Tale of Tasteless Tomatoes: Why Vegetables Do Not Taste Good Anymore - <AUTHOR> http://calmscience.net/2015/12/11/tale-of-tasteless-tomatoes-why-vegetables-do-not-taste-good-anymore/ <comment><USER2> Wild tomatoes are small and unpleasant tasting, doesn't that kinda blow the premise?

The modern tomatoes we eat are genetically modified by humans through breeding which we like to call domestication. This genetic modification caused them to be bigger and taste pleasant.

My understanding was there was push to breed them to be uniformly red when ripe but this also caused a mutation to make them more bland, this occurred in the 1940's before "modern" genetic engineering, which incidentally no tomatoes currently on the market are engineered that I am aware of.

I always think it ironic to blame modern techniques like genetic engineering for all sorts of issues like somehow a cow, chicken, pig, tomato, corn or wheat are somehow "natural", these are all genetically modified organisms that would not exist without human tampering.

We have twisted nature for thousands of years to have higher yields and more desirable characteristics, if tomatoes are bland I would imagine we will twist them some more to make them flavorful again if the market demands it, but their "natural" "wild" cousins have never been tasty.

<comment><USER3> It's a shame that so many people fall for the trope of the anti-science hippie when it comes to criticism of modern farming.

Believe it or not, most of us who criticize industrialized farming techniques are not tinfoil-hat antivaxers, and understand very well what you describe. Thing is, there's no reason why modern techniques can't be used to produce foods that are more varied, nutritious and flavourful.

Instead we're getting bland produce, all the same two or three varieties, and increasingly devoid of any nutritional value because our backwards practices are destroying the very soil we use ([http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion- and...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and- nutrition-loss/)).

It's like in terms of food, we're moving towards an "everybody wears a silver onesie" future... scientific progress doesn't _have_ to mean monotony.

In fact it's not progress. It's laziness on an industrial scale, and it's costing us our health (and one of life's greatest pleasures: food with real friggen flavour). So many of us have _never_ tasted a real vegetable or piece of meat. (Ironically, in poorer, less industrialized countries like in South America, the meat is absolutely delicious -- visited last year with some friends; it was like they had never tasted meat before. Then I realised... they really hadn't!)

For a glimpse into what is possible using modern techniques, while still embracing flavour and variety, I highly recommend the _Chef 's Table_ episode on Stone Barns Center for Food & Agriculture.

I believe it's the second episode of the first season (available on NetFlix right now... the whole series is worth watching really).

<comment><USER4> Its no surprise, most people pay by the lb. If there was some way to price by nutrition maybe people would optimize that way. Eg: 20c per 1000mg Vit C .

<comment><USER5> Some words and standards can indicate quality. "Pasture Eggs" for example, are more expensive but also a better product. Also, going to a farmer's market and buying from producers directly instead of a supermarket is one way to shop for quality.

I wouldn't want to use nutritionism as the definition of quality, because so far nutritionism has been too reductionist to capture the full picture. There's a wide variety of micronutrients that turn out to be useful, but are easily depleted from the soil in a monoculture. Are you getting your Vitamin K12? Selenium? Zinc? Copper? Choline? Are the animals you eat getting theirs?

<comment><USER4> While I agree with the idea that nutritionism is reductionist of complex systems, I see price per nutrition to be an improved model over price per lb. Maybe once upon a time price per lb made sense because not everyone could get enough lbs. But now we can get plenty of lbs, but not everyone can get enough nutrition.

On the nutritionism note, I also think we'll increasingly improve the model to a point where something like Soylent v315 will actually be superior nutritionally to any complex diet that a human could eat. Right now its so simple that you can do better with a chicken salad, but someday soylent may encompass phytonutrients, chemical supplements, nanorobots, pre/probiotics, factors based on your genetics, medicines prescribed etc etc... IMO the complexity of nutrition will eventually outstrip the typical human's ability (or will) to eat very complex "meals".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In addition to being bred for yield, there's shippability.

One of the biggest reasons tomatoes from the store taste so bad is that they're picked completely green. The second is that the commercial varieties are bred to have a pastier texture and be tougher to stand up to shipping. The third is that tomatoes don't stand up to refrigeration without a change in texture.

My uncle grows tomatoes commercially in southeast Tennessee. If you actually let the commercial varieties ripen all the way and don't refridgerate them, they're pretty good. They're better than the anything you can buy at a fancy grocery store. They're not as good as homegrown brandywines, but they're on par some of the popular hybrid varieties, and will beat out any store-bought heirloom (e.g. a store-bought brandywine).

However, when any tomato is picked to sell in bulk, they have to be picked completely green. Otherwise they'll be too badly bruised to sell. The "vine ripened" tomatoes you buy in the store just means that they cut off some of the vine along with the green tomatoes.

The site is down, so forgive me if I'm pointing out something that's mentioned there. At any rate, in my opinion, commercial tomatoes suffer more from being picked completely green so they'll survive shipping than anything else.

<comment><USER7> Do you know about canned tomatoes?

<comment><USER8> Canned tomatoes are picked ripe from the field and shipped directly to the canning facilities via large semi trucks and trailers. My dad used to work at one of these facilities to which one of my best friends growing up is the son of then President of the company. His older brother now runs the plant.

<comment><USER9> if it's s&w brand I hope they go back to selling the large cans of peeled whole tomatoes. I used to love making pasta/pizza/enchilada sauce using their 6lb can of whole tomatoes from costco for around $2.50 a can.(had a really nice tart and sweet taste) I haven't found a decent alternative since they stopped making those that isn't the San Marzano super sweet tomatoes and that don't cost an arm and a leg.

<comment><USER8> Unfortunately it is not that company. Good luck finding a replacement though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I grew up in South Florida which is not a good growing climate for many "classic" North American fruits and vegetables.

I didn't understand the popularity of tomatoes, strawberries, blueberries, peaches, or pears until I moved north and tried them at farmer's markets or from wild growth. I didn't even understand the relationship between the actual foods and the artificial "candy flavor" versions until I tasted the real things. That's how far the commercial varieties have diverged.

On the other hand, I miss a lot of the tropical fruits and vegetables that I had growing in my neighborhood down there.

<comment><USER11> Peaches. Peaches fresh from the tree. Picked when they're fully ripe and ready. Peaches from Southern Illinois. Oh my god. They are, quite literally, the best things you will ever eat.

Calhoun County, Illinois. I suggest you go in August/September just to purchase peaches. It is a backwards, hillbilly part of the country.

But god-damn are they good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Well this is prima facie bad, but actually we're not in such a terrible spot as a society: the bulk of supermarket chicken and beef might be corn-fed, bland, watery mush these days, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than it ever used to be, and that means that a wider segment of the population can afford reasonably good meat on a regular basis. Better nutrition means healthier kids who can do better in school, and you know the rest. The stuff isn't _bad_ , it's just not as good as it used to be. But neither is it as exclusive as it used to be either.

Those of us with more money still have the option to buy tasty, grass-fed beef steaks from niche producers. It takes more effort of course. Quite often I find that arguments against bland, cheap, tasteless food are really about unrealistic people expecting cheapness, high quality, and great convenience. You can't have all three!

<comment><USER13> It's true but it still means we could do better by trying to optimise for nutrition value as well - which seems to somehow hidden from us. You often don't taste or see nutrition value.

Also what does it mean for food recommendation if one strawberry has completely different vitamins/minerals/etc than the other one? Eating strawberry A and B means completely different things now. "One fruit a day" or "One cheap fruit a day + supplement pill"?

<comment><USER12> Well, we've optimized for yield (=> cost) exclusively. Taste and nutritional value are other axes. In a way you're saying the same thing as the article - that it's a shame to focus only on yield.

To answer your question, I think its important to first understand whether the nutritional gap between zero strawberries and modern strawberries is much greater than that between modern strawberries and old-fashioned low yield tasty strawberries. My opinion (worth nothing of course) is that it's better to have some fruit than no fruit, and high yield, cheap produce allows that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Unless tomatoes are in season and I'm in some sort of hipster farm-to-table restaurant, I'll always hold the tomatoes or put them to the side, and inevitably a companion will ask why I don't like tomatoes and I wind up in an argument over whether or not tomatoes are supposed to taste like water.

It's dismaying. Do Americans think that the flavor of tomato sauce is an additive?

Alton Brown had a good layperson-friendly bit about this in Good Eats but I can't find the episode on YouTube… anyway it worths.

