Is There a Cryptocurrency Bubble? Just Ask Doge - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/business/cryptocurrency-bubble-doge.html <comment><USER2> I have great respect for Kevin Roose, but this was a disappointing piece. Dogecoin was a meme. It gained popularity and is still worth something. Jackson Palmer might not believe it has value, but clearly, there are people who own Doge that think otherwise.

There is definite frothiness in the market. Some token sales are scams, some are overpromising, and some that look promising will probably blow up. Take a look at SEC Fraud statistics for 2016. Crypto scams are a small fraction of these crimes: [https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-212.html](https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-212.html)

Reporters need to separate Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin (and some of the other older cryptocurrencies) from token sales and other crypto assets. Bitcoin has existed for 9 years and has real users with real use cases (remittance & cross-border payments)

I can keep going, but reporters really need to make an effort to do more research and separate fact from fiction (I guess this can be said for many areas of journalism though).

<comment><USER3> What do you do with Dogecoin though? It's market cap is $91MM and yet its creation was a joke.

<comment><USER2> I guess sell it. People think it's valuable. Cryptocurrencies are priced not valued. You can't just go Dogecoin is valued at X. Dogecoin is priced based on supply and demand which is saying it's worth $91MM.

<comment><USER4> All Dogecoins in circulation are not worth $91m. For that to be the case, there'd have to be people willing to buy all 111 million Dogecoins for $0.000796 each, which is not the case at all. People are only willing to pay this price for a tiny fraction of all Dogecoins in existence; as we go beyond that, the bid price starts approaching zero.

<comment><USER5> The opposite is also true, and not just in assets like stocks but cryptos as well.

The price of any asset increases substantially if you try to buy a significant stake.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think there is a difference between a cryptocurrency bubble and an ICO bubble, and this article fails to distinguish between the two.

You can see Tom Lee, a financial strategist, talk about Bitcoin here: [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/15/bitcoin-could-surge- another-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/15/bitcoin-could-surge- another-600-percent-to-25000-dollars-in-5-years-says-strategist-tom-lee.html)

He points out that there are only 300,000 Bitcoin wallets that hold $5,000 or more. In the grand scheme of things that is very small compared to the overall global economy. He also refers to Jamie Dimon's comments that Bitcoin is a "fraud" (It is worth nothing that JP Morgan bought up millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin after the price crashed following that statement – on behalf of their clients).

ICOs, on the other hand, are absolutely in a bubble. Companies are raising hundreds of millions of dollars without even having a product. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand how absurd that is. In my opinion, regulations in this area would actually do more of a service than disservice to crypto, and I welcome them with open arms. For one, it will legitimize token sales as a fundraising method, and for two it will remove most of the scams and illegitimate projects that seem to be popping up daily.

I think Blockchain technology is here to stay. Even if 99 out of 100 ICO projects fail (they will), that still leaves a few that will survive and may become quite valuable. While the recent explosion in crypto prices seems unsustainable, if it really does become the money of the future then the prices now are going to look like pennies in five or ten years time.

<comment><USER7> Noob question... What is the "product" that underlies the value of cryptocurrency that is so much more valuable than what underlies an ICO? What is the value of a machine churning hashes? It seems like the value is underlied by securing a transaction ledger + an arbitrarily difficult math problem. So is the value the security of the ledger?

<comment><USER6> That is a very good question. I didn't do a good job making an argument for why I think the value of a currency like Bitcoin could be so much higher than an altcoin that did an ICO.

In my opinion, Bitcoin has the first mover advantage in this space. It was the first real use of the blockchain, is still the gateway to pretty much every other crypto currency, there is a maximum supply of coins, and is one of the only coins that can be purchased/exchanged for US dollars (or other fiat currency). In order to purchase an altcoin such as BAT (the token behind the brave browser the article refers to), you have to first purchase Bitcoin. If you want to sell your BAT tokens, you will receive Bitcoin.

Also Bitcoins do cost real money to actually mine (electricity costs).

Other tokens such as Ethereum are gaining popularity as well and have some advantages over Bitcoin, but I don't see Bitcoin being displaced anytime soon.

In the case of Ethereum, the value is that the token is used as "gas" on the Ethereum network. Any action you want to take or data you want to store will require that you send a certain amount of Ether in order to perform that task. Since Ethereum is a platform that many of these ICO companies are building apps on top of, it stands to reason that the value of the platform should be greater than the value of the company building on top of it.

<comment><USER8> Question:

Bitcoin is a global cryptocurrency. Sure it has a first-mover advantage but so does Google. Today someone searches with google, tomorrow they may switch to Bing. Can't the same be said of Bitcoin and say Litecoin / Dogecoin / whatever? So why is Bitcoin worth more than Litecoin let's say? Both are accepted by Coinbase etc.

<comment><USER9> Bitcoin has brand positioning. It might not be technically the best, but brand positioning is really important if you are in a market. It occupies a clear position in people's mind.

Does the common man think of "cryptocurrency", or does he think of "bitcoin"? If in that persons head, "bitcoin" is the same as "cryptocurrency", then it will be really hard for a competitor.

Google is a nice example. "I will google it for you". Nobody says "I will bing that", or, sadly for other search engines, "I will search the web". We say "I will google it". In our head, google is the search engine, and the search engine is google. So if bitcoin is in that same ballpark, good luck to the competitors.

But I'm not saying other cryptocurrencies can't bring anything new to the table, such as Ethereum or Monero. But bitcoin definitely has the brand positioning advantage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > A group of Bay Area programmers this year used an I.C.O. to raise $35 > million for their project, an anonymous web browser called Brave

As in Brave, the new browser from Brendan Eich (founder of Mozilla, famously invented JavaScript in 10 days)? Hardly a scam...

Either the reporter didn't do their research or twisted the facts to fit their story.

<comment><USER11> >Either the reporter didn't do their research or twisted the facts to fit their story.

It is quite obvious it is both.

\- Dogecoin creator was always a cryptocurrency skeptic. The article even admits it but papers over it.

\- Blockchain =/= Bitcoin. The article insinuates that any blockchain-related startups are built on top of Bitcoin.

\- ICOs =/= Bitcoin.

\- "early adopters often used it to buy drugs, weapons, or other illicit goods on the dark web"

\- "including Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, who last week called Bitcoin a "fraud,"" This line makes it clear what NY Times' outlook is, they quote an opponent of cryptocurrencies like he is an expert.

<comment><USER12> The NY Times recently restructured their reporting operations in a way that reduced the amount of fact-checking done[1]. FWIW I'm a daily reader and definitely feel the quality has suffered.

[1] [https://www.poynter.org/news/new-york-times-copy-desk-top- ed...](https://www.poynter.org/news/new-york-times-copy-desk-top-editors-you- have-turned-your-backs-us)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I was a longtime ethereum sceptic, however I was guilty of being a cynical old curmudgeon; the type that poo-poo's anything and everything novel on the grounds that I'll be right 95% of time, ignoring the fact that I'll poo-poo everything that will ever change the world.

Bitcoin made currency decentralised and permissionless.

Ethereum has made capital raising and equity holding decentralised and permissionless. Sure, lots of people talk about SEC compliance, but in reality anyone can raise equity for anything now. You can issue a token to fund for a drugmarket if you wish, and pay dividends, and noone can stop you really. The market cap of ethereum is 22 billion.. is that to high or too low for the promise of permissionless securities?

<comment><USER14> > Bitcoin made currency decentralised and permissionless.

This is a common misconception, that cryptocurrencies can somehow exist outside government control, and it makes me doubt some of the long term value of Bitcoin. A government can basically make anything it wants illegal, and once cryptocurrencies become large enough, there will be tons of additional regulations and control.

