting paperwork, microaggressions about hours worked, etc.) and lets people actually focus on the work.

If you have executives that want to destroy the company by crushing the workforce then, yeah, no environment will stop them.

<comment><USER12> So what's preventing management from imposing huge amounts of workload when there's no limit to how many hours you work? The usefulness of a set limit of hours is that it protects the employee from work overload.

<comment><USER10> That's a reasonable concern, adeptus.

What's preventing management from imposing huge amounts of workload and telling you to get it done in 40 hours — or you're fired and they'll find someone else to do it?

I do not mean this at all flippantly. I've worked places (and I'm sure others have as well) where the amount of work assigned is undoable in the amount of time available. People burn out, people deliver poor quality, people quit.

A ROWE is not meant as a mechanism to protect employees from destructive bosses. And, for knowledge workers whose work cannot be mechanically reduced to hours, neither is a 40-hour week.

A ROWE is about removing waste in the work process so that people can focus on the work they're hired to do, not on outdated ritualistic traditions about work that no longer apply.

<comment> vertex-four > What's preventing management from imposing huge amounts of workload and > telling you to get it done in 40 hours — or you're fired and they'll find > someone else to do it?

The thing is, under such a system, you get fired and that's the end of it, and the employer suffers for it as well as you. They can't push people to spend more than their 40 hours - they have to find somebody else who's willing to put up with it for 40 hours a week, or explicitly require more.

In the ROWE system, employers can collectively gradually push their employees to work more and more. 10 years down the line, everyone could have 50 or 60 hours worth of work to do a week, and no recourse, because every employer has gradually done the same thing - after all, if they can get more work out of you, they will.

<comment><USER13> A lack of recourse would only be the case if, as you say, 'every employer has gradually done the same thing'.

In an ideal world, all employees are able to be mobile, and would gravitate quickly away from bad employers, incentivising employers to not be bad (basically), and/or removing those employers / organisations from the environment.

I respect we don't live in an ideal world, but equally we don't live in a 100% evil - but somewhere in between the two extremes. So in practice you would see the same things that happen now - employers that aren't evil are able to obtain and retain better employees, in part because they don't engage in the kinds of activities you're describing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _" in reality, France's 35-hour week has become largely symbolic, as employees across the country pull longer hours and work more intensely, with productivity per hour about 13 percent higher than the eurozone average. And a welter of loopholes lets many French employers outmaneuver the law."_

What concerns me from a public policy perspective is that people vote on politicians and platforms based on some simple, plain-language representation of what they stand for. "35-hour work weeks for all!" is pretty catchy, and I might could be behind it.

But then when the policy is implemented, it's done so in such a convoluted and byzantine fashion that _I am not longer able as a voter to determine whether it was a good idea or not_.

So we then begin all these partisan debates over the slogan, when in fact the slogan was never really tried. This is a defect of centralized, complex governments: it really has nothing to do with your political stance or what you support or oppose. I could say the same thing about Strategic Defense Strategy in the U.S. If something is explained on way, supported by the public in one way, but implemented in such a way to confuse what's really going on? The system fails.

I think the saddest result of this is watching very intelligent and passionate people debate various positions and policies, _none of which ever have any chance to actually be implemented in anything near the terms in which they describe_. So it's like watching smart people debate the relative merits of their own imaginary castles.

As a programmer, I like it when I code something and it doesn't work. The computer language causes me to express my desires exactly, I must transcribe them faithfully, and even then, sometimes I get it wrong. The feedback loop is quick and honest.

Such is not the case in these matters.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think the free market does an absolutely wonderful job of creating amazing conditions for workers that are in high demand. For top tier programmers (which are highly over-represented in this forum) working in tech hubs, you can look forward to lots of work perks, smart managers, career progression, and excellent pay.

Working long hours in an interesting job with a manager who supports you is usually not that big a burden. Labour regulations aren't really designed for this community. You have to take into account the people who lack the education or aptitude to work a challenging job - and those people will be ruthlessly crushed and exploited unless the government steps in and provides a floor.

<comment><USER16> Explain stack ranking and PRP then

<comment><USER15> Those are pretty terrible (and I've heard that at least MS finally got rid of stack ranking) but compared to the kind of shit that an employee at a fast food chain has to go through, it's a blissful paradise.

Until they were shamed in the mainstream media, Starbucks used to treat employees schedules as linear optimization problems without any regard for the human beings behind them: [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/starbucks-w...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/starbucks- workers-scheduling-hours.html)

"""Last month, she was scheduled to work until 11 p.m. on Friday, July 4; report again just hours later, at 4 a.m. on Saturday; and start again at 5 a.m. on Sunday."""

<comment><USER17> Couldn't Starbucks just add another optimization term that demands a minimum amount of time off?

<comment><USER18> Yes, they could do, but then they might have to have another employee or some other such that means they make a little less profit, so fuck the workers, if they don't want the job there's some other sucker who'll thank me for the chance to be exploited.

<comment><USER17> That makes sense. I was thinking that this sounds more like a problem with corporate culture, rather than a problem with optimization. If you have a culture that doesn't value your workers, any effective optimization method will lead to outcomes like this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> There is no explanation in this article for what makes the 35 hour week bad, except for weasel words like these: "And critics say the rule is a reason that France's unemployment rate is more than double Germany's rate of 5 percent.". The 35 hour rule has little to do with the difference between Germany's and France's unemployment rates. This article is pretty frustrating, it's such a hotchpotch of arguments.

Then the article goes on to talk about the underemployed, which is a separate problem.

</comment><comment><USER20> > All told, French workers put in an average of 39.5 hours a week, just under > the eurozone average of 40.9 hours a week, according to the Organization for > Economic Cooperation and Development.

For comparison, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average for Americans in non-farm employment work an average of 34.5 hours per week:

[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm)

Which is way less than the amount worked by anyone I know or have ever worked with in engineering and corporate jobs. I don't know if this number is so low because of under-employed or part time labor, but I doubt it given the breakdown over the various industries in that table on the bls.gove site.

<comment><USER21> To an outsider, this is what the US workday looks like:

* 3 hours driving for no reason * 4 hours working * 6-7 hours fucking around pretending that you're being productive

I'm sure there's a lot of fucking around in French (and other European) offices as well, but Americans seem particularly adept at spending long hours at the office while actually working very little.

Source: every American I've questioned in depth about their workday. Mainly in Silicon Valley, haven't had the chance to talk to too many others.

Source2: A recent-ish poll on HN where the "I actually work 2 hours a day" option won

<comment><USER22> That's the feedback I got from a German co-worker when I was working in Silicon Valley. In Germany they just work 8 hours. But it's all heads down working. In the US we screw around (talking, surfing the web, etc) much more.

But I know from experience that workers in Spain screw around A LOT as well during the work day (and lord the long lunches at sit down restaurants!). So all Europe is not the same.