<comment><USER15> > Do Americans think that the flavor of tomato sauce is an additive?

Yes. Everything here is an additive. Tomato sauce is "tomato flavored sauce." Butter is "butter spread." Etc. A bit of an exaggeration, but when you buy packaged food, look at what it's calling itself. If you think you're buying NOUN, but the label says NOUN OTHER, then you're buying OTHER, with flavor or other essential attribute added that may or may not be based on NOUN.

Enjoy your cheese spread.

<comment><USER16> lol. Regarding the tenuous connection between tomatoes & ketchup, a friend of mine once posed me the question: "have you ever tasted a tomato that tasted anything like ketchup?".

Nope.

<comment><USER17> Ketchup is a combination of tomato paste, vinegar, and sugar however.

Tomato paste is where you go if you need a pure tomato taste.

<comment><USER18> > Ketchup is a combination of tomato paste, vinegar, and sugar however.

And clove! Can't forget that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The OP makes many assumption about food, chief among them being that flavor is always a good thing. I also wonder which type of tomato he is buying. Some are designed for size alone. Others (roma+cherry) have much more taste, especially those grown all year in local greenhouses rather than those picked green and shipped in. Even in the depths of a canadian winter, the tomatoes I buy at costco were picked the previous day at a facility a few miles down the road. They taste great.

>> Plain yogurt is tasteless.

Yogurt's lack of flavor is nothing to do with the milk. "Plain" yogurt is meant to taste as plain as possible so that flavors can be added to it. It's like vodka. The goal is consistency rather than amount of flavor. It's the difference between tasting a food and tasting an ingredient.

<comment><USER20> Very high quality dairy has a very nice flavor of its own, as does vodka. I've had very small production half and half in the San Juan islands that tasted exactly like vanilla ice cream. Butter often tastes different in France. I've also been told the Greek yogurt in Greece is completely unlike anything sold in the US and much much better.

Edit: I'm in SF and routinely buy local, organic, blahblahblah. I've still had better dairy elsewhere.

<comment><USER21> Yoghurt in the US has been completely destroyed by the "non-fat" movement. It's the fat that _makes it_ yoghurt. Low-fat or non-fat yoghurt is a contradiction in terms!

The "yoghurt" you can buy in supermarkets here is sugared milk with artificial thickeners, it's madness.

<comment><USER22> > Yoghurt in the US has been completely destroyed by the "non-fat" movement.

No, it hasn't, because you can still get other-than-nonfat yogurt, both full fat (sometimes labeled as 4% fat, which is certainly a response to the anti- fat movement) and low-fat (2%); I have yet to see even a poor-quality supermarket that doesn't have full-fat yogurts (though the most common offering and the one with the greatest variety of choices seems to be low-fat, but still not non-fat.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's always interesting to see what happens when something is optimized for the "wrong" metric.

No consumer would actually say they want worse tasting tomatoes, but consumers as a whole clearly made that choice by buying only cheap and firm tomatoes. Same with farmers, they didn't want bad tasting tomatoes, they just wanted to make a profit and knew that the market responded positively to tomatoes that were red, firm, ship well, and stayed "good" long enough for the retailers.

<comment><USER24> So one of the things going on there is that firmness and redness used to be signs of a good-tasting tomato -- because it was just the right amount of ripe, not under or over. Customers don't normally get to taste tomatoes before they buy them, they have to use firmness and color as a proxy.

So they bred tomatoes that can be very firm and very red with almost no relationship to actual ripeness, and taste terrible.

In that case, it's more of a trick than customers showing a preference for firmness or color over taste.

But you're right, I think, that customers will generally choose cost over taste, or over almost anything else, in the aggregate over the long-term anyway.

<comment><USER23> Another example is the yellow in cheddar cheese.

Apparently the yellow-ish color was originally a mark of high-quality milk from grass-fed Jersey and Guernsey cow. Now they use annatto and other spices/dyes to add color to the cheese.

Essentially, when the consumer doesn't have complete information they will have to make purchasing decisions based on proxy information. As you note, this can lead trickery from the person selling the product.

<comment><USER25> That's really funny, considering how in my family, white cheddar was always the "realer", more high-quality kind, whereas we assumed yellow cheddar to be highly-processed and made of whatever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Related: How Tomatoes Lost Their Taste (2012) [http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/how-tomatoes-lost- the...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/how-tomatoes-lost-their-taste)

</comment><comment> vanilla-almond A lot of tomatoes grown and sold in Europe are also tasteless.

In the UK, most supermarket tomatoes are imported from The Netherlands or Spain (two of the largert exporters of tomatoes in Europe). The tomatoes are mostly tasteless, regardless of the variety. Even the organic ones have only a little bit more flavour.

So tasteless tomatoes aren't just an American phenomenon, they are common in Europe too. That's what modern, mass-procuded agriculture gives us: tasteless, low-cost produce all-year round (because price mostly trumps other factors for many, if not most, consumers)

</comment><comment><USER27> I used to live in Berkeley, CA, and both "alt" groceries (Monterey Market and Berkeley Bowl) sourced wonderfully flavored tomatos- many different kinds, from juicy salad tomatos to beefy paste tomatos. The prices were not higher than the supermarket, and they tasted far better.

</comment><comment><USER28> People told me farmer's market tomatoes were better. So I bought them several times and sometimes they were better, sometimes not. Then, I discovered "early girl" tomatoes and they blew my mind. Very limited growing season though.

<comment><USER29> Food snob mode: there are some growers in some areas that grow "dry-farmed" early girls. It pushes the season much later in the year. The best I've ever tried, by far, are in Palo Alto at the downtown farmer's market. They're available for a fairly long season in the fall.

<comment><USER30> This past summer, the local real-estate company dropped off a tomato plant, which they do every year. I planted it and largely forgot about it throughout this dry year, just watering it enough to keep it alive. It grew small (about 2" diameter), very firm, amazingly flavorful tomatoes. I have no doubt the RE company picked whatever plants were cheap and I have no idea what breed it actually was, but the unintentional dry farming made it awesome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Having lived in Japan more than 10 years ago, that's the first thing I commented coming back. Why fruits and vegetables were way more delicious there than here. I loved fruits in japan where here its more of a chore when I ate them because I already assumed the bland taste before even biting info it.

This makes total sense.

</comment><comment><USER32> Google cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IzBeeuE...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IzBeeuECSlIJ:calmscience.net/2015/12/11/tale- of-tasteless-tomatoes-why-vegetables-do-not-taste-good- anymore/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

</comment><comment><USER33> I prefer my science to be anecdotal, don't you?

<comment> nappy-doo I've heard most people do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Supermarket carrots and other vegetables are also bred to withstand rough mechanical harvesting and not bruise, at the expense of flavour. The solution is to pick tasty breeds of carrots directly at the farm, and store them in a root cellar over winter.

</comment><comment><USER35> This may already be a thing, but rather than focusing on organic-ness or price, I wonder if there is a market for vegetables developing and deliberately focusing their promotion on enhanced nutritional content?

<comment><USER36> I would like to see the same thing for beef, eggs, milk, butter, and other dairy products specifically focused on "grass-fed" vs. "grain-fed". I've seen a handful of imported products that make this distinction, but not as many as I thought I would find when I searched for it locally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> What is this calm science bullshit that keeps popping up here?

This is yet another retarded opinion post with nothing to back their claims.

So fertilisers are bad? And lack of nutrients in food is bad too? If there is not much nutrient in the fruits, it only shows that enough fertilisation was NOT done to the soil.

It is absolutely possible to increase yield while maintaining nutrient contents. It is done by fertilisation with increasing yields. Unfortunately, people don't check the nutrient contents while purchasing fruits and vegetables. So, investing in more fertilisation does not give them return of investment.

The ONLY thing customers care about is looks. So, the producers are optimising for looks and looks alone.

It is possible to optimise for taste and nutrition. But when there are more easy and more retarded ways to sell products like calling them "natural" or "organic" or "non-GMO". As long as retarded cuntards like the author are alive and purchasing such products, this is not going to change. The world will just have to wait for these imbeciles to die out and new generations of intelligent people replace them.

</comment><comment><USER38> I always wondered why tomatoes and onions tasted different in some other country. I specially remember the tiny little tomatoes and the tiny little onions. Nothing looked perfect, but it all tasted amazing and I realized when I had the very first bite of my sandwich and salad, it was all flavorful. Glad I know why.