<comment><USER15> Drugs are illegal almost everywhere in the world and they are one of the largest consumer markets. Something similar happens to US dollars in Venezuela. So I don't know if making bitcoin illegal will really hurt its value in the long run.

<comment><USER16> Your conclusion doesn't follow your observation. It's one thing to say that the government can't stop something, and quite another to say the government can't hurt it. Who knows how much bigger the drug trade would be without anti- drug laws.

<comment><USER17> > Who knows how much bigger the drug trade would be without anti-drug laws.

In a few years we'll have a good idea based on marijuana in several US states. We _will_ have to sift out the tourists though, because there do seem to be a lot of those. At least, here.

We could also look at alcohol prohibition for a historic example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Really tired of mainstream hit pieces against cryptocurrency.

I wouldn't call myself a bitcoin fanatic (I hold a very small amount, just for the fact of making myself learn about blockchain and cryptocurrencies), but these articles are not well-researched.

They don't understand the difference between Bitcoin and Dogecoin, let alone the difference between ICOs and Bitcoin, not to mention their misunderstanding that blockchains are a technology, not Bitcoin.

The article even admits Dogecoin's creator was always skeptical and made the coin as a joke, so him suddenly saying he is skeptical is just about the least shocking thing.

<comment><USER18> Indeed, and since this is the NYTimes, it's worth remembering Gell-Mann Amnesia once again:

"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."

<comment><USER19> For every story you read where you notice wrong facts, tens or hundreds of stories are getting things fine.

Almost no one sits down and says "oh, indeed, this article is competent and a correct statement of fact"

<comment><USER20> It just so happens that all the stories where we know about the topic are the ones with the wrong facts?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> One of the reasons Doge was successful was because it was, at its heart a meme, and something fun. Bitcoin is sort of a meme too but it seems to keep recreating itself. New 'Bitcoin Myths' keep popping up of why it should be valuable. Bitcoin will make micro-transactions on the internet feasible. Bitcoin will upend tyrannical governments. Bitcoin will be adopted by countries with hyperinflation. Bitcoin is a hedge against financial collapse.

GOt that idea from here: [https://publication.widmerdun.com/the-perpetual- bubble-machi...](https://publication.widmerdun.com/the-perpetual-bubble- machine-d7e8ec7ca973)

</comment><comment><USER22> I think the thing to remember with ICOs and new altcoins is that HODL, block your ears and walk away does not apply.

People are making a living simply by flipping, insider trading, fake insider rumours, companies stringing out claims and updates, releasing of Alpha's that are paper models (not really even prototypes), teams with a lack of devs with relevant crypto background, ideas that have no use of a blockchain at all, tokens that offer no utility, or whose utility is yet to be determined, etc. Tokens that have utility, but whose utility is relatively small, yet whose investor base and node base is YUGE. It's turning into a bloodbath of fuckery.

<comment><USER23> This is what an unregulated market looks like, and the more chaotic it gets, the more I think people should understand why we regulate markets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Some have posted and argued that these currencies do not have "real" value. I would argue that CrytoCurrencies do actually have inherent value. A few reasons:

1# CrytoCurrencies are free from the existing monopolies of the banking sector, money exchangers and politics. You can argue that those hegemonies should have control, but it is undeniable that there is tremendous value to many in that control weakening and being eliminated.

So you can see a source of inherent value.

#2 CrytoCurrencies are incredibly secure, can be extremely private and become ever more secure overtime because of the effect of mining, every watt burned acts to secure the network in an irreversible way

#3 Mining is the first application, mining secures the network and participants are rewarded. More generalized applications with things like solidity only increases the value of the network.

CrytoCurrencies are very much in an early phase, and not cleanly understood. There's a long way to go.

<comment><USER25> These are features that are useful only after you accept that the coins have some value. If they don't store any value - then there is no use in security, privacy etc.

But the point is that it is the same with all money - people don't want it for itself - but rather because they expect to exchange it for something that they'll want in the future.

<comment><USER24> If your paper money does not store value directly. Which means you can't eat it or directly build anything useful with it. And your checking account is simply a digital representation of that paper then i would argue that a purely digital currency is simply an evolution of that and not actually massively different from paper. The difference being the removal of the requirement of centralized control.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is possible enough that anyone putting a significant amount of money in crypto is playing with seriously dangerous fire.

On the other hand, the fall of one cryptocurrency to scammers doesn't mean all of them are destined to pan out the same way. This article doesn't really offer any evidence for that extrapolation, either.

</comment><comment><USER27> Coins could be useful for many ends, some dubious and some benign. Criminal purchases, inflation hedging, remittances, tax avoidance, online transactions, payments between friends, store of value / speculation. Any one of these could be affecting its value.

I often wonder though if Cryptocurrency's killer app is just capital flight from China, with every other use case just so much noise.

While that toy theory may seem reductive, it's miles more explanatory than the models offered by either the 'bubble' or 'will soon replace global financial system' camps.

</comment><comment><USER28> The real "value" in cryptocurrency IMO is public-key encryption, which everyone on the internet already uses every day for free.

The blockchain idea is novel, but I think way less valuable than the hype has led us to believe.

</comment><comment><USER29> Is there a cryptocurrency bubble? Of. Fucking. Course. Only those who are extremely naive or cryptocurrency zealots could possibly believe otherwise.

Now, here's the core problem preventing people from understanding the reality of the bubble: in almost all bubbles there is still a kernel of honest, real value inside the bubble. That's the impetus for the bubble, but it doesn't prevent the bubble from being a bubble. Housing values during the 2000s were based on a strong economy and increasing demand in some fast growing cities. In some places housing values merely plateaued during the financial crisis, in some they never stopped going up. But, of course, across America there was a vast drop in housing values, a huge increase in foreclosures, and a recession that spread across the entire planet. It was a bubble, the bubble popped, bad things happened.

A decade prior to that was the dot-com bubble. Many new internet businesses were growing like crazy, investment and stock valuations had gone off the deep end, leaving rationality behind. Businesses with no prospects for ever turning a profit were having money rained down on them from VCs and IPOs. Then eventually the bills started coming due, people became more skeptical of dubious business plans, venture capital dried up, stocks started getting dumped. Money stopped flowing so freely from investors into ridiculous startups and from there into the rest of the economy. The entire world economy was pushed into severe recession. But, of course, that doesn't mean there was nothing of value inside the dot-com bubble. Amazon cut its teeth in that era, and grew from a fledgling book store into a fulfillment powerhouse expanding into a variety of goods and services. Easily tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in real honest to goodness value was built by internet companies during the dot-com boom, and many companies weathered the bust just fine, some even getting stronger. Google was born _during_ the recession, in fact, in an era when basically the only way you made it with a dot-com company was to already be turning a profit or to have a _very_ good and well executed idea.

Of course there is real, substantive valuable stuff happening with cryptocurrency. But is that the majority of what's happening? Or is most of the activity, most of the valuations and "market caps" driven by speculative investment? It's pretty clear that it is the latter and that cryptocurrencies are in a huge bubble. And just as with all bubbles, when it pops it's going to be painful. Maybe something of value will survive? But only then will we know for sure what the true, hard-nosed practical value of cryptocurrencies is.

<comment><USER30> I don't think it is a bubble. Everyone seems to equate real estate, stocks, and currency as all the same thing. Unlike the first two, currency increases in intrinsic value the more people believe it has value. So saying that how can bitcoin increase 1000x and still not be overvalued, you have to understand that now (people x perceived value) has had to increase 1000x as well. This means the currency is now accepted 1000x by more people and in greater amounts.

This is a snowball effect that won't apply to real estate or stocks, but does apply to currency.

Until people see the difference, they are going to be continually blindsided by the increase in value of crypto currency.