<comment><USER23> 2012 German GDP per employee: $43,243

2012 American GDP per employee: $68,374

On paper at least, the US is much more efficient creating value from employees.

[http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.GDP.PCAP.EM.KD](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.GDP.PCAP.EM.KD) (Both numbers are in constant 1990 PPP $)

<comment><USER24> a large part of American GDP is not based on employee productivity

<comment><USER25> Can you expand on this? Do you mean to say that much of American GDP comes from things like natural resources where American employees have the fortune of working to extract? What other factors besides employee productivity and natural resources would contribute to GDP?

<comment><USER26> It's a little disingenuous to compare the US and Germany. While there are large variations in Germany too (and one could look at the individual states there as well) -- it would make more sense to compare US states, rather than all of US. Or: one might compare the whole of EU (or possibly, some older subset of EU) with all of the US.

[edit: On the other hand, as the US leads by a pretty significant margin, there must be other factors at work. While Germany isn't top among the EU, the US is top of the world on that list, anyway. I'm a little surprised the US is even ahead of Norway -- given the pretty big GDP boost Norway gets from oil, and our low population.]

<comment><USER27> That table is purchasing power parity adjusted.

The unadjusted GDP for Norway in 2013 dollars is around $100k, and for the US around $53k.

Purchasing power is depressed in Norway compared to the US primarily because salary structure is one of the flattest in the world, which means salaries in service jobs are amongst the highest in the world, and consequently prices are amongst the highest in the world.

<comment><USER26> Ah, I clearly skimmed the summary too quickly. Just saw "adjusted" and assumed index-adjusted to some year-dollar value. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> If you work in IT, 35h/week is something you will never see in France. You will hardly see tech people leave the office before 8pm, 7pm at best. If you leave before, people are going to point a finger at you "taking the afternoon off".

Engineers typically have a "cadre" status meaning that they can work 10 hours a day. That doesn't include remote work after getting back home.

When I moved to the US, what struck me is that work days are way shorter. Most engineers were gone by 5:30pm. People actually have spare time after work.

Sure, there are less vacation days, but at the end of the day, the work-life balance is way way way better in the US.

</comment><comment><USER29> How do we always end up back where we started? It's been shown over and over that the majority of office jobs are not productive beyond 6 hours/day. Hiring more people to "fill in the gaps" is a misunderstanding.

<comment><USER30> The problem is that for office jobs in France, the 35h week never became the 7h day. It just became the same 40h week as before, except you get an extra 12 days holiday a year - so not necessarily more productive.

<comment><USER28> Or, in most companies, you don't get any extra day off at all, but you're allowed to take two 15 min breaks per day. Which doesn't make a difference in practice.

<comment><USER30> I've never seen that for "cadres" \- it's always a day rate ("forfait jour"). Maybe it was for non-cadre office workers? Like call centers or something like that?

<comment><USER28> That's for non-cadres.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> "in reality, France's 35-hour week has become largely symbolic, as employees across the country pull longer hours and work more intensely, with productivity per hour about 13 percent higher than the eurozone average. And a welter of loopholes lets many French employers outmaneuver the law."

So then, what's all the hubbub? Why bother changing something that's obviously ineffective?

<comment><USER32> You're onto something there. The hubbub is all due to a kind of hobby of English-speaking media (=their wealthy owners?) to whack France & its world leadership in lowering the nationwide definition of "full time" amid proliferating worksaving technology - God forbid we should switch from the standard layoff response thus disempowering employees & weakening wages and markets, to trimming hours across the board and maintaining employment and wages and markets = no more complaints about "slow growth" = upsizing despite constant downsizing. As for "ineffective," in 1997 the 35 hours was voted in because official unemployment (UE) reached 12.6%. After the workweek went from 39 to 35 in the next four years, UE was down to 8.6% in 2001 before the US-led recession hit France. Hmm, 4 hrs cut, 4% UE cut. Isn't that what the USA got 1938-40? 44hr workweek in 1938, UE 19.0%; 42hrs in 1939, UE 17.2%; 40hrs in 1940, UE 14.6%. Hmm, 4 hrs cut, 4% unemployment cut again. See Roediger & Foner's history of the US workweek, Our Own Time. The objection to workweek reduction is that it's effective, so it must be slandered energetically - those who talk most about freedom are most scared of it, and financially secure free time is the most basic freedom, without which the other freedoms are either inaccessible or meaningless. Deets on timesizingdotcom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> What should "no longer be put on a pedestal" is Work. Work is not a virtue. It is a necessary means to an end. When we go beyond that necessity we become servants to the Economy, rather than having an economy that serves us.

</comment><comment><USER34> It has been my experience that the North American 40 hour work week is also a myth in practice.

</comment><comment><USER35> I don't really understand why this isn't more of a political thing. a 3 day workweek seems like a total magic silver bullet to me that solves a tonne of issues:

* Happiness index should go way up.

* The generation that is heading for retirement around now doesn't really know what to do with their time. If you actually work the full 40 hours a week, and you have a family, then, especially a few years ago, you simply didn't really need a hobby. You could zone out and watch some TV on saturday, work on the home on sunday, and monday is another workday. The problem is: these people end up miserable in their retirement because they don't know what to do with themselves. With only 24 hours of work a week, you WILL find a hobby.

* People spend more money when not working, and when money is being spent, the economy is much healthier.

* Convenience goes way up; with a 24 hour workweek, work is forced into moving away from a rigid work schedule: You can no longer declare that monday-friday, 9am-5pm are work times and all other times are off-work. That means that people are expected to not work during times which are still considered normal 'work hours'. This leads to expansion of work hours, thus, more convenience (things being open from 8am to 8pm or longer, monday to saturday). This is more relevant for europe; in the US, most things are already open a lot, many things even 24/7\. This also means that things that are usually only open on workdays, such as the DMV or a bank or a doctor's appointment can be visited by people without requiring awkward arrangements at work to make time.

* Unemployment is solved overnight, because you instantly multiply the job market by about 1.4 (okay, it's not that much, but more than enough to stave off unemployment for a long long time).

* It in fact moves the work market dynamic back to a seller's market, which is GREAT: Right now things like automated delivery trucks aren't advancing nearly as fast as it could simply because unemployment is already an issue and nobody wants to deal with thousands of unemployed truck drivers. Automation (which is something we should hopefully strive for; what satisfaction is there in doing a job a machine could easily do?) SHOULD be something we encourage; in practice, it isn't.

* Good for gender equality, in the sense that it is much simpler to share child raising duties if the normal workweek is just 24 hours. You can now have a real career without having your kid be raised by your spouse or a live-in nanny.

* Good for job mobility, because you now have far more time to think about what you wish to be doing, and more time to do research and even interview for jobs you are curious about. If people start moving towards jobs they like, the theory is that they'll be more productive in that job, so it's good for everybody and great for population happiness.