</comment><comment><USER39> 100 years ago, calories and yield were more important than nutrition. In some areas, just getting enough calories is obviously more important.

General nutrition information is getting better every year, and I think in the next 5-10 years, there will be a mainstream discussion over this issue.

</comment><comment><USER35> Sadly the site is dead, but the gist of it was that modern produce production demands have increased yield and reduced cost dramatically, at the cost of flavour and nutrition - the anecdotal example being watery flavourless tomatoes.

Or 'garnish' as they are otherwise known.

<comment><USER40> _at the cost of flavour and nutrition_

The good news is that it isn't necessarily a trade off, it's just that commercial breeders have ignored flavor and nutrition and focused on productivity and suitability for transport. So we might get vegetables that still work well for modern supermarkets while tasting better.

<comment><USER41> However, there likely is a tradeoff between taste and nutrition. Nutritious compounds can often have a bitter taste, while sugar is often said to be unhealthy.

<comment><USER42> I enjoyed your phrase "often said to be unhealthy."

I'm glad the nutrition field is willing to admit errors and update guidance. I'm a little disappointed with the high frequency.

I did 30 seconds of research, and found out dietitian and nutritionist are not synonyms. Dietitians seem to use nutrition to achieve specific medical or performance outcomes. In that context, it makes sense to have lots of changes as the bleeding edge advances.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Dry-farmed tomatoes (of any variety) are my personal favorite.

[http://www.thekitchn.com/what-are-dryfarmed- tomatoes-126811](http://www.thekitchn.com/what-are-dryfarmed-tomatoes-126811)

</comment><comment><USER44> American yogurt is bland because if you let it ferment _all the way_ it's got a kick that Americans tend not to like. Has very little to do with the milk, and everything to do with lactic acid.

</comment><comment><USER45> So around here, in Elbonia, it's still pretty common for people to grow their own stuff in the countryside. My grandmother still grows her own vegetables and still raises chicken.

She doesn't use fertilizer, but the conditions are quite ideal for a lot of vegetables, including -- yes -- tomatoes.

The difference is astounding. Simply slicing one or two tomatoes is enough to make my whole kitchen _smell_ like tomatoes. My palate is so accustomed to supermarket chicken that I literally cannot eat the ones she raises. I have to drown the meat in spices -- the flavour is so strong (and pretty different from that of "mass-produced" chicken) that it makes me vomit. Fortunately, I don't have that trouble with her tomatoes.

The catch is, indeed, that the yield is fairly low. There's no such thing as more than one crop per year, either -- she has tomatoes throughout the summer, but that's it. The only exception are cherry tomatoes, which will sometimes grow another generation of fruit in early autumn, and they ripen pretty fast, but that's it. Also, the ripening process is fairly slow; by mid-autumn or so, there are still enough unripe tomatoes for her to pickle a few jars.

(What, you don't pickle tomatoes when they're green in the States? You have no idea what you're missing!)

That being said, their color is pretty uniform. I don't have a picture right now, since they're out of season, but they really look OK, most of them are no different, in terms of look, from what you can see in supermarkets. Sometimes they grow in a somewhat weird shape (e.g. some of them get rather bulgy, but maybe that's a distinct cultivar, I don't know; others look perfectly round) but, if you allow them to ripen, they're pretty uniformly red. However, at that stage they're basically impossible to sell in supermarkets or even at farmers' markets, they'll go bad within days of being picked, even if you refrigerate them. People basically pick them right before a meal (worst case scenario, they'll pick a bunch in the morning so that they can chill in the fridge for an hour or two -- summers are pretty hot here, so if you pick them before lunch, you'll be eating really warm tomatoes).

Edit: I've seen someone here claiming that plain yogurt is _supposed_ to be plain.

Fuck no. Plain yogurt is so thick, soury and flavourful that, unless you've grown up with it, it's an acquired taste. My grandmother never raised cattle -- I first tasted plain, home-made yogurt at one of her relatives in a remote- ish village when I was 14 or so. I hated it, despite having eaten plain yogurt from the supermarket before, and it took me a whole summer to get accustomed to the taste. It's also _incredibly_ filling, you can't eat more than a bowl.

<comment><USER46> >>(What, you don't pickle tomatoes when they're green in the States? You have no idea what you're missing!)

I am SO doing this. I love pickled things, and have never seen this in the States. Thanks for the mention. I look forward to a tasty treat.

<comment><USER45> Enjoy!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Of the 600,000 food items currently in the American grocery store, 80% of them have added sugar, the statistics get worse as you look at restaurant menus.

</comment><comment><USER48> The delta between a great tomato and a good tomato is nontrivial but insignificant compared to the delta between any tomato and a Coca Cola.

</comment><comment><USER49> Perhaps this is an inevitable result of commoditization, i.e., futures contracts on bushels of corn on commodity markets.

</comment><comment><USER50> It always astonishes me to see graphs of yields for all these different plants and animals skyrocketing upwards under the pressure of selection on additive genetic variation, despite their totally different biologies, lifecycles, and even optimizing for different things (egg vs milk vs muscle).

</comment><comment><USER51> To be clear, the author pins this on GMO, but the article he cites mentions no such thing.

</comment><comment><USER52> Not entirely related to this pretty spot on article but I have also heard another hypothesis, that, as we get older our taste buds diminish which makes us think things don't taste as good as they used to.

<comment><USER53> Hmm, I don't think I'd buy that our taste buds diminish that much. I picked up one of those "small farm" tomatoes and it was incredible. Now if you've been a smoker then your taste buds absolutely suffer for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> There was a book about this: Tomatoland.

It's depressing in the extreme.

</comment><comment><USER55> "In the 1940s, a cow produced over 16 pounds of milk per day."

<comment><USER56> A relation of my wife is a canadian dairy farmer. He spends almost more of his time poring over the genetics of his cows, their productivity and exactly which sperm he will buy for her next calves.

It's a major upset when a male is born (they're killed after a few days and sold for rendering, probably for dog food.) Any sperm will get a cow pregnant, a 400$ insemination is only worth it for the potential cow sale...

That's cause his biggest source of revenue isn't the milk, it's the cows that produce more, fatter milk than any of his neighbors' on less feed per pound of milk.

And so they're inbred as hell with a handful of bulls (if that) fathering all of his cows and their mothers for multiple generations. But they sure produce a lot.

<comment><USER57> I feel like drinking milk from a herd of consistently inbred cows is one of those things that will seem obviously dumb looking back when something catastrophic happens[0].

[0]I don't know - nationwide distribution of spongiform-milk slurry, aka zombie serum.

<comment><USER58> Drinking cow's milk at all, inbred or otherwise, will most likely be viewed as a completely ridiculous notion one day.

<comment><USER59> Some people already view it as a ridiculous notion, so you're not far off.

<comment><USER60> This is going to sound like trolling, but it isn't meant to be: Why are some people passionately averse to milk?

Personally, I've always seen cow's milk as the quintessential drink of Western Christendom: something that Germans, Scots, Englishmen, Scandinavians, Celts (from the Hebrides all the way to Navarre and Galicia), and provincial Frenchmen consume, but that's all but unknown among foreigners -- including the predatory, Viking-descended aristocracies in London and, especially, Paris. (The English upper class proverbially never trusted an adult who drank milk; the French upper class hardly even remembered that it existed, except as a precursor to cheese.)

My theory is that those who hate milk see it in the same way as I do, but don't share my fondness for Western Christendom. The old-money "Northeastern establishment" in the United States never quite forgave God for how His Book is fine with slavery; Jews and Germans always did feud, but these days the Jews have very good reason to be frightened when they hear talk of traditional voelkisch German-ness (which in any case never did like them); eastern and southern peoples, not all of whom can consume milk in the first place, might reasonably regard milk as a symbol of a society that was as rich as it was xenophobic. And people born into the old Western order but seeking to escape it -- including most Americans, to some extent or other -- might want to escape its symbols, too.

Does this sound about right, or are there other reasons for disliking milk? I can understand personally not drinking it, if you don't have mature lactose tolerance; I can see excellent reasons for disliking industrial dairying with battery farms of miserable, inbred, inadvertently-cannibal cows (I don't touch milk unless it's organic and from humanely-raised cows); but if it isn't for the reasons above, I don't know why people dislike -- indeed, passionately shun and repudiate -- the very idea of drinking milk.