<comment> lloyd-christmas This is only true if the people buying it actually think of it and use it as a currency. I own some bitcoin and ether and have never used them as a currency. If its usage is not primarily as a currency, it isn't a currency. I struggle to believe there is more value on a daily basis in transactions of btc for goods and services than there is for "forex".

<comment><USER30> I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. The reason that USD is used to buy goods and services is not because everyone woke up one day and began to "think of it and use it as a currency".

USD just happens to be the most convenient financial instrument for a lot of people.

The more people that own and value BTC, the more convenient it will become to transact with, the more stores that will accept it, and _then_ people will think of it and use it as a currency (if it succeeds, that is).

Any item of value is priced according to its future utility. So BTC's price now relates to what it's value as a currency will be, adjusted by the probability it will succeed, in the future.

If you don't believe that BTC will ever be used as a currency, then you don't believe in the success of the bitcoin experiment in general, and since that's its only purpose, then of course you would have to conclude its in a bubble. But if you do believe in the success of the experiment, then the price does not seem out of whack at all.

<comment> lloyd-christmas > I think you're putting the cart before the horse here.

I'd argue that you are the one doing this. You're labeling something as what you'd _like_ it to be and what it's _intended_ to be, not what it _is_.

> If you don't believe that BTC will ever be used as a currency, then you > don't believe in the success of the bitcoin experiment in general, and since > that's its only purpose, then of course you would have to conclude its in a > bubble

This is irrelevant to me. If I can profit off something, I don't need to form conclusions as to whether or not it's a bubble or whether or not it will succeed. I worked as an equities trader for half a decade. I didn't need to know the 5 year plan of AMZN before I bought it, nor did I need to know the 5 minute plan of a company stock that dropped 50% in a minute because of one large seller. All I needed was some clue that other people are willing to buy it for more than I did at some point in the future. At this moment in time, that's exactly what BTC is to me. I think it would be neat if it succeeded, but that isn't why I own it _at this moment in time_.

<comment><USER30> > I'd argue that you are the one doing this. You're labeling something as what > you'd like it to be and what it's intended to be, not what it is.

What does "labeling" mean? I'm just saying the value of cryptocurrency depends on whether in the future it will be used as a currency. If it will, then it's value is much higher than it's current price. If not, then it's value is zero.

> This is irrelevant to me. If I can profit off something, I don't need to > form conclusions as to whether or not it's a bubble or whether or not it > will succeed.

I thought we were talking about whether crypto is in a bubble or not. No? Then what are you talking about? Irrelevant to what?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What is a bubble? """ An economic bubble or asset bubble (...) is trade in an asset at a price or price range that strongly exceeds the asset's intrinsic value. """ from wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble)

What is intrinsic value of Bitcoin? There is none. But it is the same with dollars actually, yes if you live in the US then you can pay taxes with it, but you mostly pay taxes only after you earn dollars. And then the same with gold - the intrinsic value of gold as a technical material or for jewellery is probably a small fraction of its current market value. I tend to think that being in a bubble is a defining feature of _money_ \- people want it not for its value - but because they believe they'll later exchange it for something valuable.

Money is a perpetual bubble, a bubble that does not pop. I am not sure if there is a place for thousands of inflated bubbles. There is too much friction in such a system - you never know if the seller will accept your coins.

Not all cryptotokens are money - some are just securities with an intrinsic value - for example [https://zrcoin.io/](https://zrcoin.io/) which is backed by a promise to buy it back for the market price of 1kg of ZrO2.

<comment><USER31> > Money is a perpetual bubble, a bubble that does not pop

The bubble can very much pop if people stop having faith in the currency and stop accepting it (or demanding larger amounts to compensate), making the currency lose its value.

This is a very large risk for most current cryptocurrencies, bitcoin included.

I would also argue that the Dollar has a very strong link to useful physical goods: it's the only currency OPEC oil is sold in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> "Bubble" has been used with so many contextual implications that it's practically meaningless.

In this case it's effectively used to describe the digital divide in a new network protocol, just as the dot-com bubble before it.

The casino analogy is accurate only if you ignore what most commentators fail to comprehend: Cryptocurrencies are both a technological innovation and a COMPETING CURRENCY.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking#History_of_free_b...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking#History_of_free_banking)

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

The Federal Reserve is very simply a banking cartel, which gives the United States a single stable currency to conduct transactions efficiently and maintain a unified economy. Obviously the trade-off in this system is a permanent banking oligopoly.

The casino analogy works better if you include the notion that we all live and work within a dramatically larger casino.

To answer the underlying point of the article, most of these cryptocurrencies are as much a scam as CompuServe, Usenet, Netcom, or whatever else is still walled off from the internet stack.

</comment><comment><USER33> The current Bitcoin bubble is much tamer than previous ones. There were multiple periods in 2010-2013 where Bitcoin saw 10x gains in 2-3 months. In fact it's so tame that even some large-cap stocks have matched or outperformed Bitcoin recently eg. AMD who is up 6-7x over last 2 years, like Bitcoin.

I don't see the NY Times writing articles about AMD being in a bubble...

</comment><comment><USER34> The problem of bitcoin is that there is a finite amount of it that will be available.

As use of bitcoin is scheduled to grow, the pace of the production of bitcoins needed to support the market does not keep up.

This results in a steady increase of the value of bitcoin, which is good for adoption (more people will buy it to speculate and sellers will accept it), but endangers it as a mean of paiement as buyers are always better of paying in $, which devaluates over time, instead of Btc, which will increase over time.

The reason bitcoin will not be used for daily exchanges is the same as we do not use gold anymore. But since Btc has no intrisic value, I hardly see it as a reserve money.

<comment><USER9> > The reason bitcoin will not be used for daily exchanges is the same as we do > not use gold anymore.

Everybody has a cellphone. You pay and receive "money" with your cellphone. Wallets will be redundant in the future, everything that is in your wallet will be stored in your phone.

And you know which currency can be paid with your phone? Exactly!

<comment><USER34> Well you could do the same with paper-gold. But since its value increases over time you have no incentive to prefer it over $, which have a decreasing value. Stop focusing on tech and try to think about underlying market forces.

<comment><USER9> I don't know about you, but I prefer to store the value that I work for, in something that doesn't burn 2% off each year.

And if I have to buy something, I will just trade in my value stored with the thing I want to buy. I don't see any need to go to an intermediate thing that keeps decreasing in value.

Paper money was preferred over gold because it was inconvenient to keep working with gold, not because the paper loses its value.

<comment><USER34> Said in another way, do you prefer paying for your car in bitcoins, which is likely to increase in the next years, or $, which will decrease?

Bitcoin may be good to store value (gold or land being the best), but isn't adapted for exchange, as no one wants to use it to buy something. Sellers should offer steep discount for the opportunity cost in order to obtain the money, which isn't very likely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Scott Sumner: [http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/09/how_do_we_evalu....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/09/how_do_we_evalu.html).

</comment><comment><USER36> Two simple patterns (and there is nothing wrong with either one):

\- People who say crypto is a bubble missed to invest

\- People who hype crypto are invested

However, the key is still to have a balanced portfolio and not just with crypto.

</comment><comment><USER37> There is a bubble some where. Looking at the total supply of bitcoin and the current maximum of 21 million, bitcoin's inflation is slowing while fiat inflation is growing exponentially. Expect more big waves and mass capital flight as currency transitions into the crypto economies.

</comment><comment><USER38> Given the low interest rate environment the past 10 years by major central banks around the world, couldn't you argue that everything is a bubble at this point?

If the world is awash in cheap money, then it's almost tautological that most "assets" are in a bubble.