* Traffic jams are cleared instantaneously, and in general this moves work environments towards accepting that colleagues aren't either 'all present' or 'all gone', so even if traffic picks back up, workflows will adapt much faster to accepting that people arrive and leave in staggered fashion.

Sure, moving towards an actual 3-hour workweek, especially in a different way vs. the move from 6 to 5 in the past (where EVERYONE got the same day off: Saturday) is a long process, but it's so obviously worth doing!

<comment><USER7> So... uh... how do you multiply the job market by a factor of 1.4x and expect people to spend more money? Where is this surplus capital coming from?

There's a lot of weird assumptions with this post but that's a good duality to start with, I guess.

<comment><USER35> You don't need surplus capital for more luxury.

I know, that sounds weird. I did not study economy in university, so apologies if I'm covering well trodden ground or not using the right terminology, but, reasoning it out:

Something like an excellent michelin-star level experience in a a restaurant is some serious luxury and it shows: People pay through the nose for it. And yet, you don't really need more capital (if that is the right word) to make this a reality for far more people: You CAN have everyone work far less and yet have far more people eat like this, simply because a very large part of the resources required to make this dining experience happen, is manpower. I know I said that unemployment is vastly reduced so you'd expect the costs of this experience to go way up, given that i.e. the kitchen cleanup staff, currently paid next to nothing, would become far more expensive, _BUT_, that just means that in the short term this restaurant (A) has a much bigger % of the total running costs dedicated to salary now, and (B) because everyone is still spending a larger % of the fewer dollars they made, is richer and looking to invest in the future.

Add to this the fact that society is busy embracing the idea that nobody should work a minute longer than absolutely necessary, and no longer obsessed with trying to ensure work exists for all able-bodied adults, and... robots!

I reread what I've written and it comes across as rather dramatic, but efficient cleaning machines already exist, and a couple of high-caliber restaurants already have them. They are just expensive, and in the current climate, not worth it because you can get any sap working nights and overtime for the change in your couch cushions right now. But not in this new model. And _THAT_ is eventually how everyone works less and yet gets more luxury: More efficiency.

Everywhere I look, I see rampant opportunities for orders of magnitude improvements in efficiency, and yet at the same time a society and workforce model that actively resists the change. We can automate deliveries easily, but, there's resistance. Tesla and google auto-drive cars are being bound by laws, some no doubt because of honest questions about their safety, but a lot of them, I bet, due to some lobbying by various interested parties. Manufacture of goods could be far more efficient, but there's simply no drive to invest in any of it. Everyone drives a car, and yet even in places where you could feasibly move to a society where almost nobody owns a car and all you got is a very expansive public transit system and a couple of ZIP-car / greenwheels / etc style locations... that change is not happening. It would be more convenient for all and cost far less (i.e.: big society wins by way of orders-of-magnitude improvement in efficiency), and it should be possible in dense urban areas like Paris, the greater metropolitan triangle of Rotterdam- The Hague-Amsterdam, London (which is probably the closest to the ideal due to the congestion charge), etc.

Also, a lot of expensive hobbies exist, but there are even more cheap hobbies, which provide just about as much happiness for far less cost. The internet leads the way in this: The very act of writing this response is effectively a hobby, and it costs basically nothing.

<comment><USER36> > Something like an excellent michelin-star level experience in a a restaurant > is some serious luxury and it shows: People pay through the nose for it.

Because it's rare and cannot be copied that easily. A lot of special talent is needed for this. Not only in cooking, but also in perfect management.

What you are describing in this post is usually driven by growth, especially productivity improvement. This happens continously accross the world, but at a "limited" pace, not 1.4. So things like 35 hours produce suddenly a bump that may be hard to digest, especially for company owners. Efficiency improvement means new market, means investment opportunities, so whatever is possible will be done.

Car sharing is another thing... People like to own cars. This is cultural, not economics, so just changing a policy won't change it. The question is rather what would be more appealing than a car? Currently mobile devices and computers seem to take over that role, but let's see how it develops.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> My wife had a 35 hour job. It basically meant that most people took a 1 hour lunch. Other than less fibbing about 30 minute lunches, didn't have a huge impact based in any other gig she had.

My employer allows up to flex days per two week pay period. I don't do it, but it seems to work well -- people tend to come in early and get shit done, and if they need to work on an off day, they can accrue some limited time in compensation.

There's always a few workaholics, but the place is very productive with minimal drama around death march work conditions.

</comment><comment><USER38> 1\. Introduce 35-hour week rule

2\. Allow multiple ways to get around that rule by employers

3\. Employers offer zero-hour contracts or don't offer full 35-hour contracts at least

4\. Some employees end up working 60 hours/week to make up the difference, therefore not getting the advantages the law was intended to create

5\. Note that on average people are working 39 hours/week, not 35, and only slightly behind the 40.9 hours/week average for the rest of the Eurozone

6\. Insist all of this is stopping companies investing in France because somehow this makes French people look "lazy"

7\. Backtrack and insist the 35-hour rule will remain in place

This a law that doesn't work, nobody follows, is bad for the image of France but in fact workers are 13% more productive than the rest of the EU, is threatened with being removed, but will be saved because the lawmakers think it does work and is being followed and isn't bad for the image of France?

Right. And this is the country of the deep thinkers and intellectuals? Uhh huh...

<comment><USER16> But its the non french international firms that get raided :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> There is big problem with the employment in France. I spent almost a year there and this is a country where I am not going back.

I worked as an engineer in big enterprise at 35 hours a week + RTTs - <USER2> I am working 37.5 hours but I can take more days off. Everything sounded great before I went there and realized there is double standard - employees vs. contractors. If you are a contractor you have no rights and you are expected to work as much as your manager says. In the end I was spending more than 50-55 hours a week and the overtime I did was not paid accordingly. If I wasn't OK with this I'd be let go easily and there are no laws that protect me. I would not be fired, but I will be transferred back to the contracting company who is not obliged to pay me, if I am not working for a client.

<comment><USER40> > I will be transferred back to the contracting company who is not obliged to > pay me, if I am not working for a client.

this is highly suspicious. In France services companies, people are paid in between contracts.

<comment><USER30> The ONLY case where this would be possible is if the OP was self-employed, using a contracting company to get a position with a client ("portage salarial") - In which case they are not employees and hence aren't really in a position to criticise employment practices.

<comment><USER40> nope, there are some cases of "interim" too in IT.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> 35 hours? I think I've done that in 2 days!

</comment><comment><USER42> let's face it, and deal with it

in my country, 44 hours a week is average

sometimes, we might even reach 50/60 hours

<comment><USER26> Which country is this? How many work(non-vacation) weeks a year?