<comment><USER58> (Sorry for the late reply)

I'm confused. When you say "but if it isn't for the reasons above, I don't know why people dislike [milk]," how do you know that these complaints you've heard _aren 't_ for one of those stated reasons? If you know someone who advocates against dairy for reasons aside from what you listed.... you should ask them. (Sorry if that sounds flippant.)

I've been vegan for about 4 years, for ethical reasons, so I fall into one of the camps you've listed. So I guess I can't answer your question.

<comment><USER60> > When you say "but if it isn't for the reasons above, I don't know why people > dislike [milk]," how do you know that these complaints you've heard aren't > for one of those stated reasons?

I think that those are the main reasons, but I don't want to rule out that there are others -- and I don't want to rule out that I'm paranoid and over- thinking things, either. (I also don't want to sound condescending.) Don't worry in the slightest about sounding flippant.

And congratulations on being vegan and sticking to it! I've thought about vegetarianism for the same reasons; I'm fine with humanely-raised milk and eggs (as you've probably already guessed...), but I definitely see the merits of not killing in order to eat. Treating animals humanely before you kill them is better than treating them inhumanely first, but it still has a certain note of absurdity to it...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Build presentations with Reveal.js and Scala - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/pheymann/scala-reveal-js <comment><USER2> Something that floored me when I was trying out revealjs is the total inability to separate the library from your presentation. And doubly so was the lack of anyone else talking about this problem and how to handle it.

I really enjoyed reveal but it's just completely absurd that for every presentation I have, I have a copy of revealjs intermingled with my slides and their assets.

The closest I got was using a fork for reveal markdown. I could have just the assets version controlled and install reveal as a node dependency.

I'm going to have to revisit reveal and other options because I have presentations coming up and I'm so tired of making powerpoints!

<comment><USER3> > I really enjoyed reveal but it's just completely absurd that for every > presentation I have, I have a copy of revealjs intermingled with my slides > and their assets.

Disagree. I see this is a feature, because:

1\. I've given presentations in places that don't have internet access. Having all my assets bundled right there is a big win.

2\. I have talks I've given a few years ago. Since reveal is sitting right there with my template code, I can be guaranteed that my slides will never stop working. I don't want to have to maintain slides as software.

<comment><USER2> You can always just check in your node modules. With Reveal Markdown I point a CLI command at a folder of assets and get a website in a folder as an output.

But I hear you. That is a nice effect of checking in your dependencies.</comment></comment></comment>


Hong Kong Property Tycoon Gave Away Children's $400m Inheritance - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-22/hong-kong-property-scion-has-no-house-no-inheritance <comment><USER2> I used to be vehemently opposed to anti-inheritance laws but I've recently softened up a bit. Because the data shows that most wealthy people are first- generation rich anyway. (See: The Millionaire Next Door and also The Millionaire Mind for the data)

Someone who is really wealthy would've bestowed their children with immensely valuable lessons and experiences while they were growing up. And most of those children would already be on a path to their own success well before their wealthy parents die. After all, you'd expect most of them to become successful in their 30s and 40s while their parents are still alive. At which point any inheritance is simply a cherry on top, even if it's just 5% of the estate with the rest going back into charitable causes / society.

I understand the argument about how the wealthy who earned their wealth have the right to do what they want with it, but we already know that a lot of wealthy people end up adopting this mentality around giving away most of their wealth anyway. Like Gates, Buffett, etc. It seems like once you get into the real echelons of wealth you have a better understanding of why large public works projects are more noble than simply giving the entire estate to your offspring who are likely already going to be well-off by the time you keel over and die.

<comment><USER3> My attitude towards this is starkly different to yours. Suppose the data showed the opposite - that most wealthy people had inherited the bulk of their wealth. For me this would be an argument in _favour_ of anti-inheritance laws. An entire class of society would have an inherent, non-meritocratic advantage in life.

<comment><USER4> The children of rich people go to the best schools, have tutors, can afford to go to expensive universities without worrying about the cost, can afford to take unpaid internships, and have access to the capital to start their own ventures. All those things happen long before they inherit anything.

This is why I'm in favour of very high levels inheritance tax. It would encourage rich people not to hoard their money and instead spend it on things that keep the economy moving (people spending money is what creates jobs). People being rich is great, but only if they actually spend their money.

The other way for economies to keep moving is for poor people to borrow more, and we saw the long term effect of that in 2008.

<comment><USER3> I very much agree with you, with the caveat that one replaces "keep the economy moving" with "raise the quality of life for the worst-off in society". I find these measures don't always coincide although the first is admittedly easier to keep track of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The framing of this headline bothers me. It implies the money always belonged to the children from the start. "Gave away" is also an interesting choice over "donated". At least in my mind, they conjure different thoughts. Donated implies a purpose, while "gave away" could mean that the money was lost needlessly.

<comment><USER6> >It implies the money always belonged to the children from the start.

From a Chinese Culture perspective, that is exactly so.

<comment><USER7> What about from a Chinese Law perspective?

<comment><USER8> Hong Kong law approximately gives all personal effects to the spouse plus 50% of the cash, with the rest going to any children (unless there is a will that says otherwise)

<comment><USER9> Isn't this more or less the same in the rest of the world?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm very much on his side.

(1) Inherited dynastic wealth creates a plutocracy. I believe people of each generation should rise to the level of their abilities and not to the level of largesse of their families. Allowing people to hand down massive wealth is like playing monopoly where every square already has a hotel on it.

(2) The children didn't earn it, so they deserve it as much as anyone else. Inheriting it may adversely affect who they turn into as humans.

(3) I believe in a large social safety net so that those who cannot succeed don't have to die, but rather can live out their lives comfortably. Basic income, socialized medicine, education, etc.

This strikes a fair balance IMO. You earned the money, you created the value, you have to spend it in your lifetime. If you can't, the state will decide where it goes. The next generation will be looked after, and if they too are successful they can also enjoy the spoils. If not, they can live out their lives in comfort.

<comment><USER11> I think this doesn't quite jive with human nature. People have a naturally strong drive to build something and give to their kids. If there's no legitimate way to do that, then people will find other ways (whether illegal or just less honest means) to pass the things they've built to their children.

<comment><USER12> Sounds like you'd really enjoy reading Francis Fukuyama's "The Origins of Political Order" <[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00457X7VI/>](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00457X7VI/>). He analyses how different cultures came to wrangle large states, showing how they all had to deal with the same issues although they dealt with them in different ways. The base issue is that the state has to replace the family as the strongest allegiance: a person holding office can't use that office to enrich their family, else eventually the state has nothing and warlord dynastic families result. So you get Janissaries (kidnapped Christian boys) as the elite fighting force in the Ottoman Empire, and the 11C (?) change in the Church that prevented priests from marrying (because they'd been enriching their families). Since I read the book, I can see that fundamental tension between state and family playing out everywhere. Highly recommended!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sounds like he did a good job raising his kids from early age. Kudos. Yes, he is still privileged, but it's not easy for parents to make this kind of choice for their children.

Not only did he believe this is for the greater good, but he must've had a strong conviction that his children would've been better off this way.

</comment><comment><USER14> Even given they are growing up with all the privileges he can give his kids (and who wouldn't), what a great dad to say, and mean, that "it's better not to lead a life that's too comfortable in one go. You'll treasure more if you gain things step by step."

</comment><comment><USER15> Andrew Carnegie did much the same, and wrote this about it, after first considering and dismissing passing your wealth on to your families or endowing it at your death:

 _There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes; but in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor—a reign of harmony—another ideal, differing, indeed, from that of the Communist in requiring only the further evolution of existing conditions, not the total overthrow of our civilization. It is founded upon the present most intense individualism, and the race is projected to put it in practice by degree whenever it pleases. Under its sway we shall have an ideal state, in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense the property of the many, because administered for the common good, and this wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it had been distributed in small sums to the people themselves. Even the poorest can be made to see this, and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow-citizens and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among them through the course of many years in trifling amounts through the course of many years._

[0]: [https://www.carnegie.org/about/our- history/gospelofwealth/](https://www.carnegie.org/about/our- history/gospelofwealth/)

<comment><USER16> I wish this type of thinking — caring about the development of the public and republic - was more common these days. Common culture, from the Kardashians to the "SV dream" and the President himself, sells the exact opposite.