<comment><USER20> It seems hip to say things are in a bubble so I'm going to say yes, everything is a bubble, well except the things that are "dead" because that's even cooler to say. So, hmm, maybe Bitcoin is dead. Time to write a Medium article called "Bitcoin is Dead, Long Live Blockchain!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Here is where's the bubble's at [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how- the-us-got-to-20-...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-the-us-got- to-20-trillion-in-debt-2017-03-30)

</comment><comment><USER40> True or False: Crypto currency's value is determined by its utility to the black market.

</comment><comment><USER41> Whenever I hear of "bubble" I am reminded of this quote - ""The market can stay irrational a lot longer than you can stay solvent!"

So yes it may be a bubble- but the bubble may very last a few months, a few years, or a few decades...who knows?

<comment><USER42> Agreed. It's too bad there aren't effective mechanisms to go short though, so people who think we're at a peak can back their view with money.

<comment><USER43> What are you talking about? Also every exchange out there will let you short any number of cryptocurrencies.

<comment><USER42> I do not personally believe the bitcoin markets will function properly for the shorting mechanism to pay off in interesting scenarios.

If I borrow your bitcoins, how will you force me to sell them? If we agree that a third party will warehouse those coins, how can I trust them? And if BTC plunges, who's to say that 3rd party will still operate?

All very different from shorting a stock.

But if you want to loan me your bitcoins, let's talk!

I'm also interested in borrowing any other bearer instrument that you possess? (Now thinking of bearer bonds in the movie Heat)

<comment><USER44> People successfully short cryptocurrencies every day and reputable exchanges pay out, even during massive drops. If you really want to short, sign up at GDAX and enable margin trading.

<comment><USER42> "It has worked ok so far. Therefore there's no problem."

<comment><USER45> You want to suggest that they would not pay out if Bitcoin crashes to zero? Maybe. They are not regulated after all. They might also be bankrupt before Bitcoin hits zero.

Still, you can short these 30% drops without problem.

Did shorting the housing market work out well in the crash? I remember a movie with Christian Bale, where it did.

<comment><USER42> Yes, some people successfully shorted the housing market. But they did not use bearer instruments to take their positions.

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

Also, counter party risk was a major issue during that financial crisis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It's true that libertarians are really fans of crypto-currencies.

To be honest, as long as you trust a government, banks can be trusted with your money, especially since the government regulate banks since the government doesn't regulate crypto-currencies (yet).

Libertarian when you profit from crypto-currencies, until somebody steal you bitcoin wallet or until bitcoin crashes again. Then you're pretty happy to still use an insured bank account.

I would not be surprised to see bitcoin being used to launder money. All you would have to do is to sell a pile of dirty cash online against bitcoins, and send those dollar bill by the mail. I'm sure somebody already thought about that and is doing it already.

To be honest I would not understand why bitcoin is so high right now, a logical explanation would be drug money.

</comment><comment><USER47> Ironically, Doge had a market cap of over 400 million a few months ago. It is now below 100 million. Does that mean the bubble already happened according to this article?

</comment><comment><USER48> This thread is history book material, once again. Coming generations will roll on the floor laughing that we actually used pictures of dead people for money.

</comment><comment><USER49> He is probably just upset that Dogecoin has been going down for a while now. The fact that Dogecoin is going down could be seen as proof that cryptocurrencies are becoming more serious.</comment>


Ask HN: Why do I constantly feel that I am not good enough or doing enough? - <AUTHOR> I work for a company in bay area for a miserable salary of $105k.  I am 30.  Although salary is peanuts I work for reputed company.
I constantly feel that I am doing enough and also I am not good enough.  I am trying to get a solo project started and eventually I want to create my own startup but I don't know front end design. I have some really cool ideas , I am good with analytics and working on latest products.
It seems that everyone else is doing startup and becoming multimillionaire but I am at rock bottom. Anyone else feel same ?  What did you do beside keep trying for it ? <comment><USER2> _" I work for a company in bay area for a miserable salary of $105k."_

There's an easy test to see whether your salary is too low: try looking for another job. If you can get a job offer at a higher salary, your salary was too low. If not, then it's probably close to the market rate for your skills and experience.

 _" It seems that everyone else is doing startup and becoming multimillionaire"_

Most startups fail, so their founders aren't becoming millionaires (and their employees are getting part of their compensation paid in worthless stock). But since the media likes writing about successful startups much more than failing startups, it gives the impression that creating a successful startup is easy and everyone is doing it.

</comment><comment><USER3> 105k? Miserable? Peanuts?! I think you need to reassess that view.

Also, don't compare yourself to others.</comment>


I Dream of Canteens - <AUTHOR> https://dinnerdocument.com/2019/04/30/i-dream-of-canteens/ <comment><USER2> As someone who loathes the pretense, attitudes, and money-grubbing of so called "Fine-dining" I've long dreamed of the emergence of canteen style dining in the western world. Where I live, every new restaurant is more expensive than the last, with average entrees easily topping $20 in mid-market establishments, and $30+ being incredibly common. Prices are so astronomically high, as establishments are now primarily competing on "experience," meaning they're spending huge sums on fancy architecture and furnishings, drastically increasing their cost bases. Since they spent so much just to get the place up and running, you're subjected to constant up/cross selling, ludicrously overpriced drinks, and the pervasive sense that if you can't afford to eat there without caring how much you're spending, you don't really "belong" there.

I would love for nothing more than a basic, no-frills establishment that serves simple, healthy food, counter-service style so I don't have to deal with uppity yet somehow obsequious servers grubbing for tips, as I'm more than happy to bring my own damn food to my own damn table and am more than capable of filling a water glass when I'm thirsty. I'd much rather save money, enjoy my meal in peace and put my dishes in a bin on my way out than deal with the conspicuous consumption as a performance that so much of dining out has become these days.

<comment><USER3> I want good food when I go out. I get offending when I spend $20/person on a meal and think I could have done better at home myself for $5/person. Many of those meals are not better than what McDonalds serves for $4/person, which is a low bar (you shouldn't have trouble beating McDonald's in both taste or nutrition but few places do).

<comment><USER4> With a normal developer salary in Bay Area (assuming ~$100/h), your claim is equivalent to a statement, that you'd be able to make that meal for 4 people in 12 minutes. And I assume that's just your time to prepare it, not including ingredients, cleanup, and equipment maintenance and replacement.

<comment><USER3> You are making a number of unrealistic assumptions: I'm paid hourly, that my boss has approved me to work overtime, and that I would actually be working instead of the time used to prepare a meal.

Working hourly is a reasonable thing, though in my case I'm not. The other two are completely unrealistic. Working my job for that extra hour or two just leads to burnout.

When I'm at home preparing a meal my family is there, sometimes helping (watching your 5 year old cut something for the first time with a knife is a scary moment you don't want to miss), sometimes singing in the next room. Either way I make far more than $100/h when I make a meal for my family even though the only money exchanged is what I pay for groceries.

<comment><USER4> It does not matter if you are paid hourly. Many people here can choose exactly how long they work for the same salary.

Your second point is, basically, that you like the work (on meal prep). But that is completely besides that point.

The way you should look at this is: would you agree to serve meals for $12 for a neighboor's family of 4? And I bet the answer is no, you would not.

<comment><USER3> This is about me and my meals though. My family is getting ripped off when I spend a sum of money on food that isn't very good. I've spent $40/person for meals that were as good as I could make at home in an hour, even though I'd be saving money doing the work myself it was still wroth it because I didn't feel like cooking.

If my neighbors decide that the meals they can buy are good enough that is their choice. I won't enforce "my good taste" on them. I find the value is not there.

