Why Don't Americans Understand How Poor Their Lives Are? - <AUTHOR> https://eand.co/what-do-you-call-a-world-that-cant-learn-from-itself-58ae28cefd23 <comment><USER5> This article starts off terribly. It does not get contain enough real substance till it gets to the point about the differential in life expectancy and discusses the point about 'the myth of exceptionalism in America'. The whole line about the difference in entertainment is utter drivel. Big Brother started in the UK, there is plenty of garbage culture coming from Europe.

For the record I've met quite a few Europeans (French and Germans) and I've asked them about what compelled them to come to the US. At times it does seem like Europe is a less stressful place to live. And the answer I get typically amounts to this;

"In France (or Germany or UK) security is much better than the US. But the opportunity in the US is much better."

I find it strange to mention Spain, and really all the PIIGS nations who not long ago were in financial dire straits and Greece has still not escaped.

The lack of a decent safety net in the US scares the crap out of me. The richest nation in the world should not have this poor a safety net. But to make Europe seem like some workers paradise is laughable.

<comment><USER6> > The lack of a decent safety net in the US scares the crap out of me.

What kind of safety net? No you're not going to lose your job and draw unemployment benefits equal to your salary for years on end. This is also the land of personal responsibility. It can be scary at times. My 6 year old son has a chronic illness (type 1 diabetes) and his supplies cost an exorbitant amount of money. If somehow I was unable to find employment, drained all of our savings, etc. he wouldn't die, he just wouldn't get the absolute top of the line equipment (insulin pump / continuous glucose monitor / sensors / etc.) Medicaid would provide him insulin and needles. It's not ideal, but I don't expect everyone else to pay for my family's bad luck / misfortune.

<comment><USER7> Medical bankruptcy isn't really a thing in the rest of the world. That's part of the safety net, and it's hard to reconcile with the notion of 'personal responsibility'.

> I don't expect everyone else to pay for my family's bad luck / misfortune

If you take out an insurance contract, that's exactly what you're doing.

<comment><USER6> > Medical bankruptcy isn't really a thing in the rest of the world.

Agreed, it's a problem, but for the average person with a job who elects an insurance plan (the vast majority of Americans,) it's not an issue. My sister- in-law spent 4 years being treated for cancer before passing away last year. Despite running up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bills between chemo, multiple surgeries, etc, it did not bankrupt her family because they had health insurance.

> If you take out an insurance contract, that's exactly what you're doing.

Except we're explicitly buying-in. Until we have universal health care, I don't expect others to pick up the tab because I prefer that my son have the absolute best current tech available.

<comment><USER8> It _is_ an issue for the rest of us, though.

From: [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-fewer-employers- offe...](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-fewer-employers-offering- health-insurance/article/2615450)

>Nationwide, 83.8 percent of workers in 2015 had jobs that offered insurance

In other words, 16.2% of workers have jobs that don't offer insurance. That's 3 in 20.

<comment><USER6> I don't say this to demean these people but I would guess that a majority of that 16% are low-skill/minimum wage jobs. When you don't have skills that are in demand, employers less likely to offer benefits. Businesses are just like people, if they can get away with paying less, they will. I'm not saying it's right.

I'm hoping the Republicans manage to screw things up enough to lose Congress in 2018. If that happens, Trump will go all-in on single-payer/universal healthcare. He has no loyalty, and in the past (prior to running for office) he was pro-single-payer. So we'll see what happens.

<comment><USER9> > When you don't have skills that are in demand, employers less likely to > offer benefits.

And there is the difference. The US is about survival of the fittest.

<comment><USER6> Edit: I originally responded to the wrong parent.

This isn't about survival of the fittest, if you have no skill, then you are going to have trouble finding a job that has good benefits. No one is stopping you from acquiring a skill (outside of cases when you're sick...obviously.) You can become a plumber, carpenter, electrician, etc. and make a decent living.