<comment><USER17> FWIW, Kim Kardashian is working on passing the bar. She says that it's because she wants to continue to work on Criminal Justice reform.

<comment><USER18> I'm sure a huge percentage of her fanbase has no idea who her father is or the massive role he played in a significant televised court case. Makes sense for her to follow in those footsteps if she's actually serious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > father puts him in charge of a company that does $2.4 billion in annual > revenue

> self-made man!

<comment><USER20> Also

> A graduate of the London School of Economics and Political Science, Shih > said he considers himself an average Hong Kong citizen.

and

> Shih's advice to his peers? Be realistic.

> He aims to buy a two-bedroom apartment in a middle-class neighborhood in > West Kowloon

The interwebs tell me that a 2-bedroom flat in west kowloon starts around 2 million USD. I'm sure it's realistic for Shih, I doubt it's realistic for the average HK citizen.

<comment><USER21> As a Hong Kong citizen, I can tell you 2 mil is a realistic number. The prices in this city is the top 3 in the world. More expensive than San Francisco. There are no longer any housing available less than half a million except for government housing which you have to wait over a decade. Half a million will buy you an apartment the size of a normal bedroom in SF.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you aren't going to leave anything behind for your kids, why work so hard to earn so much in the first place?

<comment><USER23> A better question would be why would you leave anything material for your kids? A good eduction and guidance through life should suffice. The rest should be invested in good governance.

<comment><USER24> What if they can't take care of themselves? There are many reasons to provide for your offspring.

<comment><USER10> For that we should invest in a social safety net, even basic income, so that those who can't succeed don't have to go off and die.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Anyone who believes we should live in a meritocracy (or thinks we already do) should support a 100% estate tax.

<comment><USER26> I believe we live in a meritocracy, but don't think we should do that. I see no moral reason to do this. Inheriting money doesn't make any one else poorer.

If I'm wrong, why?

All this aside, I think it's great that this gentleman made this choice. I think it will do a lot more good this way, and might even make his son more successful (by avoiding trust-fund syndrome).

<comment><USER27> The process of acquiring a massive fortune does make some poorer (definitely in the relative sense), even as it makes some better off, that is, it drives inequality. Technology picks up some of the slack by raising the floor standard of living, but only if doing so is also profitable for the financier or seller of the technology, and never anything beyond that.

While that process may be necessary to incentivize innovation, it has societal costs, and it's not unreasonable to consider offsetting those costs by confronting the wealth gap directly.

But I would argue the concentration of extreme wealth in few hands actually hinders innovation, and therefore makes society poorer overall, because a great number of people who might otherwise contribute creatively to major societal problems instead must focus their efforts on daily survival.

<comment><USER26> > The process of acquiring a massive fortune does make some poorer (definitely > in the relative sense)

This is my issue with the whole "wealth inequality" concept. It's just that: you have more money than I do. So what? Sure, I'd _like_ more money, but I don't think it's the government's job to take your money and give it to me. I have never seen the issue with CEOs making tens of millions of dollars; they do a very singular job (in a well-run company).

> Technology picks up some of the slack by raising the floor standard of > living, but only if doing so is also profitable for the financier or seller > of the technology, and never anything beyond that.

You think the Gates Foundation operates on a for-profit basis? I think you are correct with respect to businesses, but would prefer non-profits pick up the slack for the very bottom of society, rather than the government.

> While that process may be necessary to incentivize innovation, it has > societal costs, and it's not unreasonable to consider offsetting those costs > by confronting the wealth gap directly.

I agree it has societal costs. How do you propose to directly address it? I don't think giving the government the power to take and distribute how it deems best is a good solution.

> the concentration of extreme wealth in few hands actually hinders > innovation, and therefore makes society poorer overall, because a great > number of people who might otherwise contribute creatively to major societal > problems instead must focus their efforts on daily survival.

Though it does have problems, I think it also makes it easier in some ways. Angel investors can make it much easier to start a business, and certainly easier than if you had to pitch the middle class for two thousand dollars a piece.

I guess my overall issue is that I don't know of a better way. The best solution I can come up with to help is to stop the crony capitalist element, subsidies, etc.; where government picks winners and hands out contracts. I don't trust the government (particularly not the federal) to do most anything right, and I think if they are given more money (via, say, increased taxes), they will just waste it, likely signing more large, crony-ist government contracts in the process.

If there's a better solution, what might it be? I think if one is proposed, maybe it's best to test it on a state or local level first. I tend to start from a moral perspective: how can we morally justify taking money from others at gunpoint to make things "fairer"?

<comment><USER28> _how can we morally justify taking money from others at gunpoint to make things "fairer"?_

Perhaps it depends how they got it. If they got it by "unfairly" taking it from their neighbour at gunpoint, can we morally justify taking it from them at gunpoint - perhaps in order to return it to that neighbour? If that seems like a fair action, if we can justify that, then the principle is established that sometimes it is morally justified, and we then need "only" identify those qualifying situations.

<comment><USER26> > If the got it by "unfairly" taking it from their neighbor at gunpoint, can > we morally justify taking it from them at gunpoint - perhaps in order to > return it to that neighbor?

We call those people robbers and do just that. Any one who takes money at gunpoint is such. I'm not sure if you were trying to make a different point, but we're pretty good at arresting violent criminals and punishing them.

<comment><USER28> The point I made is that sometimes it is morally correct to take things from a person at gunpoint, in the name of fairness. You suggested that it was morally unjustifiable to ever do so ("how can we morally justify taking money from others at gunpoint to make things "fairer"?")

I suggest, and you appear to agree, that sometimes it IS morally justifed to do so. The principle established, with both of us agreeing that sometimes it is morally justified to forcefully redistribute wealth, now it only falls to us to decide when we should do this forceful redistribution of wealth.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Realm Report Q4 2017 – The Rise of Kotlin and Other Mobile Dev Trends - <AUTHOR> https://realm.io/realm-report/2017-q4/ <comment><USER2> One cannot but have respect for Kotlin - a language made by a small dev shop and not backed by any large company wins developer love.

I so wish that Android would adopt Kotlin for Flutter as well. Just FYI, Kotlin is not tied to the JVM. Kotlin Native is already very viable.</comment>


Restless Violet Shadows: The official color of the impressionists - <AUTHOR> https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/restless-violet-shadows <comment><USER2> Makes me wonder if there was some innovation in the production of violet pigments around that time. I recall an art historian friend telling me once that a certain school of landscape painting was directly enabled by the introduction of pre-mixed paints in tubes that could be easily carried by the artists to remote locations.

<comment><USER3> My first suspicious would be a new set of dyes. The first synthetic dye (mauveline, which is even a bit violet!) was discovered in 1856, and sparked a revolution in colors.

I found this paper, which analyses a Monet sea painting ([https://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/8356/](https://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/8356/)) and says

> Nine different pigments were found on the painting. Many of the identified > colors were modern pigments that became available only late in the 19th > century as a result of scientific advances in pigment chemistry. Although > similar colors were available in a natural mineral form, they lacked the > vivid color of their manufactured counterparts. The use of these new > synthetic metallic oxide colors by Monet accounts for the brilliance of his > paintings. ([https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/microscopy-and- > micro...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/microscopy-and- > microanalysis/article/monets-painting-under-the- > microscope/F66592EA744E3B6DB1F94DCAE52742E9))

The nine pigments are lead white, vermilion, cadmium yellow, chrome yellow, lead chromate, viridian, emerald green [copper acetoarsenite], cobalt blue, and French ultramarine.

I guess of these, lead white, vermilion, and french ultramarine have been used historically, but the other six were first synthesized in the 19th century. One could imagine that having access to cheap bright colors influenced art...

<comment><USER2> Very cool! Thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Maybe one can draw a comparison between the critics of the 1880s complaining about "harsh blue and garish lilac", and the current complaints about movies being color-graded to teal and orange ("Seriously, I weep for cinema of this dark age. I think twenty years from now people will look at films of this era and say "My God - what were they smoking??!?" ---[http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange- ho...](http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood- please-stop.html)).

In both cases, the colors are striking and beautiful, or depending on your tastes, cheap and garish.

<comment><USER4> Somewhat interesting that HN's color palette is orange, and Reddit's is teal and orange. Maybe evidence of these color trends extending beyond cinema.</comment></comment>


Creating a Christmas card on a vintage IBM 1401 mainframe - <AUTHOR> http://www.righto.com/2017/12/creating-christmas-card-on-vintage-ibm_7.html <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15876947](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15876947)

12+ comments</comment>


The Coming Confrontation Between Israel and Iran - <AUTHOR> https://www.cfr.org/blog/coming-confrontation-between-israel-and-iran-1 <comment><USER2> Instead of wasting resources in war, what about creating the next economical and political world giant together?