<comment><USER4> All I was saying, is that you can not claim, that they are trying to rip you off just because you like to cook at home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am a "high net worth individual" with a large second house in a leafy Seattle suburb. I use this house solely as an office, where I work by myself. The room I work in most often overlooks a forested area. But I like to get out sometimes.

One of the great pleasures of my workday is eating at the local McDonalds, which is clean, run by nice people, and elegantly designed with plenty of natural light. They allow me to stay and use their free wifi for a couple hours if I wish. They have never even suggested that I leave, even after a marathon 3 hour visit. As a person who grew up not rich in a not safe place, I continue to be amazed such a thing is possible. My go-to meal is two cheeseburgers (substitute white cheddar) and unlimited fountain drinks for under USD$3.50, so I'm probably good for a few hundred bucks a year to them. Not exactly a prime customer.

For whatever reason, maybe because I get jacked up on 3 diet cokes by the end of a long visit, it's a fantastic place for me to learn challenging material. I bring a big iPad and a $20 Bluetooth keyboard/iPad stand, then study my ass off and take notes in vim. I am under huge stress lately, and having to absorb a massive amount of technical literature fast while I undertake rewriting a running, production site with a very tight deadline.

Don't think I'm not thankful for the opportunity every time it happens. It's a huge privilege IMHO.

<comment><USER6> You're basically living my dream. How'd you make it happen?

<comment><USER5> I am truly blessed. I bought a business on eBay during the .com crash of 2000 (esnipe.com) and turned it into a moneymaker. From there I am gone into investment in domain names and real estate.

I've also failed a lot, like the time when I spent $1,400,000 of my own money trying to beat craigslist.

<comment><USER7> I think I've met your doppelgänger, but on the east coast. I won't mention his successful business, but I know he spent at least $1.4MM trying to re-create Adobe Flash... for Android... in 2015.

<comment><USER5> Ow

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I see a lot of comparisons to things that are nothing like canteens, possibly because most Americans have never been to one (Ikea food court is the closest thing). Canteens (stolovaya) are alive and well in Russia. Here's how the line-up looks: [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ml0F97OZu6k/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ml0F97OZu6k/maxresdefault.jpg)

Here's what your tray might look like at the end: [https://media- cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0c/46/f7/cc/...](https://media- cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0c/46/f7/cc/photo0jpg.jpg)

You get charged per item, so it's higher quality than AYCE buffet. There's tons of variety, and you get to see your food before you purchase it. The closest thing I've seen in the US might be Bakeman's restaurant in Seattle, but it was sandwich-focused. The combination of hearty food with a plethora of options and minimal service is not something I've seen in the US. Some college cafeterias or museum dining areas are similar, but usually with less variety.

</comment><comment><USER9> Sign me up.

Cooperative living (very much in the same vein) sustained me through college.

'adulthood' is comparatively extremely isolating.

Where is one supposed to find a tribe, in a city, in this day and age?

<comment><USER10> Same boat for me: co-op living in college has infected me with a longing for community. Russia (and Europe to some extent) has a movement of anti-cafes, which are communal spaces that you pay a bit per hour to inhabit. Come to work, play board games, read, or just hang out. Coffee is often provided for cheap.

We could use these in the US. I guess hackerspaces may come close in spirit, but I've never been.

<comment><USER11> I've seen a couple in Montreal but don't know about their current status

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think the closest analogue to this in the US is a mall food court. Many vendors instead of one, but similarly to the canteen, provides an open communal space with varied seating options. Of additional note: cheap, fast food (think McDonalds) is ubiquitous but low in nutrition - healthier canteen style is up against stronger competition than the WWII-era British Restaurant

<comment><USER13> Food courts have really suffered from the mentality of corporate mall management; contracts with large chains of even 2nd or 3rd tier fast-food operations are preferred over local options and small operations.

This make the B2B stuff easier, as many malls are owned my massive groups that run even dozens of malls - and they can make a contract with a large franchise operation to cover many/all of them (or a restaurant group that can provide different options). They also don't have to worry about risk on the rent much.

Notice how food quality etc. didn't show up in previous para?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> To be fair, most Asian cities have stuff like this. It never caught on in the west due to cultural and political reasons e.g. urban planning in western nations are designed with cars as the preferred mode of transport and most housing densities are several magnitudes lower than places like Hong Kong, Tokyo and Singapore. Just two days ago HN was lamenting about this: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19769292](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19769292)

Other than urban planning, the abundance of street food and lack of tipping culture in Asia also probably helps.

</comment><comment><USER15> I dreamed of opening up a vegetarian canteen style restaurant. A place that serves cheap, nutritious, and delicious food and where people from all classes and walks of life could sit down for a meal. I've thinking about making a vegetarian restaurant that doesn't advertise itself as such. All the food should be delicious no matter what, not delicious for being vegetarian. It should take people a minute to realize that there is no meat in any of the dishes. I wonder how that would do in the United States.

<comment><USER16> [https://www.yelp.com/biz/ganesh-temple-canteen- flushing](https://www.yelp.com/biz/ganesh-temple-canteen-flushing)

Last year I was in Flushing, Queens NYC and visited this basement canteen. It had the desired features mentioned in the article. I'm not South-Asian, but I didn't feel at all unwelcome. It was raining that day, and I sat and drank tea for a little while to wait for the rain to shop. Cheap, decent food. Plenty of seating.

<comment><USER15> Wow, dang, that looks good!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I can't imagine the politics of figuring out what kind of food to serve. In the U.S., Democrats would add quinoa vegetable stew when they came into power, and the Republicans would proudly ban it and replace it with cheesy beef and mac. The Republicans would ban imported food, the Democrats would ban GMOs. The Democrats would mandate a complete vegetarian option, the Republicans would counter by mandating a minimum of 50g of protein per meal, including breakfast and lunch. Republicans would race-bait over ethnic food, and some tone-deaf centrist Democrat would propose "American" names for "foreign" food, like "chips and cheese" instead of "nachos," to make things less "confusing" for those salt-of-the-earth flyover morons, thus offending both sides, which is the closest thing to unity we ever experience.

Maybe having this to fight about would distract some of our stupidity from real policy questions. That could be a win.

> Unlike in Homer's Odyssey, there will be no massacre if people stay longer > than they should or have more free refills than is calculated to be ideal.

This is funny but also grossly unfair to Odysseus and Telemachus.

<comment><USER18> Maybe I missed this, but where do politics play a role in this idea? I could see if these were gov't run/funded places, but these could thrive alone via private business just as many restaurants do. Both parties could exist alongside each other.

<comment><USER17> _there are no public canteens in the city (what council could now afford to hang on to such a quantity of land after cuts?)_

 _After the war Conservatives dismissed them in parliament because they weren't making profit. The canteens were allowed to decline, then disappear._

Where I live, and apparently where the author lives, there's no way they could survive without government support, because they don't extract as much money from the space as other styles of restaurant do. The restaurant business is very tough, even without serving affordable food to all classes and providing ample space for lingering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is strange to me, canteens are very common in Eastern Europe and I assumed they exist everywhere, I'm guessing it's due to the cooking styles, we do a lot of soups and stews which are perfect for this.

</comment><comment><USER20> I agree.

It's mind-bendingly frustrating to me that eating out in the UK seems to be a fundamentally unhealthy affair.

I just want meat and two veg, a curry without a wad of oil, spaghetti bolognese, whatever. A standard staple meal without a ton of additives or other weirdness.

If anyone knows of places like this in London I'm all ears. The best I can think of right now is IKEA food court which isn't the healthiest and isn't next to anything else.

Basically anywhere I can think of serves bastardizations of real food. Polish milk bars, as stated below, are the only time I think I've ever eaten real food outside of a private home.