<comment><USER10> and... we'll just give a big 'fuck you' to everyone else who gets sick at some point, and can't go back to work, or has skills that get passed by in the marketplace. hey - just go back to school for a few years, juggling some low wage jobs while you get _more skills!_ so that you can win some approval from some employer where _yay_ you can pay extra money to have some insurance so you can afford medicine to keep yourself alive. whew! That doesn't sound like "survival of the fittest" AT ALL. not sure that the OP was thinking about.

The word "benefits" just irks the hell out of me in the first place. Maybe the entire concept of "benefits" being synonymous "things that give you access to something that keeps you alive and healthy", and tying said stuff to "employment" (something very much at the whim of people and factors often outside your control - handicaps, geography, family obligations, etc) we could think about the issue a bit differently.

Also... society needs people to be doing low-end crappy work. Are they just deserving enough to find a job that has "good benefits"?

<comment><USER6> > and... we'll just give a big 'fuck you' to everyone else who gets sick at > some point, and can't go back to work, or has skills that get passed by in > the marketplace.

Capitalism doesn't care if you get sick. It only cares if you have time/skill to trade. That's the cold hard reality. In this country, capitalism trumps just about everything else. It has its advantages and disadvantages for sure. By the way, I'm not saying all of this is morally "right" \- it's just the way it's always been, capitalism/business comes first in the USA.

I agree that society needs people to be doing low-end crappy work, but maybe if there were fewer low-skilled laborers in the job market, there would be more competition for their services (i.e. the employers would have to offer better benefits.)

I'm all for universal-healthcare and frankly my family would be a primary beneficiary.

As far as safety nets go, how far do we go? If I got sick, I wouldn't expect you (and everyone else collectively) to pay my mortgage, grocery bills, etc. for potentially years on end. Where do we draw the line? How do we prevent people from gaming the system? I know people in Europe who have been "sick" for years.

<comment><USER11> The drain on the systems in Europe from those who are "gaming the system" and who are long term sick pales into insignificance when you consider the overall savings due to the collective bargaining power of a nationalised healthcare system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is the ultimate question -- which is superior: individualism or collectivism? Personally I think collectivism is far superior -- however the forces that be want people to believe individualism is superior, especially in America.

This results in people, individuals, denying their fellow peers access to things. As for the question the title poses, there's no answer, because it depends on who you ask.

I don't think Americans will ever be convinced collectivism is superior until there's some organization or company created within the States that ends up being far superior to everything else. Only then will people see the overwhelming advantage that comes with the "spread", which is the main advantage of collectivism (meaning the spread of burden and the spread of fortune).

The Musketeers said it best:

All for one and one for all.

<comment><USER13> Considering the entire premise of the founding of the US was based on individual liberty, and throwing the yoke of power off from the centralized power of a monarchy across the ocean, I don't see why we need to be convinced.

Why does the whole world need to be homogeneous? Why can't some places on the earth (with ~7B people) value individualism and some value collectivism. Maybe neither one is superior, just different?

<comment><USER14> There are genuine tradeoffs to be had, and space for cultures to take different positions on the Pareto frontier, sure. But there are also deadweight losses, unforced errors where one culture's approach is just worse by every metric, and those would seem to be cases where we could learn. E.g. US healthcare seems to somehow manage to be uniquely bad - more expensive on average, while excluding or bankrupting people, without offering patients a meaningful kind of choice in most cases. Things like a patient not being able to afford non-emergency treatment until their condition develops into something that needs more expensive emergency treatment (which hospitals aren't allowed to refuse) seem lose-lose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Except hapiness statistics are superior in the US than in EU [1] while suicide rates are higher in the EU than in the US [2].

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

2: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/world/suiciderate.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/world/suiciderate.html)

Maybe we shouldn't use vacation anedoctes to try to find what the best political system is?

<comment><USER16> Happy people tend to not choose demagogues as their leaders.

Please read the actual report with its casual analysis rather than look just at the numbers. Aspirations play a huge part here. perceptions of stability and social net too. (As opposed to actual quality thereof.) Input data for numbers is additionally flawed by taking averages, which is unfortunate.

As for suicides, take a peek at all cause mortality instead and you will find a less interesting though much more informative picture. (Homicide rate in the US for one.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The author must live in an alternate universe. I'm a dual-citizen (US/France) due to my mother being born in France.