There could be a window: Europe, USA, Japon, India are not in their best shape. The only worldwide competitor is China.

Oh, and start interplanetary exploitation, indeed.

Welcome to the XXI century.</comment>


Pixelfed – An alternative to centralized image sharing platforms - <AUTHOR> https://pixelfed.social/site/about <comment><USER2> I clicked the link and... have no idea what this is. It looks like instagram maybe? I can't even figure out how to figure out what it is. The only clickable thing I see is "@admin" which just takes me to what looks like an Instagram page. It doesn't even mention fediverse on that page, and even if it did, you'd have to know what the fediverse is.

This feels like a huge barrier to adoption for them beyond the nerdiest of nerds.

I like Instagram because I get to see what my friends are up to. How will I get my friends on this?

<comment><USER3> It is an instagram knockoff. I think they are avoiding the fediverse mention on purpose in order to get users by just marketing it as an alternative without any special magic. This about page as a landing page is really confusing but the homepage doesn't do much better... Also registration is closed so this is a really strange time to be advertising

<comment><USER4> The author posts regular updates on Mastodon that I follow. From my understanding, federation is relatively new, and he seems to focus on expanding the functionalities of the core product right now instead of focusing on the presentation.

So indeed, it is a bit of an awkward time for it to be on the front page here.

<comment><USER5> What's the author's handle? I'd be interested in following to see what's happening.

<comment><USER6> [https://mastodon.social/@dansup](https://mastodon.social/@dansup)

<comment><USER5> Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Registrations are closed.

I think the lack of a common name/URL is the biggest problem that is preventing federated open source social networks from gaining mass popularity. I remember when identi.ca came out as an alternative to Twitter. It seemed like it was starting to gain some traction, then they switched to pump.io and closed registrations. I haven't heard of anyone using either since. Look at Diaspora, that never took off either. You might convince someone to try it out, they'd go to the website and it'd be too complicated for them. "Which pod do I choose?" Then they would just go back to using Facebook and Twitter.

<comment><USER8> > Which pod do I choose?

That is actually a great UX question. For federated services how do you think we best solve this? I mean everyone wants to just not pick one. But different loss suits people better in terms of location/interests/something else.

UX folks, what patterns would you suggest to help solve this?

<comment><USER9> Which email provider do I choose?

Email is a mature example of a federated system, and so if there is an answer to the general question, I'd expect we'll have figured it out in the context of email.

So... what's the "general strategy for picking an email provider?"

<comment><USER10> > So... what's the "general strategy for picking an email provider?"

Pick Gmail unless you have a good reason not to. And if you don't know any reasons pick Gmail.

Federation sounds nice until you realize that most people don't have particularly unique needs and a 'best for most people' will eventually emerge and dominate the market.

<comment><USER11> But instances aren't competing for users. There's no account fees, no ads, seems most big instances rely on voluntary donations to keep running.

You are also free to set up your own instance(s) and you can follow anyone.

Otherwise, stick to an instance with people like you (i.e. don't put your account on a gardening or knitting instance if you are primarily going to post and read about FPS gaming as it will mess up the instance timeline for everyone else and you'll have little use of the instance timeline.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Thoughts on federated services;

Just silly ramblings that hopefully open up a discussion because god knows I don't have the answers, but I do have ideas.

1\. How do I get my friends to use them - Solution? Maybe we now live in a world where privacy being part of the public discourse would enable something wonderful like a rich person who cares about this to spend for an ad campaign altruistically (I'm thinking in the vein of Brian Acton giving money to Signal foundation). That would be an effective seed to start a social network. Really play on the failures of modern social; Facebook (privacy), Twitter (sloppy moderation & bots) Google+ (...)

2\. For the most part, no one cares it's federated. The upside of federation is "unstoppable" apps (to steal from Ethereum). Okay fine it's federated, just make the UX of finding and jumping into those fediverse's easy. Pinterest model of discovery would lend itself to fediverse discovery, i.e I type a search term - show me related fediverse.

3\. Make it known to the people it matters to, in simple terms about how you don't track them. This is really really important. People care about being tracked, but unless you make it super simple and informative that what you do is different, how can I see that using something that is open source, federated and made by people who care about privacy is actually going to reduce tracking? Startpage and Mozilla do good work here about describing the state of the union, and how what they do is different.

<comment><USER13> I've not done anything beyond linking friends to funny/high quality posts on the Fediverse, and already a few have made the jump. For many instances, there is a very high signal to noise ratio that is an enticing factor for outsiders to join (if the user shares the interests of the instance).

The UX for boosting, replying and interacting with users on other instances is pretty straightforward, you merely fill your handle once when trying to boost/reply to a post found on another instance (if you don't follow or otherwise have a copy of that toot on your local instance) and it will OAuth (IIRC) to boost/like, or redirect you to your instance if you chose the reply option (with said toot your replying to pulled up). Overall pretty slick IMO.

One factor in this is there is generally not a wall between linking users to content on the fediverse, and them being able to view it. No Quora, Twitter or Facebook full screen popups that cut off reading a thread or toot, just here's the thread :P

Open linking/access to public toots unlike other "social" media is a big differentiator.

</comment></comment><comment> grumpy-cowboy I'm in the process to move out mass-surveillance social sites like FB, Twitter, Google, ... I'm about to install my own Matrix and ActivityPub nodes (Mastodon, Pleroma, PeerTube, ...) on a cheap VPS.

I also have my own email domain hosted at Fastmail.com (I don't want to manage an email server).

This way I'll manage MY own data. I'll share it with who I want. And it's a fun project. :)

<comment><USER14> Could you share a bit what VPS you'll use to host your ActivityPub? I've been wanting to do this too, but I have no idea at all where to begin.

<comment><USER15> As there are simply no providers yet who offers ready-to-install packages of all these services (at least I don't know one), you go with that service you trust and that suits you best. Some examples for relatively cheap VPS are Digitalocean, Vultr, Linode or, if you want to host somewhere "safe": Exoscale, which has datacenter in Switzerland and Germany.

<comment><USER14> Thanks for the tips! I'll look into them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've signed up for Pixelfed. It's nice enough. It doesn't seem like actual federation between Mastodon or other Pixelfed instances is up and running though. You can follow a Pixelfed account in Mastodon but not vice versa. Maybe I'm just doing something wrong.

Anyways. It's fun... I post silly inconsequential pictures because I know only a half-dozen people will ever see them. The public timeline is not very lively so I hope w/ better federation and more attention it can be a little more active.

I'm pretty sick of Instagram though, so Pixelfed and the fediverse in general seems fun.

The web app is fine and works fine on mobile. A little clunky, but that's how I likes my indieweb. :)

<comment><USER17> That's pretty much how things are developing in the fediverse: each platform meant for its own content type, with the microblogging platforms generally being used for a "main" identity. So platforms like Pixelfed and Peertube can focus on photos and videos, respectively, while still interacting with the larger network.

By not supporting following in the other direction, these specialized platforms can stay focused on the content shared there, instead of also supporting microblogging, video, photos, events, and whatever other types come up in the future. But of course you're not limited to just following in one direction -- comments go both ways. So someone can comment on your Pixelfed photo with a Mastodon account, and you can respond to that comment with your Pixelfed account, and they'll see your comment back on Mastodon.

<comment><USER18> It's a good theory in general, but I think in this specific case it's because there's one dev and he works on this in his spare time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Twitter alternatives (mastodon), instagram alternative (pixelfed), reddit alternative (prismo.news)... Things are looking great!

<comment><USER20> For now I am still on Reddit but another open source alternative to Reddit that I learned about earlier today is [https://tildes.net/](https://tildes.net/). Judging from the amount of votes and comments they have very few users as of yet. Will be interesting to see how Tildes develops over time.

<comment><USER21> [https://tildes.net](https://tildes.net) doesn't seem to be federated. Is it?

<comment><USER22> How do you get an account there?

<comment><USER23> Just send me an email - the address and more info about the site are in the announcement post (offer's open to anyone else that's interested too): [https://blog.tildes.net/announcing- tildes](https://blog.tildes.net/announcing-tildes)

I send out invites daily. It's not intended to be difficult to get an account, I just want to prevent it from getting out of control when it gets a huge burst of attention due to situations like a subreddit getting banned.