<comment><USER11> In Edinburgh the central mosque had (still has) a pretty legendary canteen

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I love canteens. In Ukraine they have proper canteen chains with good local food. Very cheap and delicious. Just love it. I'll take that over a proper restaurant any day.

</comment><comment><USER22> Is Panera Bread in the US not such an establishment? good coffee and tea, plenty of seating of various forms in various nooks, self bussing, etc. I loved to lose myself there doing remote work when I was in US

</comment><comment><USER23> What's different between this and a buffet?

<comment><USER24> You usually serve yourself at a buffet, and it's usually from one vendor. A canteen like this could have multiple vendors. A buffet is also usually "all you can eat" and priced to account for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I eat at the IKEA canteen all the time. It's a treasure.

</comment><comment><USER26> I hated Panda Express when I lived urban California and there were 1000s of small Chinese canteens, but now I go twice a week. If they had real China (hehe) I would eat there more often, but I just get to go.

</comment><comment><USER27> The author is nostalgic for something that can theoretically exist, but is very debatable whether it can exist at scale.

The military has canteens. Leaving the budget per meal per soldier aside, there is inherent difficulty to providing food for hundreds of thousands of people within a short period, and to providing such food at a relatively consistent level of quality. Most organizations tasked with providing such a large quantity of food over a short period of time resort to outsourcing supply to food service companies which generally provide processed food which is either frozen or shelf-stable. Fresh produce is difficult and "healthy and delicious" is practically a pipe dream.

There is a way to deal with this - hire an educated chef who can nurture relationships with many local farmers to negotiate supply, and actively manage the kitchen to make the best of the locally-sourced supply, not waste any of it, and put out a variety of dishes that, while not consistent in their contents from day-to-day, are consistently delicious. This is what Patrick Wodni [1] does for a Berlin hospital, but he's an exception because he was willing to take a large pay cut to work there. How many Patrick Wodnis are out there, for how many canteens would we need?

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/world/europe/germany- chef...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/world/europe/germany-chef- hospital-food.html)

<comment><USER28> Poland still has "Milk bars"(Bar mleczny) which were the staple of dining during the communist times - they served mostly food based on milk and flour(hence the name) - pancakes with cheese, pierogi(many different fillings), different soups......they were extremely cheap and also pretty good.

And....they still exist today. Krakow has one literally right in the city centre, next to the most premium of premium estates, where a restaurant literally right next door will have "western" levels of pricing, and yet they continue to serve simple, basic food for ~$1-3 per portion[0]. Granted, a lot of them closed after the fall of communism 20 years ago, but equally they still exist and still continue serving people. They are not just a tourist curio either - they are the place to go for students and workers.

[0] [https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g274772-d269...](https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g274772-d2693216-Reviews- Bar_Mleczny- Krakow_Lesser_Poland_Province_Southern_Poland.html#photos;aggregationId=101&albumid=101&filter=7&ff=63142217)

<comment><USER19> In Romania we call them "autoservire" or "impinge tava" which translates literally to push the tray, the food is much much better than fast food and much healthier as well. See [0] for some example menu.

I always wondered why fast food was such a big thing in the west, maybe it's because they never had this?

[https://www.facebook.com/pg/CaLaMama1/photos/?ref=page_inter...](https://www.facebook.com/pg/CaLaMama1/photos/?ref=page_internal)</comment></comment></comment>


The Beauty Of Typography: Writing Systems And Calligraphy Of The World - <AUTHOR> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/05/18/the-beauty-of-typography-writing-systems-and-calligraphy-of-the-world/ <comment><USER2> <http://www.omniglot.com>

brings me hours of enjoyment.

<comment><USER3> Great, now I won't sleep tonight as I learn the difference between syllabic alphabets and syllabaries. I hate you in the kindest way possible. ;]

<comment><USER4> If you're interested in human languages, another great place on the internet is:

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

I've spent countless hours on both Omniglot and Ethnologue.

<comment><USER3> Just had to get in on the hate, eh, teejae? Ah, well, I can sleep when I'm dead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Holy cow, has Smashing always published these sorts of articles, or is this an outlier? Quite the departure from their often-linked "40 Wordpress Themes!" posts.

<comment><USER6> Of course, Smashing always picks the best free lancers to write for them. Even then, once you get past their list articles, the provide very insightful piece of writing. Most their best stuff is in their design category. Here's a three part series on color: [http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/02/08/color- theory-for-...](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/02/08/color-theory-for- designer-part-3-creating-your-own-color-palettes/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This was a fascinating and very informative read. I spent many a nights toiling over the intricacies of the Devanagari script when I was coding <http://chime.tv/products/hind2000/ss.shtml> as a kid. My biggest take-away was that combining different characters is pretty much required though difficult to implement. If you spell "MItI" and then edited it to "MIttI", I would have to replace the 't' with a special double 'tt' character. Simply adding another 't' character would not suffice.

<comment><USER8> The new convention for happy co-existence with the pared-down font engines packaged in devices like the iPhone is to use two 't' characters after all, but add a slanting accent underneath the first 't' (or whatever letter it is) to indicate that it should only be 'pronounced half'.

It's like Nastaliq's (the Urdu script) jazm character: <http://users.skynet.be/hugocoolens/newurdu/specials.html>

I think it's a sane move.

<comment><USER9> > The new convention

I don't think the convention of the slanting accent ("virama" or "halant") is new. I know it's been used in books for at least the last hundred years. This means that conjoined ligatures aren't strictly necessary, but they're used a lot in handwriting and IMO look quite beautiful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Their best article so far IMHO. Let's get more of this. Articles where you actually learn something.

</comment><comment><USER11> don't miss the animation in the middle showing how "Al Jazeera" in Naskh (printed Arabic form) gets transformed into their logo.

</comment><comment><USER12> Amazing! Thank you.</comment>


What Is A Startup - <AUTHOR> http://howtosplitanatom.com/questions/what-is-a-startup/ <comment><USER2> I see a startup kind of like the movie 300... but without the 0's where the speed, mobility and adaptiveness of (around) 3 allow them to out-smart, out- maneuver and out-bootstrap a larger, more established company. Madness? This is startup!</comment>


The Struggles of a Psychologist Studying Self-Control - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/struggles-psychologist-studying-self-control

<comment><USER2> Interesting article. I have done something similar to the delayed gratification techniques described in it for years, but I never knew they had a name for the concept. Usually I just think about it like "tricking" myself.

Like, when I was smoking a lot more, I would tell myself, "I'll have a smoke after I finish this task" and would then start something that I knew would distract me until the craving passed. Or with a friend of mine's Dad, I still see him visiting their apartment while wheezing as he struggled to open his lungs enough to get a breath. Died a week later, and she still smokes a pack a day. Boggles my mind, as for me, that was absolutely terrifying, and I almost can't not hear that sound when someone offers me a cig.

</comment><comment><USER3> In my experience, the intensity of desire and the subsequent pleasure produced varies widely across different people.

The facets of the marshmallow experiment used to accredit certain kids as having picked up highly mature techniques in delaying gratification, can perhaps be equally explained by their desire levels not exceeding the threshold required to overpower their cognitive functions.

Certain kids love marshmallows to the point that they disobey orders, while certain kids do not. That to me is just as feasible an explanation.

<comment><USER4> I think the full experiment give the choice of the treat.

"Mischel's team would present a child with a treat (marshmallows were just one option) and tell her that she..."</comment></comment>


Hyperloop (Web HTML/CSS version; no pdf) [mobile & tablet ready] - <AUTHOR> http://hyperloop.la/

<comment><USER2> Thank you so much. I was just thinking of reading the pdf on my phone before going to sleep, so this comes in perfect. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> You're very welcome :)</comment></comment>


Calculus Made Easy (1914) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33283/33283-pdf.pdf <comment><USER2> Browsing through _Calculus Made Easy_ , I found it curious that the text begins with "On Different Degrees of Smallness" and the _limit_ is mentioned qualitatively but not used formally.