"so they already look half-dead — order coffee and a croissant, both of which are fairly tasteless"

Sorry, but there are plenty of places where croissants don't suck (give Wegmans a try) - and I'd be hard-pressed to believe that those major US cities don't have bakeries run/owned by real frenchmen.

"Everything I consume in the States is of a vastly, abysmally lower quality. Every single thing. The food,"

Really? Everytime I go to europe, the meat tastes like crap in comparison to US-raised meat, it's tough as a shoe-sole and it's overpriced.

"So my quality of life — despite all my privileges..."

There you have it, this guy has homes in London AND New York. Ask the average EU citizen (I'm not talking about techies, I'm talking about the blue-collar workers) how good they have it.

I compare my upbringing in the States (we lived in France for a year when I was young and it just wasn't for me) and life is far easier on the blue-collar worker in the US if you could find a decent job.

An uncle of mine spent 4 years out of work (machinist) before he found a new job in France. My father worked in a factory in the US for 37 years. This is obviously too small a sample to be significant, but other family have had similar outcomes and difficulties. My mom (who still barely speaks english) wouldn't go back to live in France.

This is still the land of opportunity for those who are willing to work their butts off and take risks. The only thing I wish we had in the US is universal healthcare. It's coming, when the republicans manage to lose congress in 2018.

So yeah, if you're rich a rich hipster, Europe might be "better."

I'll keep my guns, my F150, and my 4,000 square foot (372 sq. meter) house, merci beaucoup.

<comment><USER17> Thanks for this comment.

The arrogance of this rich yuppie with homes in New York and London (my god, can you be any more of a stereotype?) comparing a densely populated continent to a mostly rural, sparsely populated nation is astounding.

I love Europe, and I collaborate with the devs out of our office in Prague all the time. I love visiting, and like the people. Half of our team would love to move here. Why?

They have kids, and they'd love to live in a place where the food (yes, even quality food) is half the price, the land is less than half the price, the culture isn't antagonistic to ambitious people, and where they can affordably run a business.

The US sucks if you're not fortunate enough to possess valuable skills. But it's pretty great for those of us who are fortunate in that sense. Not saying Europe isn't, but certain countries in the EU have policies that are outright cruel to small businesses, particularly NEW small businesses.

<comment><USER18> Having spent extensive time in NYC and London, I don't understand how someone with the money to eat out all the time (like someone with homes in both obviously would) can say that the US loses out on quality of food. Having been all over the world, without hesitation, I would say that New York City is the best city in the world for food. It doesn't have the most Michelin stars, but the everyday options for people eating out are phenomenal, and the diversity is unmatched. Nowhere else in the world can you go and get so many different types of food that are well prepared. You can't do it in London. You can't do it in Berlin. You can't do it in Tokyo. You can't do it in Hong Kong. You can't do it in Paris. Hell, food diversity in Houston is better than all of those other cities. Why? Because America is a lot more diverse than Europe in general. In absolution population, the US has more minorities than Europe on the whole, despite having half the population - the relative amount is double!

And that's also why I immediately am so skeptical on the claims about things like art, etc, as well. There's far fewer cultures having an input on them, and things like art are elevated by having a diversity of influences and influxes of ideas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Maybe it's because personal experience is usually not enough to make such sweeping generalizations? All we know is this person liked the places they lived in Europe better than the places they lived in the US. But what about the places they haven't lived yet?

European cities are not all the same. Similarly for US cities.

<comment><USER20> I have been in most capitals in Europe, and in quite a few cities of USA, and totally agree with the story. Of course there are some individual exceptions, but he is talking about the feeling from different cities, the state of public transportation or healthcare, which IMHO is fairly generalizable.

<comment><USER19> You are doing it too.

Our lives are not random samples.

<comment><USER21> But is it fair to say that observers with more samples have a better vantage point than observers with fewer?

<comment><USER19> Yes, of course experience can be very valuable! However, it's rather tricky to share with people you don't know. You can't just make a bare assertion:

"Life is much better in Europe than in the US."