<comment><USER22> Thank you! I reached out

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Hi, pixelfed developer here[1].

Thanks for all the feedback! The project is still pretty young and we look forward to shipping a stable release in the coming months!

[1] - [https://mastodon.social/@dansup/101780180126913256](https://mastodon.social/@dansup/101780180126913256)

</comment><comment><USER25> On first glance, looks like a decentralized Instagram.

A couple of questions:

\- What is the business model? If millions of people are on this and there's no ads/monetization -- how is the service covering costs?

\- If people had to pay, then it might limit adoption, how are you going to handle that?

\- How are you guys thinking about support, monitoring content (removing illegal/copyrighted content)

<comment><USER26> There is no corporation and no business model, and that's by design. Each instance can do what it wants regarding covering the cost of running the server. I plan to set up my own instance on my modest homelab for family and friends, and will not charge anything. Some bigger instances might choose to offer a certain amount of free storage before requiring to pitch in to cover the costs. My guess is that a big majority of instances will be populated by 10-200 users, give or take, which would be feasible to keep running with minimal cost and a modest amount of administration.

Regarding moderation; I'll keep my family and friends under control and bigger instances will have to delegate moderation rights to trusted members of that community – much like on any forum. It's a far more sustainable model compared to the nightmare Facebook and Twitter, which is relying heavily on algorithms and outsourcing.

<comment><USER27> Moderation is important in today's world, compare the massive work twitter, instagram et al have had to do as a result of the Christchurch massacre.

How does this scenario work with pixelfed? I take it that the content is hosted on a specific server and that the pixelfed app is just a frontend that knows how to find that server. Is abuse reporting built in to the app somehow? How does the end user know that action is being taken? How can law enforcement close down pages?

Note that legal liability for hosting illegal content may be huge. There is one 18-year old in NZ who is being charged and threatened with 14 years jailtime for sharing the terrorist video from the mosque massacre. [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object...](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213914)

<comment><USER26> The content is stored on servers run independently from each other and they usually operate with slightly (and sometimes wildly) different rules.

Users can report posts which then has to be looked at by the mods on that specific instance/server. Since most servers have a modest amount of users, and a relatively high moderator to user ratio, moderation becomes quite manageable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The social network Mastodon, also based on a Free Software and using Fediverse, reached 2M+ uses recently [https://carlchenet.com/do-not-ignore- the-mastodon-social-net...](https://carlchenet.com/do-not-ignore-the-mastodon- social-network/)

PixelFed has a possible awesome future ahead!

</comment><comment><USER5> Signed up but still waiting for them to introduce Instagram importing. I have quite a few pics on there and I want to completely move over without losing the order and posting times of my Insta account.

</comment><comment><USER29> Link should be changed to the homepage instead of the current weird page that has no info

[https://pixelfed.social/](https://pixelfed.social/)

<comment><USER30> Yep, we definitely have to update that page ASAP. Maybe next time it hits HN we'll be ready. If anyone's interested you can see from my Mastodon what I've boosted from PixelFed: [https://mastodon.social/@veb](https://mastodon.social/@veb)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> from pixelfed site:

Supported Fediverse Projects

This is a partial list of well known supported projects

        Anfora – Self-hosted photo gallery social network.
        Pleroma – A federated microblogging alternative.
        Mastodon – A federated microblogging alternative.
        Misskey – A federated microblogging alternative.

</comment><comment><USER32> can you browse without signing up? I'd like to follow from my mastadon client

<comment><USER33> I'm wondering the same. I wanted to look at a Pixelfed instance to see if it was worth joining (or following from a different account in the fediverse)--and I can't even see whether or not I like the content without making an account?

I can see why a for-profit app like Instagram would force everyone to sign up to browse, since that helps their bottom line, but I can't see why that decision would be made here.

<comment><USER34> Instagram does not make you sign up to browse.

[https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/ycombinator/](https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/ycombinator/)

This seems to be the url to browse tags on pixelfed.social:

[https://pixelfed.social/discover/tags/ycombinator](https://pixelfed.social/discover/tags/ycombinator)

Unfortunately it wants you to sign in.

<comment><USER16> It looks like you can at least view profile pages without logging in. Here's mine, as an example:

[https://pixelfed.social/beardicus](https://pixelfed.social/beardicus)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I think I understand the mission: A federated alternative to instagram where anybody can create a server which is accessible to other users on the fediverse network (doesn't have to be pixelfed). But I don't think this is the right approach. If the public really wants to compete with large internet corporations then there needs to be a single non-profit organization akin to the Wikimedia Foundation which runs these social media applications. Of course it's both legally and technically a less resilient setup than a federated network. But you are never going to cause a significant part of the population to switch to a federated image sharing platform - not least because most users aren't going to understand the concept.

If you really want people to move away from social networks run by for-profit corporations then you need a single non-profit organization with a charismatic leadership, a captivating mission statement and lots of people to create public awareness.

<comment><USER21> > Wikimedia Foundation which runs these social media applications.

Then you just moved the centralization to a different entity. Wikipedia has plenty of problems, power plays, politics, bullshit process, bias etc.

<comment><USER35> The goal of such a foundation wouldn't be to remove these issues - which are inherent to any type of organization - it would be to stop the ongoing erosion of privacy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> What I really like is that thanks to ActivityPub it is possible to boost a Pixelfed post in Mastodon. Basically in the fediverse...

<comment><USER30> I constantly boost my PixelFed posts in Masotdon :) It's such an awesome way of doing it. My latest toots are in fact, from PixelFed: [https://mastodon.social/@veb](https://mastodon.social/@veb)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > Registrations are closed.

Can someone explain this?

<comment><USER37> As I recall the idea was to promote looking for a Pixelfed instance with a community that fits your needs and interests, which in turn makes the network stronger by distributing the userbase over a variety of servers.

Keeping registrations open on what is often perceived as an "official" instance can lead to that instance getting most of the new users of the network, since it's usually the one you'll find if you search for the corresponding software. mastodon.social (previously open, now invite only) is a good example of that, IMO. I'm not sure if it's a good or a bad thing, but I do feel it subverts the idea of a federated network if most users are on a handful of known instances.

<comment><USER38> That's a nice thought. I'm the kind of user that's going to give up and move on if my first attempt fails, and I imagine I'm in the majority here.

<comment><USER39> Why would Mastodon or Pixelfed need users who give up that easily? Those most probably won't be good citizens anyway and they would not post and create content because it's too complicated.

I don't think it makes sense to have non-active members just for faking the numbers if it's non profit anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> A few questions:

Is this compatible with existng solutions like Mastodon?

And why just images? Why not videos/documents/music or even events?

How long will the images be available? Who is paying for storage?

How does the technology compare to IPFS?

<comment> phoe-krk 1) Yes, these speak the common ActivityPub protocol.

2) It's purposeful specialization. PeerTube is a video hosting service, Funkwhale is a music hosting service, GetTogether is an event hosting service. No idea what services provide online document services - they likely aren't ActivityPub-compatible.

3) Ask the administrator of your instance. The Fediverse, of which PixelFed is part, is composed of a mesh of networked instances.

4) I don't have enough IPFS experience to answer.

<comment><USER41> > No idea what services provide online document services - they likely aren't > ActivityPub-compatible.

Nextcloud is ActivityPub compatible and might suit that use case.

<comment> phoe-krk Does NextCloud have some document editors built-in?

<comment><USER42> Yes, [https://nextcloud.com/collaboraonline/](https://nextcloud.com/collaboraonline/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> You can register - go to [https://pixelfed.social](https://pixelfed.social) I uploaded a picture and that worked too.

</comment><comment><USER44> Will be on board as soon as it has an app.

<comment><USER11> For now at least it is a "web first" experience.

I think more things should be "web first". Today even Reddit keeps tirelessly pushing an app - for a web site!

<comment><USER44> Instagram is an app first, website second. As an Instagram clone that's primarily how I intend to use it as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I love it!</comment>


Be Happy with what you have - <AUTHOR> http://www.jameswatling.com/blog/2016/07/06/be-happy-with-what-you-have/ <comment><USER2> I am bit annoyed at these feel-goody "minimalism" articles, almost always inevitably written by some rich kid, who, if they were to live their preachy minimalism, could at moments notice buy the thing they need in that moment.