<comment><USER42> singapore

usually monday to friday but 5.5 working days for some other companies (referring to white collar job btw)

so if you just assume it's 5 day week, then it would be 25 working days approximately a month, times 12 would be 300

this year we have 10 public holidays and that's again under assumption that these holidays falls on non weekend (if fall on saturday, it's considered as gone)

so 300 - 10 = 290

so ya, that's about that

<comment><USER43> Working long hours in Singapore is a mindset problem. When I was working there in 2005, it is the norm that the project managers would schedule at 6pm in the evening with the local teams.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Russian Family That Cut Itself Off from Civilization for More Than 40 Years - <AUTHOR> https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/551659/karp-lykov-russian-family-secluded-from-civilization-40-years <comment><AUTHOR> "The Lykovs would eventually grow to have the same weakness as many of the rest of us: television. Vasily Peskov, a Russian journalist who chronicled the family, observed that the Lykovs would have an internal struggle about the glowing box in front of them. They were at once enraptured and guilt-ridden when they'd watch it while meeting with researchers over the years."</comment>


"You got this because you're a girl." - <AUTHOR> https://code.likeagirl.io/you-got-this-because-youre-a-girl-7cf0447ee50a <comment><USER2> Good thoughts and perspective, thanks for sharing!

This touches on why I have really come around to the view that diversity programs and affirmative action are merely perpetuating the negative stereotypes that we want to eliminate. By lowering standards in the name of diversity, we are essentially reinforcing to everyone that those benefiting from the reduction of standards are in fact less qualified, even when they aren't in reality. Pardon the crude expression, but at the end of the day you can't pee on someone's leg and tell them it's raining. They may smile and talk about the rain to be politically correct to your face, but the truth is easy to see.

This bothers me greatly. Some of the best and brightest engineers I work with are women, and they are not there due to lax standards. But until we stop with the "diversity program" stuff and the mentality that woman > man because of gender, we aren't going to move the football forward. We're simply perpetuating and even ingraining the perceptions that women are in fact inferior, hence the need to give them an advantage to "level the playing field."

</comment><comment><USER3> There is so much more to this career than what your peers think of you. There are your clients and project stakeholders. Your supervisors and mentors. Your own feeling of accomplishment and your contribution to society. I can't (or perhaps it's just that I likely won't) experience the perspective from your biological gender, however you have to understand that you don't have to justify or prove yourself, especially not to your peers. The worst thing you can do is squander an opportunity.

I sympathize with the awkwardness, but after you've led a good life, think of the stories to tell the grandkids.

</comment><comment><USER4> Someone filling in for parents again! It's a shame.

But if it helps, why not?</comment>


The perfect TV - <AUTHOR> http://technology.siekerman.nl/post/133644449664/the-perfect-tv <comment><USER2> I agree to most of the points of the post but this

> It does not need a traditional TV tuner, cable or antenna connector or any > other remnants of a previous era in TV technology. They drive up the cost, > increase the complexity and bulk up the form factor, while serving no modern > purpose. It's time to throw them out.

Even the USA still has free to air TV channels. They are the norm everywhere else. I'm watching news right now on a TV through the antenna connector and the built in DVTB decoder. That's what marks the difference between a TV and a monitor to me.

Edit: spelling.

<comment><USER3> In Sweden we have a silly law requiring all citizens owning TV equipment to pay a special fee. I for one would like a large "TV-like" display without a TV tuner just to avoid having to pay that fee. More about this silliness: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_Sweden)

<comment><USER4> In Germany it is even worse. You have to pay the fee regardless of you having any devices capable of receiving. It is a flat per household fee. It used to be like you said it is in Sweden now but they changed 3 year ago to a pseudo tax.

<comment><USER3> I think I'd rather see it as pseudo tax than requiring its own administration apparatus that costs ~18 million USD a year to run.

<comment><USER4> I would agree but the running costs[0] did not change much since that switch for reasons not clear to me.

[0] [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARD_ZDF_Deutschlandradio_Beitr...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARD_ZDF_Deutschlandradio_Beitragsservice#Geb.C3.BChrenertr.C3.A4ge_und_Verwaltungskosten) (German content)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A company made such a TV. Xiaomi latest 60 inch TV in China is just that. They took the smart parts out of the TV set and added it to a separately bought and optional soundbar which only costs 99usd, meaning you can keep replacing it when it becomes obsolete without having to replace the whole panel.

What the author of this article doesn't understand though is that TV manufacturers want you to replace your TV as often as possible so they can continue to make money.

<comment><USER3> More information about the Xiaomi TV for the curious: [http://en.miui.com/thread-173353-1-1.html](http://en.miui.com/thread-173353-1-1.html)

<comment><USER5> I was a bit off with the Soundbar's price (it costs 157 according to your link) but I guess still cheap enough to replace every 1-2 years rather than buying a new TV

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like it. A lean TV/Monitor with HDMI. Add a decent AV receiver and a set of decent speakers. All devices connect to the AV receiver and just one HDMI cable to TV/Monitor. You can attach your favourite OS thingy. Mine would be an Apple TV 4. Next a cable TV app on Apple TV so I can get rid of my TV decoder (and its crappy OS).

</comment><comment><USER7> I though that, what the article says, was obvious and I always assumed that this was also obvious for the manufacturers, but that they are not interested, even it would be the more convenient thing for consumers.

I don't know well the market but my impression is that if they follow that path they will become commodities producers.

They don't want to be only displays manufacturers because then a TV would be only an accessory. They want to capture a market. They want to be "the platform".

In other words, everybody wants to be Apple.

Crowfounding would be a nice idea but I imagine that the technology for good screens is only in the hands of, precisely, the ones that are trying to make TV a platform.

<comment><USER8> Then they should just sell their monitor with a HDMI/USB stick. That way they might also be able to increase sales by selling "upgrade sticks"/"special edition sticks".

<comment><USER9> They won't do that, because they'll earn more by selling you a whole new TV instead of an "upgrade stick". And they don't want a secondary market of TV extensions, because at this point they'll have to admit they're commodity producers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So something like BenQ ST550K then?

[http://www.benq.se/product/DigitalSignage/st550k/specificati...](http://www.benq.se/product/DigitalSignage/st550k/specifications)

Or the Philips BDM4065UC but with more HDMI ports?

[http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/philips_bdm4065uc.htm](http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/philips_bdm4065uc.htm)

<comment><USER10> The BenQ you linked to runs Android. Not quite what the article described.

<comment><USER8> True, I missed that. But then I wouldn't expect a monitor targeted at being used as an in-store display to be heavy on apps or slow to switch input. There might be an issue in the boot-up though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like this vision, that's a TV I would want. Lean, minimum amount of software, instant on / off, no worries about privacy and future proof.

</comment><comment><USER12> I found my myself sort of agreeing but sort of not. The last TV I bought was a nice, thin Samsung. I just hung it on my wall and was done. Sure, the "platform" is terrible but it works.