It reminds me of the preface to _Elementary Calculus_ [1] [2] an excellent text that I discovered years after learning the subject using the _limit_ :

> The calculus was originally developed using the intuitive concept of an > infinitesimal, or an infinitely small number. But for the past one hundred > years infinitesimals have been banished from the calculus course for reasons > of mathematical rigor. Students have had to learn the subject without the > original intuition. This calculus book is based on the work of Abraham > Robinson, who in 1960 found a way to make infinitesimals rigorous. While the > traditional course begins with the difficult _limit_ concept, this course > begins with the more easily understood infinitesimals.

[1]: [https://www.math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html](https://www.math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html)

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_Calculus:_An_Infini...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_Calculus:_An_Infinitesimal_Approach)

<comment><USER3> While I learned calculus, both in highschool and in university, both introductions belabored the concept of an infinitesimal.

I remember a good portion of both classes finding the concept confusing.

EDIT: It seems like the top-level comment by user woah also finds it confusing.

<comment><USER4> When I took my first calculus class, in the 1980s, we spent the first few weeks of the course just computing limits. No reason was given, and no context, just techniques.

I remember having to compute the limit of 2x+1 as x goes to 3 by writing it as the limit of 2x + the limit of 1, and then saying the first limit is 2 times the limit of x, and so on. Utterly boring, especially when the teacher couldn't even answer us when we asked "if we already know we'll get 7 by setting x to 3, why do we have to write all this?"

The whole thing almost put me off math.

There's a time and place to introduce properties of limits, but the first month of calculus 1 isn't it.

<comment><USER5> My first month of calculus was identical, in the 2000s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been relearning some math that I forgot so that I can learn general relativity (just for fun), and this was what I worked through to brush off my calculus. Really great book, and far superior to anything else I've seen. There seem to be two approaches to calculus: dumbed down and mechanical (pretty much any modern non-math major text) or abstract and proof based (something like Spivak). This first group of books takes pages and pages to get to the point and provides no understanding of why calculus works. The second book is just too hard for a normal person who doesn't already know the subject pretty well and who is trying to teach themselves. Calculus Made Easy fits right in the sweet spot. While it isn't entirely rigorous, it does justify everything clearly enough that you can see that the manipulations you're learning are valid. At the same time, it always remains focused on calculations, so you don't get lost in abstractions.

<comment><USER7> This series from 3blue1brown is also an excellent (re-)introduction. Maybe not deep enough to prepare you for relativity, though.

[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDMsr9K-rj53...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDMsr9K-rj53DwVRMYO3t5Yr)

<comment><USER6> His videos are good for giving intuition (I also liked the linear algebra ones), but it's really easy to fool yourself into thinking you understanding things better than you do, so you really need to work a lot of problems too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> [http://calculusmadeeasy.org](http://calculusmadeeasy.org) is better rendering of the book

</comment><comment><USER9> This is a good book, but the first time I read it, I was puzzled. There's all this stuff about "infinitely small pieces" like every other calculus resource. It wasn't until I had practice using the derivative rules and the chain rule that calculus clicked for me.

I think calculus should be taught like "here's a set of tools to help you rewrite your equations to make them output the slope of their graph".

Then, afterwards, you can get into what makes it all tick. Sort of like teaching a student to write "hello world" before diving into the low level mechanics of a compiler.

<comment><USER10> > I think calculus should be taught like "here's a set of tools to help you > rewrite your equations to make them output the slope of their graph". Then, > afterwards, you can get into what makes it all tick.

I feel the exact opposite way. The method you're describing is how I was taught calculus in high school, that is, with a strong focus on practicing mechanical manipulation of formulas rather than building deep understanding. And I just disconnected from that, I got no mental reward from procedurally finding the derivative or the integral of a function for the 100th time. Lack of motivation meant lack of focus, which in turn made my performance drop, and at the time I assumed I probably just wasn't as good at mathematics as I thought I was. That lasted until I got mathematics classes in college, where many of my mathematics courses used a more first-principles-based approach, and I performed well again.

> Sort of like teaching a student to write "hello world" before diving into > the low level mechanics of a compiler.

I found Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs ([https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/sicp/index.html](https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/sicp/index.html)) the most enlightening intro to programming book I ever read. Its approach is also strongly first-principles-based.

I'm not writing this comment to say that you're wrong; the method you describe may very well work well for you, and many others with you. Rather, I'm using the opportunity to spread an opinion that I feel quite strongly about: the best way to learn a topic is completely student-dependent and there is no such thing as the one true way in which a topic should be taught. The most powerful motivator is always intrinsic motivation, and different minds are motivated by different challenges. Unfortunately it is hard to bring into practice in a batch-processing based education system.

<comment><USER11> I appreciate your perspective, especially around motivation, and I think you're right that students learn differently.

I do wonder though -- for heavily skill-based endeavors (say swimming, sushi- cheffing, curling, etc.), the best way to learn is to do. First principles/mental model approaches tend not work so well in these domains, at least not isolation.

The best approach is probably a blend: learn by doing and understanding first principles.

<comment><USER12> A difference, though, is those domains are almost entirely about doing: you don't have to understand buoyancy or the biology of the tongue to swim or cook. Math is almost the opposite: this day, the mechanics of math are nearly entirely automated: there's no real reason to manually work out answers except insofar as it helps you understand the principles. The main reason to study math now is so that you understand what your computer is doing, so you can instruct it more efficiently. So, first principles in math are significantly more important: someone who can do the mechanics of calculus or long division but doesn't understand what their doing is just doing slowly and unreliably what a computer can do instantaneously.

<comment><USER13> You don't necessarily have to start from the bottom, though; you can drill down and get to first principles instead of starting without context at low level abstractions. Both of the angles you two are talking about (providing context and working through the mechanical applications vs explaining fundamental principles that makes things work) seem addressable in the same course if you start with understandable problems and drill down until you get to the principles that allow you to solve those problems.

I think it would be quite difficult to do in a reasonable amount of time, but using history as a course outline would be a cool way to explain the motivations/context behind the principles being discussed. That might better illustrate how math research works by explaining the gaps/interesting questions that existed prior to certain ideas and how those ideas evolved and lead to other gaps/questions.

The type of math courses I've gotten a lot out of already kind of did that, they just usually used more of a condensed, logical narrative than a historically based one.

<comment><USER12> Definitely, although I think where to start really depends on the context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I love how people discover old, hidden gems like this. Despite what we know about how people learn and modern tools like video resources, every once in a while, someone unearths some decades-old resource that explains things far better than what's available now.

It reminds me of when I was learning antenna theory and propagation. I was looking for something that started at step one. The best videos I found on YouTube were a series created in the 1950's by the Royal Canadian Air Force.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bDyA5t1ldU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bDyA5t1ldU)

<comment><USER15> A similar thing - the best explanation I've seen about how cars' differential steering works comes from 1937.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> See also:

2018 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18250034](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18250034)

2017 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14161876](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14161876)

</comment><comment><USER11> I was a voracious reader as a kid and came across this book when I was 12, and the prologue sounded particularly amusing to me:

\--

 _" Considering how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.

Some calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are enormously difficult. The fools who write the textbooks of advanced mathematics — and they are mostly clever fools — seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.

Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. What one fool can do, another can."_

\--

It made me believe I could really learn calculus by myself at age 12. After reading the first few chapters, nope. Turns out calculus is built on a foundation of algebra and geometry which I did not have until I was 16. Once I did have the foundation though, calculus became easy and mostly mechanical. But to a 12 year old, this book overpromised and underdelivered.