For everyone else on this planet for whom financial security is not a given, it makes sense to keep more things around than needed in a given instance.

So yeah, if you want to declutter your life, go ahead. But don't think that your newly discovered boring lifestyle choices are somehow so good that everyone else needs to make them as well.

Especially if the depth of it is "have and do less things, I promise it will make you happy".

<comment><USER3> Could it be that they have the resources to purchase necessary items _because_ they opted not to purchase the several dozen unnecessary items that their non- minimalist peers had sprung for?

It's well established that poorer people not only have fewer resources, but are generally worse at allocating the resources they _do_ have. This is attributed to a difference in perception of money (something to spend vs something to save).

It's not a difference between being able to purchase an item versus not being able to. It's a difference between being able to invest heavily in each item you own — certainly a privilege of the well off.

In any case, whether the loudest advocates of minimalism are annoying or not, our base level of consumption is far too high for a variety of reasons: environmental, economic, and yes, I think emotional.

There are immense resources poured into making people want/need/desire more "things," and if their ability to acquire "things" doesn't make that possible, there's an inherent damage to a person's psyche.

<comment><USER2> "Minimalism" isn't the same as being poor.

To be honest I don't think your first point is accurate. People aren't poor, because they spend a lot of money, they are poor because they don't _have_ a lot of money.

To say that you can lift yourself and your family out of poverty by saving money, makes not a lot of sense. And lot's of the items that one would perceive as unnecessary from a financially comfortable position, don't maybe look that way when you're in the situation yourself. Sure, eating beans everyday might save you money, but then you've spent your life eating beans, and in the end that wasn't the deciding factor.

That said, there are many people ( and I agree with you, our society as a whole probably does) who live above their means continually, I just don't think that that's a problem that's confined to poor people. You said

> It's well established that poorer [...] are generally worse at allocating > the resources they do have.

Would you mind expanding on that a little, or link me to some material that you've found useful ?

<comment><USER4> Well there are people who make $100k living paycheck to paycheck and there are people who make $40k but spend even less and as such grow their assets.

Being poor is a thing you can dig yourself out of but it takes a huge amount of energy to do so. It's excruciating to not spend on comfort when you're uncomfortable but that's what it takes. Which is probably why so few people manage to "pull themselves up by their boot straps"

<comment> at-fates-hands >> Being poor is a thing you can dig yourself out of but it takes a huge amount of energy to do so.

This is why if you want to stop the cycle of poverty, you need to give people incentives to get off assistance and make it possible to succeed, instead of making it _easier_ to stay on welfare. As humans, we will always take the easier route.

It also sad to think we've made it much easier for people to get on welfare and stay on welfare indefinitely. I have several friends who prefer to work just enough hours to get assistance, but not enough to actually get off of it. What does that say about our culture and society when people are content to live off the government instead of wanting to succeed and get out of poverty??

source: after college, I had several bouts of depression, was homeless for a stint and used government programs to get out of the hole I was in. It wasn't easy, but it gave me perspective on what its like to be really poor, and what it takes to get out of that hole.

<comment><USER5> Some people do work under a certain amount of hours to stay on assistance. You are correct, the system needs to change to make it possible to succeed. I have a cousin that made just a little too much ($20 or less) and lost about $200 in food assistance. Many face the same sorts of choices with housing benefits, child care, and so forth. The problem more lies in the cutoffs for assistance making it such that many people have to make horrible choices to be able to not get assistance. It isn't being content, it is trying to eek by.

You were able to do it, but some folks can't. The system doesn't help, and they don't know how. Some folks, in your situation, might have died. You were armed with a college education, which meant you had more opportunities than the local retail spot. Add a wife and/or children and/or severe health problems into the mix and it becomes much harder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My 2cts, not trying to convince anyone :) Just giving perspective; might help some.

There are many ways to do this. The easiest I found is moving away from toxic environments which, for me (it's personal; other people have different experiences I guess), are cities. You can get everything 'same day', you see many people 'having things' and 'having better lives than you have' (perceived) around you. And a lot of people are showing off their things you don't have; sports cars, new boobs, latest smartphone and so on. And that, even if you don't do it consciously, builds on stress levels, on top of the stress that you 'have to do stuff' otherwise you cannot pay for your tiny, very expensive apartment. Most people I know (exclusively living in cities) don't even dare to invite people in their homes unless they have stuff to show off in there minuscule city dwellings of E800k.

In my village people are down to earth, no-one shows off, you get a villa + pool + huge garden for a fraction of what you had in the city and you can survive there for a very long time with very little money because it is much cheaper AND there is a barter economy as well (I fix old computers for people and get food for instance).

I would never go back. I think a lot of younger people (me in my younger years) think they cannot live without the 'liveliness' of the city while burning themselves out. Not sure about the numbers obviously but most my friends have since moved and everyone regrets not doing it earlier.

Edit: rereading I notice my negative tone about city dwellings; that's because I cannot imagine / phantom that anyone would want to live in a cramped apartment _ever_ and definitely not for that price. While I did when I was in my 20s and I was convinced I would never leave. But I was wrong; in hindsight I was just scared. Once we did try (my wife being a HUGE ex-city living fan, far more than I was) we literally turned 180deg.

<comment><USER7> What about social circle? This is the biggest question I have when I think about moving to a small place. And when you say small, how small do you mean - and where? A village in, say India, is very different from a developed country. You'd be hard pressed finding running water and electricity in a lot of those places.

<comment><USER6> I am in the mountains of Spain in a village with a population of 1600 spread over many many kilometers up in the mountains. Water comes from the spring on our land (we have it checked every 6 months; it's great :), electricity solar; we need the generator a few days per year and 'need' is actually not really true as it never really gets too little sun/light etc. Tons of sun (heatwave now).

Social circle; most people here live on the coast which is what you would expect of Spain as per expats and tourism which is what we really don't fancy; most 'beach and sun' people seem to dislike the mountains, at least driving up them. So we are left with people who do and that seem to be people with a same-ish mindset as us; entrepreneurs and generally educated people. Our village is a steaming pile of social when you want it and if you don't, you just go home. Next to that, ofcourse, we have a part of our social lives on internet, which works fine for people who don't mind typing. I met some of my now best friends online (via entrepreneur and tech communities) and we have better discussions than I usually have in person via text chat.

<comment><USER8> How did you decide to move there? How did you pick the place? In which area of Spain is your village?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Obsession to things and materialism is not something good, but simply saying be happy with what you got is not always true. Let's say you want to buy a new computer, do you need it because the one you have already is not sufficient or is it just for bragging rights, when it's the latter you probably will find some after-rationalization, that you will need it when you try to make some new big data tool or play games. Humans are not very good at critically evaluating their possessions, we become emotionally attached to some of our things and might start to hate other things, e.g: anthropomorphizing our car doesn't do us any good. Sometimes it's better not to have a car than do this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78b67l_yxUc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78b67l_yxUc) (Basil Attacks His Car - Fawlty Towers - BBC)

</comment><comment><USER10> One of the people who I don't know personally but admire a lot in this regard is Derek Sivers (creator of cdbaby.com). If you've got 5 mins, you'll just love reading this article by him "Why I gave away my company to charity" [1]

I was listening to his audio-book and in the end he tells his story where he gave all of his money away (I think it was like 95% of the money away to create an institution for up and coming artists). It's just truly inspiring.

[1] [https://sivers.org/trust](https://sivers.org/trust)

</comment><comment><USER11> Not possible. There is no way to escape fulfillment. You can only modify how you fulfill yourself, not entirely escape it. Case closed!!

</comment><comment><USER12> I really believe that due to connectivity and the emergence of a connected lifestyle we now can live in smaller more quiet areas and still have our bare essentials. This is a great article and I really hope people embrace the way more than just the buzz of minimalism. It has freed me in a way and I was lucky to stumble along it.

<comment><USER13> I think it will really take off with self-driving cars. It's going to throw gasoline on the sprawl fire. I'm one of those that can't wait to move an hour or so out of the city.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I love the meaning of this article. Living a simpler life is a happy life! Great job.

</comment><comment><USER14> Wonderful! You are so inspirational!

</comment><comment><USER15> 1st world problems.

</comment><comment><USER16> Makes sense

</comment><comment><USER17> Nope, I refuse d:-) funny post though.

obs: please, come to brazil.</comment>