The thing that aggravates me are how "dumb" TVs are at handling HDMI inputs. Like, only cycle through the inputs that are receiving signal, for starters (or hit them first, at least).

<comment><USER13> Absolutely not! I can't stand TVs and projectors that try to be too smart with inputs. If you're the TV, you don't know that I'm about to plug my computer in and I've selected the input before connecting it. Otherwise I'll plug my computer in first and it's also trying to be too smart and can't see any TV connected so it doesn't set up the multimonitors properly. So no, they really shouldn't try to ignore unconnected HDMI inputs. I used to have an old style TV that ignored the RGB input it there was no audio signal with it. So to use it as a computer monitor, I had to plug in an extra audio cable for no good reason.

<comment><USER12> I specifically include the bit about "hit them first" so as not to imply ignoring. Here's my situation which I'm guessing is much more common than yours: I watch ABC in the morning and Apple TV in the evening. So, every single day, I have to press the input button 6 times in the morning and once in the evening. I would never, ever prioritize you're rare situation over my routine situation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _As a great real-life example, consider the the Flip camcorder, which kinda came out of nowhere and "stole" 13% of the camcorder market (although I'd bet good money that it actually created new market share). Does it dissolve dog poop? Well, no, but it's still pretty cool:

1) it costs $150 or less. (A lot less, actually.)

2) it has no cables or wires. Just one flip-up USB connector.

3) it has one big red button: RECORD, plus a teeny one for playback.

4) it doesn't take cartridges or cassettes or discs or cards or anything

5) it doesn't have any controls or settings or anything

6) it stores one hour of video and has roughly one hour of battery life

7) it's about the size of a cell phone

8) it records videos that work well with YouTube

9) it comes in pretty colors

I mean, DAMN, those guys knew what they were doing._

[http://steve-yegge.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/business- requireme...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/business-requirements- are-bullshit.html)

</comment><comment><USER15> Recently bought a Samsung UHD large TV and completely agree, only useful function of the smart tv i found was Netflix, but the media player connected to it already has it (as well as consoles of course) and so does the connected Chromecast, so yeah very redundant.

<comment><USER16> Then they updated the software for the next years SKU and didnt update the previous years software. Operating systems on TVs is a really one sided deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Right on! Smart TVs are dumb!

Smart stereos are even dumber! What I REALLY want is a 21st century sound system. Why do I need 5 hdmi ports on my TV and 5 on my stereo. Why do all stereos have to be fricking huge. Why all the connections in the back? put them on side!!

I don't need a gui on the stereo, a plain black box is perfect. Just have a decent smartphone app and listen for the remote controls volume with a system that does not take hours to config (hours of frustration trying to get these to work). It should support apps like spotify and pandora It should support streaming from your phone. Does anyone actually use USB anymore? 120 watts per channel. Any good audio engineers what to cooperate to make one?

edit:Spelling

</comment><comment><USER18> I think it really depends on the individual user's use case. For example, I have a large Sony smart TV with all these extra bells and whistles, and in reality I barely ever use any of the standard inputs other than playing games. Quite a bit of the time I'm using the in-built Netflix or YouTube apps or some other media app which works fantastically. My only complaint is that when I do want to use a normal input (HDMI etc.) I have to wait 30 seconds for the thing to boot to change inputs.

</comment><comment><USER19> > It does not need a traditional TV tuner, cable or antenna connector or any > other remnants of a previous era in TV technology. They drive up the cost, > increase the complexity and bulk up the form factor, while serving no modern > purpose. It's time to throw them out.

The UK still uses over-the-air broadcast tv, so this point is wrong for the UK.

My TV has an integrated DVD player - that is a boon.

<comment><USER5> You can get TV tuner with HDMI out for 20pounds. It doesn't have to be in the actual TV.

<comment><USER20> And now I've got another device sitting on my desk, not what I want..

<comment><USER21> And worse than that - another thing to plug in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Aside from lacking a large number of HDMI ports, home theater projectors meet basically all of the proposed requirements for the perfect TV. An inexpensive A/V receiver gets you the requisite inputs as well.

It is somewhat odd that TVs and monitors have diverged so much while home theater and PC focused projectors are so similar, feature-wise.

<comment><USER23> I am not sure how others have set theirs up but the number of HDMI ports on the projector/TV were never really a concern to me. I need them on my receiver which is the control point for all my attached devices.

Now remotes are one area where more work needs to be done, far too many are just too complicated for their own good let alone large.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If this existed I would buy it, people in comments are saying this is basically what a monitor is, and to some extent they are right, but I havent seen 60" 4K monitors on the market has anyone else?

</comment><comment><USER24> A perfect T.V. in my perspective has to be virtual reality. A virtual reality not limited to just the sense of sight. Also, allows my friends to experience it with me concurrently.

The T.V. in my living room is just a furniture I don't even touch it. It's main purpose is for decorations and is only used by old people visiting the flat.

Btw, I watch sports mostly in the bar.

Do you guys still use your T.V. and will you guys still be using it in the future?

</comment><comment><USER25> (In my opinion)

</comment><comment><USER26> It's not a tv. It's a display.

</comment><comment><USER27> is it still common to have TVs at home? I watch TV on my laptop, and so does everyone I know.

<comment><USER28> Yes, if people want to watch sports, use gaming consoles, or just want a big screen to watch movies on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> It should also have a matte bezel, the only reason I can think they used glossy bezels for a few years was so they could sell you a new TV with a smaller bezel in the near future.</comment>


IPhone turns 5: Here are the naysayers - <AUTHOR> http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/06/29/iphone-turns-5-here-are-the-naysayers/

<comment><USER2> That's not quite fair. Some of them clearly were mainly critical because of the cost. Considering how quickly Apple cut the price, they may have been right.</comment>


Ask HN: How to prevent PayPal handing your email address to the merchant? - <AUTHOR>

I have a unique email address for PayPal--different from my normal email address--that I want to keep secret. The problem is that every time I make a purchase, the merchant gets this email address (in addition to the normal email address I gave to the merchant). I know that merchants get it because I get junk mail at my secret PayPal address from merchants I did business with.
Is there no way to make a PayPal payment without PayPal handing my email address over to the merchant?
As a related question, why do I have to trust the merchant to redirect me to PayPal's website to make the payment? There are many ways I can get fooled into entering my PayPal password directly into merchant's website. For example, the merchant opens the PayPal site in a frame or pop-up, so you can't verify that it's really PayPal. I know that I can right-click and check the certificate (assuming that right-link is not blocked). But isn't there a way I can open my own browser window, login to PayPal, and give some sort of invoice number to PayPal to direct payment to the merchant? <comment><USER2> Paypal restricts iframe embedding. They have a method called Adaptive Payment[1], which enables you to pay directly on merchant's site via a mini browser window or lightbox, but this option requires you to be logged in to Paypal already. If you aren't already logged in, it opens a new window for you to log in.