I also found the exposition a little wordy and tedious, like it was written to explain calculus to an English major. It's the sort of book that one appreciates in retrospect after knowing the subject, but not while learning it. I discovered the most effective way for learning math is actually not by reading but to mechanically work through problems to cultivate intuitions and to develop a pattern matching schema. In doing so, one gains confidence that one can actually solve problems. Once this confidence is achieved, going back and delving into the underlying principles becomes so much more contextualized and rewarding.

Learning math by reading books like this is like learning to ride a bike by reading about it. You try to understand all the principles, but when you need to deploy them, you find yourself unable to execute. Much better to do it the other way around.

EDIT: but I want to soften that by saying that I appreciate not everyone learns this way. It's just I've seen too many struggle with math even though they've read the textbook countless times... when a simple change in stategy would yield much better results.

<comment><USER17> Calculus Made Easy has a heap of exercises at the end of each chapter, it's not bad in that respect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This book is great. Although anytime I see it, my mind jumps to the meme about "If the people who wrote computer programming books wrote math textbooks."

[https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/40/36/71403664364a825e76f0...](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/40/36/71403664364a825e76f091ce0a6b2892.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER19> I remember entering high school and picking up this book from the library in 9th grade. It was honestly not my favorite. It being called "Calculus Made Easy" had me feeling frustrated. I went to put it back and there was a book next to it called Calculus and Pizza. Within the introduction I got the intuitive feel for differentials and limits. I was able to play with the difference formula and take a much more enthusiastic high level trip through both differential and integral calculus. A big bonus was Calculus and Pizza allowed me to check my algebra in the back of the book and forward those questions to my algebra teacher. That was a few years before I was able to officially take calculus, so I kept re-reading chapters because they were fun.

A book with an easy approach really needs to make the chapters super easy to restart and spiral through concepts. Stories and characters didn't hurt to have too though.

<comment><USER20> now i have to find this one also.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> That is a beautiful text. Shockingly much more intuitive, better graphs and examples than what we had in high school in the early 90s.

</comment><comment><USER22> If only there was a book that explained linear algebra in this way.

<comment><USER23> Linear Algebra Done Right is, without a doubt, one of my favorites in this category. It tends to be taught as an intermediate or graduate level approach, but things clicked for me with Axler's explanations way better than about anything else I've used.

[http://linear.axler.net/](http://linear.axler.net/)

<comment><USER24> Sadly the last edition turned their beautiful LaTeX typesetting into something really distracting.

Aside from Axler, I wish someone picked up Halmos text and rendered it in a more modern way. It's a really good one, a bit more advanced, but the text is so cramped it's unpleasant to follow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Funnily enough, I'm working through this book right now. The writing amuses me to no end, from the anachronism of calling it "the calculus" to the chain rule being referred to as a "dodge".

It goes well with 3blue1brown's calculus series on YouTube, which gives more of a visual intuition for the concepts.

</comment><comment><USER25> Wow, if only I was shown this book earlier on in life ha.

<comment><USER26> Me too: it took until 6 months after I started differential calculus (AS-level Pure 1 (UK)) before I grokked what the "d" in dy/dx meant (just like this person: [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65724/difference...](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65724/difference- between-delta-d-and-delta) ) - before then I was treating the differentiation operator as a magic, irreducible, symbol and only getting so far in the course because I was remembering and applying the mechanics of differentiation (i.e. by-rote) instead of really understanding what I was doing.

</comment></comment><comment> wandering-nomad Just read initial few pages and it piqued my interest. Truly love the way it opens and kept me engaged.

</comment><comment><USER27> For anyone interested in the history of calculus, there is an excellent paper: Grabiner, J. (1983). Who Gave You the Epsilon? Cauchy and the Origins of Rigorous Calculus. The American Mathematical Monthly, 90(3), 185-194. doi:10.2307/2975545

</comment><comment><USER28> If this book appeals to you then you should see 3 brown 1 blue's videos on YouTube. The way they show the squares with the 'little bits' added in Calculus Made Easy is essentially repeated in 3 brown 1 blue, with graphics.

</comment><comment><USER29> Beautiful book, and incredibly lucid. Gave me a useful intuition on infinitesimals that never quite came out in the various standard calc texts. Second to this imo is Serge Lang's A Short Introduction to Calculus.

</comment><comment><USER30> (1914), rather.

</comment><comment><USER31> Honest question: did calculus change enough in a hundred years to make this outdated? In other words, can I use this to refresh my calc knowledge in 2020?

<comment><USER32> No calculus hasn't changed and yes if you work though all the exercises you will probably be better at calculus as far is it is explored in the book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is my favorite book on mathematics of all time. I am very happy you shared this so I can save it

<comment><USER31> Here: [http://calculusmadeeasy.org/](http://calculusmadeeasy.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> > What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb.)

</comment><comment><USER20> i think we need list of books like this on each subject which are more explanatory, intuitive rather than mechanical procedures.

</comment><comment><USER35> Is there a book like this but for metric?

<comment><USER32> Do you mean using SI instead of Imperial units? What difference would it make? For instance Exercises IX (Chapter XI) says:

 _(4) A piece of string 30 inches long has its two ends joined together and is stretched by 3 pegs so as to form a triangle. What is the largest triangular area that can be enclosed by the string?_

Just replace inches with your linear measure of choice, mm, rods, poles, chains, stadia, light years, or anything else; it makes no difference to the problem. Thompson could have said 'units of length' instead of 'inches'; but the whole purpose of the book is to build on easy notions that Thompson believed everyone could manage and perhaps even be familiar with already, so he used imperial units that were familiar to every handyman of the time instead of metric which would be familiar to far fewer and hence distracting.

Also don't forget that there were several distinct 'metric' systems in the past before most of the world settled on SI (MKS, CGS, etc.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> great book!

<comment><USER37> It really is. I was shown this text in high school and it's the thing that got Calculus to click for me. I've recommended it dozens of times over the years and I've heard the same sentiment echoed nearly every time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> for another fundamentals approach [https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Ground- Jonathan-Laine-Bartle...](https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Ground-Jonathan- Laine-Bartlett/dp/1944918027)

</comment><comment><USER39> Nice book.

This looks like a good opportunity for someone to create a website for this, and animate it with some JavaScript code.

And insert some ads: Please click here to buy some protractors for 25% off.</comment>


Ask HN: How should *employee* comp change post Series A? - <AUTHOR> I'm an early hire at a startup (~10 people) which just closed a $6M Series A. We're all working for  below market salary, and our founders have proposed a 10% salary increase (no equity change) as our post-A comp. How can I understand if that's reasonable? For reference, most of us are making about 70% of market after the raise. <comment><USER2> Is the market salary based off other startups who have closed large rounds, or a FAANG company? It is common to be paid a bit less at a startup compared to a very large company. However if you feel you are being shortchanged it will likely result in friction with the company sooner or later.

Ask for more, worst case they come back with no, then you have to decide if you want to stay at that rate. Odds are your stock isn't going to be worth a lot, but I am a pessimist when it comes to equity.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question, the market salary is based on an offer I had at the same level (L5) from a larger startup (100 people, series B).</comment></comment>


The robots are coming for jobs that pay $20 an hour or less, White House finds - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-robots-are-coming-for-jobs-that-pay-20-an-hour-or-less-white-house-finds-2016-02-22 <comment><USER2> This inevitably leads to increasing unemployment. Retraining/educating for higher-paying jobs becomes a losing game as the number of such jobs doesn't increase to match the enormous pressure of obsolete menial workers.

Its not a problem that can't be solved. We used to dream of a utopian society where automation saved us from menial work. Now we cry Unemployment! and struggle to keep everybody slaving away.</comment>