Never, ever enter your Paypal password into the merchant's site.

I don't think it is possible to hide your paypal email address when doing payments.

[1]: [https://developer.paypal.com/docs/classic/adaptive- payments/...](https://developer.paypal.com/docs/classic/adaptive- payments/integration-guide/APIntro/)

<comment><AUTHOR> > I don't think it is possible to hide your paypal email address when doing > payments.

OK, thank you.

Regarding the Adaptive Payment suggestion, it seems that it's still under control of the merchant, and if the merchant site was nefarious they could fake an Adaptive Payment for me to log into.

You're correct in saying that I should never enter my PayPal password into the merchant's site. I also don't want the merchant to re-direct me. I don't want the merchant to open an Adaptive Payment window for me. I want to open a completely separate browser window and login to PayPal myself, and then pay the merchant by looking up the merchant's ID or using an invoice number provided by the merchant. Is there no way to do that?

<comment><USER2> > Is there no way to do that?

Nope, there isn't a way to do that.

If you want this because you are concerned about the security, the current way it works is pretty secure.

Even if the merchant redirects you, it opens a new browser window/tab of Paypal's own web page. You can check the identity with https indicator in you browser bar. You enter your password there, logging in to Paypal yourself. Merchant redirecting you doesn't affect the security in any way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Create an email address just for paypal transactions. There is no other way because PayPal will always send your email address so the merchant can update you about the purchase. This is a feature that makes sense to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems that you're saying that there's no way to do what I want. OK, thanks, but I'll clarify two points:

> Create an email address just for paypal transactions.

Yes, that's exactly what I have. I have an email address just for PayPal transactions. However, that same email is what allows me to login to PayPal. That's why I want to keep it secret for added security.

> so the merchant can update you about the purchase

I give my normal (non-PayPal) email address to the merchant on their order form. So they do have a way to contact me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> IIRC they also hand over your physical address, even in cases it's not even being used for shipping anything.

It's very unlikely that PayPal let's you change this dynamically or disable it. They probably consider it a feature.</comment>


How I raised $400,000 in two weeks, from 61 investors, through AngelList - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/how-i-raised-400-000-in-two-weeks-from-61-investors-through-angellist-525c65869ecf <comment><USER2> The article links to [https://founderbliss.com/](https://founderbliss.com/), which has no site.

The author's linkedin profile links to [http://bliss.ai](http://bliss.ai), which is a domain placeholder in Chinese.

A google search yields [http://www.blissai.com/](http://www.blissai.com/), which appears to be the actual website.

Looks like all hustle and no execution.

<comment><USER3> Yea, what?!

Smoke and mirrors, baby!</comment></comment>


More, a CSS compiler - <AUTHOR> http://kevinmontrose.com/2012/05/08/more-a-css-compiler/

<comment><USER2> .NET / Mono dependency is somewhat of a dealbreaker here. .NET might be a fine technology to build an internal product on, like StackOvervlow, but for an open-source project it's a huge barrier to widespread adoption. Especially considering it's a proprietary technology from Microsoft.

The same could be said for Java. If it was up to me, my software stack would not include the JVM. Too bad there's no non-JVM alternative for Storm, and Clojure is so awesome.

<comment><USER3> There is no .NET dependency, there is a CLR dependency. If you have mono installed, you can simply put a line like this in your .bashrc, and use the compiler anywhere: (which I just did)

alias more="mono /your/path/to/More.exe"

<comment><USER4> more is a common unix program <http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?more> aliasing it could interfere with some shell script

<comment><USER5> Aliases shouldn't interfere with shell scripts unless you do something very silly. They're shell-local, and typically you define them in your shell's interactive-initialization file (e.g. .bashrc, .zshrc).

<comment><USER6> Right, but it will break my ability to "| more" on the command line in my interactive shell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Please come up with a better name. Less the CSS processor is a play on the ending of CSS. The unix command less is a play on the more command, which is a clever but descriptive name. This would be a play on Less, which is a play on CSS. Also _more_ has been around a really long time, years before _less_. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_(command)>

<comment><USER8> Naming's hard, and sort of pointless to obsess over for a programming tool IMO. Especially when the conflicting tool literally predates the web (and me, for that matter).

Of course, if a better name presents itself I'll run with it.

<comment><USER9> The real issue is this: if I Google 'more', I'm less likely to find what I want than if I search for 'MoreCSS' (or similar). And you'd also be surprised just how a name can click in people's minds. "MightyMouse" feels much cooler than "More".

Ask 5 of your friends to come up with 5 names and then pick from the best of the 25 you get back. BTW, awesome project, love the sprite work!

<comment><USER10> Yeah, the spriting here is interesting... I'm a fan of the spriting with compass (SASS/SCSS alternative). Could be a good guide as you're improving this. Check it out: <http://compass-style.org/help/tutorials/spriting/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> IMO, LESS's strength is that its implementation is JavaScript. Allowing for real-time compilation during authoring in-browser is great, and coupled with uglifyjs and cleancss (also js) allows for a single dependency during our build stage. This has some very interesting ideas, but maybe I'm just a purist- ignoring the concept of the "cascade" seems counter intuitive to me.

<comment><USER12> Well maybe I'm blind, but I honestly don't see the benefit of CSS compilation. Client side is the only use case I'd even consider, I've been using php to augment styles for years.

Yet, js compiled CSS seems like it breaks tools like Firebug or the Chrome inspector. And version control systems.

What am I missing?

<comment><USER13> By augmenting CSS with PHP, do you mean something like this?

      p {color: <?=$mainColor?>}

And then just setting .htaccess (or whatever) to allow PHP execution in .css files?

<comment><USER12> You can just process main.css.php (or whatever)

Here's some of my (old crappy)code:

      color: <?php echo $foreground1; ?>;
      font-family: <?php echo $font2; ?>;

But I'm sure there's libs out there that make it really easy and pretty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> While we kind of like Less' approach to CSS, we were not thrilled with the performance and also found it not really enough for serious development.

We opensourced our attempt at CSS generation in a java environment.

The website is a little outdated <http://dynamic-style-sheets.org/dss- website/index.jsp> but might give a rough overview. The SVN is more up-to-date ( <http://opensaga.org/svn/opensaga-dynamic-stylesheets/trunk/> )

In addition to rule nesting and mixings, variables, expressions, etc, DSS allows user-defined functions to be written. Some come with it, including a system do imagemagick or so like processing of images in the CSS.

It's a funny little thing that kind of just wanted to be written that way.

<comment><USER15> Have you checked out SASS and the new libsass library? If you want speed, you can't beat a 0-dependency c / c++ library.

<https://github.com/hcatlin/libsass>

<comment><USER14> As I said: in a Java environment, which rules out C/C++.

20 times the speed of JRuby based Less is not shabby though.

edit: Performance was never the top motivation though. Architectural concerns and resilience were. Although based on a decent JavaCC grammar generated parser DSS should be able to eat any CSS and spit it out again as-is. While I certainly wouldn't want to write such dismal CSS, I also don't want to work on some richtext editor CSS just because I want to integrate that with our system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Obligatory "just what the world needs: another super-CSS language". Why not use an existing solution?

<comment><USER8> At work (Stack Exchange) we use LESS. LESS is pretty good, especially compared to plain-jane CSS.

This is a fun personal project, I think it has some neat ideas and may be solid enough for actual use; so I wrote it up and open sourced it.

Sort of meta-discussion, but lots of the fancy stuff we used today started with someone creating a new tool to solve an already "solved" problem. I love the O'Reilly chart for demonstrating that <http://oreilly.com/news/graphics/prog_lang_poster.pdf> [pdf].

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like the design decisions you have made and the general direction. I will probably use this, my question is: Why do you write "experimental" css compiler on your github page? Do you think there are still bugs in it, are you going to keep maintaining it? (assuming it is you who posted this, otherwise I will create a github issue)

<comment><USER8> Submitter didn't write the code, I did.

Experimental was just left over from when it wasn't finished. Corrected the Github page.

I will fix bugs (I doubt it's bug free, it's young code after all), and future development is conditioned on a) my free time and b) interest from others than me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Might wanna check out morecss.org

<comment><USER8> That is gold.

I laid down the first bits of this code a long time ago (first public commit 6 months ago [https://github.com/kevin- montrose/More/commit/8392f0f4008fe7...](https://github.com/kevin- montrose/More/commit/8392f0f4008fe74a4d5ae2c66765f070b396ed17) ). Pretty hilarious to get bit by a subsequent April Fools.</comment></comment>


Meez overtakes Facebook in the US - <AUTHOR> http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/2009/02/quick-stat-meeznation-pushes-site-to-top-10-engagement-spot.html

<comment><USER2> Misleading title. I've never heard of Meez before this article and I'm taking that as my friends haven't either.

Reading the article it states that Meez overtakes Facebook on number of minutes per visit. Thats not really a good unit of measurement. Especially since facebook can largely be managed by reading your email or other tools and then logging in only to send a reply.</comment>


Microsoft Plans single operating system - <AUTHOR> http://www.technomixx.com/microsoft-plans-single-operating-system/ On the occasion of Microsoft's Worldwide Partner Conference Andy Lee, president of the Windows Mobile, said that a "single ecosystem" could arise for PCs, phones, . <comment><USER2> So are they ditching the Windows Phone OS, then?</comment>


Ask HN: What are some back end heavy side projects? - <AUTHOR> A lot of web developer side projects I see are either open source libraries, or very front end heavy things that focus mostly on visual design and interaction.<p>What are some side projects that you've built, where the element that made it special was on the back end? <comment><USER2> I work on geocoding. There is a frontend component both HTML and JSON/XML/GeoJSON but the bulk of the project is either in the database design, query logic or import pipelines. It's also non-trivial to install because with medium grade hardware (let's say a laptop) the data crunching will put all cores of the CPU to 100% for a week.</comment>


One Week of Bugs (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://danluu.com/everything-is-broken/#fnref:D <comment><USER2> Note to readers: Wrong link, this submitter accidentally included the anchor _#fnref:D_ in the URL, so the browser sends you to a random citation entry instead of the beginning of the article.

The correct link is [https://danluu.com/everything-is- broken](https://danluu.com/everything-is-broken), or if you want to skip the list of bugs and only read the author's thoughts on them, click [https://danluu.com/everything-is-broken/#wat](https://danluu.com/everything- is-broken/#wat) instead.

<comment><USER3> Submitter has a big in his submission about bugs.

<comment><USER4> Commenter has a bug in his comment about bugs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you haven't tried property-based/generative testing, I urge you to do so. You'll never want to write unit tests again (this is an exaggeration of course, but not much). IMHO the modern cult of unit testing has about the lowest effort/reward ratio I've seen among standard programming practices. Put that effort into isolating non-trivial invariants in your code (which might actually require thinking about the problem, i.e., producing an informal spec), asserting those invariants everywhere you can in your code, and writing generative tests that just test your assertions with random input. Then you can think of higher-level invariants ("properties") that might not be possible to verify in the code itself, and write property-based tests to verify those invariants. The most important such invariant is that your program computes the right answer. You can test this by creating a "model" or oracle which you are confident will compute the right answer (albeit perhaps horribly inefficiently), and writing property-based tests that verify that the model gives the same answers as your code on random inputs. ("Inputs" in this case aren't just user data, but also sequences of operations or state transitions; they can be any data that your code bases its decisions on.)

Unit tests will always have their place as 1) a minimal, provisional test suite for initial development, and 2) some finite set of important edge cases that might not be covered by randomly generated test cases. But they are much less efficient (IME) than generative testing in terms of developer effort per- bug-found. Additionally, property-based tests force you to think systematically about your code to identify important invariants, and that's always a good thing. You can spend the time left over from not writing useless unit tests in writing functional and integration-level tests, which (IME) are far more likely than unit tests to yield bugs (which IME generally reside in unanticipated interactions between components rather than internal logic errors).

</comment><comment><USER6> Thanks for posting this; I finally regained a link to American Fuzzy Lop ([http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl/](http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl/)) which I'd forgotten the name of. It's an excellent fuzzer.</comment>


New Soylent Website - <AUTHOR> http://soylent.me/ <comment><USER2> Really wish they would focus more on SHIPPING Soylent instead of redesigning their website. I am aware that these tasks are not mutually exclusive but still it's been a ridiculous length of time and often without clear/timely updates from the Soylent team. If I knew what I knew now I doubt I would have pre-ordered it.

<comment> jack-r-abbit Now that they are (claiming to be) shipping, it seems like a perfect time to introduce their new site. It has new ordering options for getting it sent to you monthly. Once people get their orders, they will have an easy way to order more. The Crowdtilt powered "campaign" site isn't meant to stay long term. This is their transition from it. Makes sense to me.

<comment><USER2> >> Note: 10-12 week delay on orders

Great they've got a pretty site where people can order something they won't see for 3+ (and you can bet that will be a BIG "+") months...

<comment> jack-r-abbit >> Note: New orders ship in 10-12 weeks | Reorders in 1-2 weeks

I don't know if people who had already ordered from the campaign would be in the "reorder" group. They have said several times that they are trying to make it so people who have it won't run out. Not sure exactly what it means though.

<comment><USER2> Right, I believe that yes, they would be in the reorder group. That was something the Soylent team has wanted to make sure was possible from the start so that you didn't order some then run out before they could ship you more. In fact in the earlier emails they talked about shipping the month supplies out first so that everyone would have time to reorder more before they ran out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Also interested on feedback from someone already using it. Any biological changes (stool, urine, sweat, etc.)? Still hungry after using it? Using Soylent only? If so, how are your energy levels?

<comment><USER4> [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/05/12/140512fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/05/12/140512fa_fact_widdicombe?currentPage=all)

More here. [http://www.reddit.com/r/soylent](http://www.reddit.com/r/soylent)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why would anyone want to use this?

I'm a maniac about time management and do everything possible to not waste even a moment of the day (e.g. if I'm doing any trivial physical activity, I'll be listening to an audiobook at 2x speed). However, I would never want to get rid of eating. Since marrying a French woman, I've come to understand the importance of enjoying what you are eating...we aren't simply machines that need to be fed.

$4 dollars per meal is expensive!! My wife and I eat for the 2 of us on less than that in a day...and we eat fresh tuna, organic rice and loads of great vegetables. Just walk through the fresh produce section of your local supermarket...the cheapest stuff in the store and the healthiest is in the produce section.

What time has wasted in all of this exposure to inexpensive, healthy nutrition? None.

One of the biggest wastes of time in one's life is being sick and the other is early death. While I can't speak much about the latter, I'm sick once per year at the maximum and I have not had a debilitating sickness for the past 4 years that has prevented me from working, studying or coding for even a moment. I attribute much of this to my wife's refusal to eat food that is crap.

Maybe that is why the French are healthier...they don't try to reinvent the wheel and replace the thousands of healthy, inexpensive and delicious items that already exist for our pleasure...food!!

<comment><USER6> "I'll be listening to an audiobook at 2x speed"

Why would anyone want to do that? For me, if I listen to an audiobook at 2x speed, it saps all enjoyment from it. We're not simply machines that need to consume information, how we consume it is important too.

Only half in jest. To answer your question: for the same reason someone might choose to double the speed of an audiobook.

<comment><USER5> Well played!!

In fact, I agree with you...I only listen to non-fiction at 2x the speed. Most modern non-fiction has one main point that they stretch out over 200 pages.

I couldn't imagine listening to a novel at double to speed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I haven't tried Soylent; but, its price range and ease of use is making me start to consider it for nights / weekend times that I'm not working and don't feel like going out to eat.

How does it taste? Do you still feel hungry after eating it? And, is there a way to supplement it with other foods, like ... 2/3rds a regular portion + oatmeal, or something? Or maybe flavoring like those syrup pump bottles?

<comment><USER8> They don't address how it tastes, but from the articles I have read, it isn't super tasty. That's not the point though. As long as it's palatable enough to get down, it's good enough for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you could snap your fingers and never have to worry about eating food again, would you?

I've always been more of the 'Eat to live, don't live to eat' mindset, but thats not to say I don't enjoy eating, its just at times I find it to be a chore.

I think I'm going to try Soylent to substitute a majority of my meals, dropping in a few real meals here and there, and see how I fare.

<comment><USER10> Interesting. I think about it in the reverse. I'm more interested in eating the majority real meals, but dropping in Soylent for the times when eating is a chore, or is inconvenient, etc.

<comment><USER11> This is what I do. I eat a slightly modified version of the People Chow 3.0.1 from the DIY site for breakfast every day. I don't think I could stomach it for every meal, but it's an excellent breakfast food that leaves me feeling energized, and I have no problem eating it with my normally poor early morning appetite.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "We know what we're made of, and that's what Soylent is."

Hilarious. Did anyone else catch that? At 1:10 in the video.

<comment><USER12> Also their website is soylent.ME

Is this intentional, lol?

<comment><USER13> No, I'm sure it's because they're big fans of Montenegro.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Prices seem to be going up. I ordered a week supply yesterday off of their crowdtilt for $65 (3 meals/day => 21 servings) and the same is now $85 on this site. It is still available[1] so may want to save money while you can?

[1][https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your- body](https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body)

<comment><USER15> Hmm, according to the article in the new yorker the food costs for doing it oneself is 50 dollars a month and it was a significant time saving from making food or going out to eat, now if I figure out that it actually works as advertised - why wouldn't I just do what the original inventor did instead of buying it?

<comment><USER16> Prep time? I like to cook a large pot of chili or a stew for the work week. It's still a tedious thing to procure the ingredients and make it, even if all the prep is one afternoon and 2 minutes of reheating each work day. If there's no single source for the ingredients you need to establish a purchasing routine and a time every week or month to mix up a new batch. Compare to just ordering it if the markup isn't too high.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Soylent Me"? No, no I don't want anybody to "Soylent" me. Of all the TLDs to choose, this one? really?

</comment><comment><USER18> Click on "Fiber" from the list of ingredients at the bottom. I think something might be wrong with that picture. LOL.

</comment><comment><USER19> In case you're curious, here's a great article giving a nice history of the development of this company / product:

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/05/12/140512fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/05/12/140512fa_fact_widdicombe?currentPage=all)

</comment><comment><USER20> The site looks nice, but the loading indicator is disappointing. I expect they will lose visitors whose knee-jerk reaction is to back out instead of wait one more second.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have been thinking of trying out Soylent. Are there folks here you have tried it consistently for more than a few weeks? If yes, then how do you feel about yourself?

<comment><USER22> Most of us are still waiting for our shipment to arrive. I did a DIY Soylent for a month. It was alright. So I'm excited to try the official thing.

<comment><USER23> I'm interested about what your diet was before your DIY project. I'm a meat eater, love a proper steak.

Did you notice any drop in energy, fatigue, etc?

Did you feel full?

Thanks!

<comment><USER22> Before I tried the DIY Soylent I ate a typical american diet. Hamburgers, fries, pizza, popcorn, etc.

I tried two of the popular DIY Soylents (for a month each). I didn't feel stuffed like after a big meal, I just didn't feel hungry anymore. I often didn't finish the day's worth. Despite getting less calories, I felt great and made some great progress at the gym. It made me very excited to try the real thing.

So why did I stop? A few reasons. Eating with friends is a lot more about the social interactions than the food. I actually noticed friends drifting away because I didn't go out to eat. The DIY Soylent also didn't taste very good. I had to chug it down. And I missed chewing. That sounds strange but I actually had cravings just to chew on something. Gum helped a little but it wasn't the same.

<comment><USER23> Out of everything you wrote, "I missed chewing" definitely wasn't the strangest thing. I think I'd miss it as well. Thanks for the insight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Is anyone else having trouble with this site on Chrome? All of the content is behind a slightly transparent white foreground, nothing is selectable.

<comment><USER25> Working fine for me on Chrome v34

<comment><USER24> Uhg, I found the problem: HTTPS Everywhere. This is probably the 3rd time posting on here to say this extension is the problem. Thanks for making me double check.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Nice page but back doesn't work.

Scroll down, go to FAQ, then hit back. Blank page with header on top

</comment><comment><USER27> It's odd how they have no mention of how it tastes...

</comment><comment><USER28> It looks very, very disgusting.</comment>