"How do you know?"

"Someone said so on the Internet."

You see? It doesn't transfer.

I think it makes more sense to tell stories of specific things that happened to you, and let people make their own generalizations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As a German living in the US, I wholeheartedly agree with this article, especially the bit about everything being somewhat lower quality.

And despite the lower quality, things usually are considerably more expensive anyway. If I might just add one more example: housing. Rent prices in the U.S. are generally about twice what they are in Germany for comparable units, and yet the houses here are incredibly flimsy (walls made out of plywood and windows without proper insulation - you just don't see that in Germany) for anyone but the upper class.

And if the comments here are any indicator, the article is also right about the fact that Americans are never even going to realize how poor the quality of life is in comparison to Europe. Instead, they just placate themselves with myths about collectivism, socialism or communism in Europe (none of those are even remotely a thing).

Which is all the more heartbreaking because there are some things about the US that I absolutely love.

<comment><USER18> Your claims are not backed by reality.

[http://www.nationmaster.com/country- info/compare/Germany/Uni...](http://www.nationmaster.com/country- info/compare/Germany/United-States/Cost-of-living)

You can dive into each individual metric, but the purchasing power is probably the single best one to look at for determining how economically empowered people are, and the US is significantly better than Germany - 2nd in the world, in fact, beaten only by Switzerland.

Looking at housing in particular, "Double" is flat out incorrect for rent prices. In the US it is a bit higher, but only about 10%. Double IS correct for purchasing housing... but in the opposite direction of what you're claiming.

If you went from living outside of the city in Germany to living inside a major city in the US, then yeah, I could see things being more expensive, but comparing the two countries against each other, it's just completely incorrect.

<comment><USER22> I will concede that you make some good points, however:

These statistics simplify things a little because they rely on measures of central tendency - mostly the mean, from what I can tell. Purchasing power is the best example of that. Yes, salaries in the U.S. are on average higher than in Europe, even Germany. However, as we all know, the mean is heavily influenced by extreme values, which occur far more often in the US due to greater inequality. So yes, you can buy more with the average salary, but there are less people who have an average salary.

As for the housing stuff: Yes, 'double' was probably an exaggeration (it just happened to be true in my case - although I'm not living anywhere near a major city). However, depending on the size of the apartment, the stats you posted show that the difference can be up to 35%, and as I said, the SIZE of the apartment doesn't necessarily correlate with quality. Apartments and houses can more easily be bigger in the US because there is more space.

You are correct that some things are more expensive in Europe. Buying houses, definitely (although it also depends on the country, Germany is a particularly extreme example in that regard (so is the US, though)). However, it doesn't always work out that way. For example, the metrics you posted show that power is 40% more expensive in Germany. That does reflect my own experience. HOWEVER, appliances etc. here in the US are often so crappy (i.e. power hungry), that in the end, you somehow end up paying more anyway.

On paper, the US compares pretty well against Europe in terms of standards of living, but my experience is that in practice, this is only true for people from the upper middle class onward.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Because the money we put into Defense, Europe puts into the comunal programs that boost said quality-of-life indicators. Perks of being a superpower I guess. Love it or hate it, the argument could be made that without America choosing that path, Europe would not be able to enjoy the quality-of-life they have now.

<comment><USER24> I think part of your argument is true: Europe benefits from being in the American sphere of defence, but, I also think this is a red herring as the USA is more than rich enough to have both a strong military and look after its population.

<comment><USER25> The defense spending isn't necessarily the issue, it's the meteoric rise of allocation in the budget year after year to defense spending. We are overspending, and it only gets worse for the citizens.

<comment><USER23> I think this is a result of never truly leaving a wartime economy. We had WWII, then the Korean War, then the Cold War (with Vietnam in the middle) all on top of each other and justifying the expense for almost 50 years. I don't think America knows how to cut defense without losing military dominance. As te_chris said, Defense spending might be a red herring, but I would say it is almost certainly the foundation of the problem.

The other major budget problem is welfare/comunal programs. These have been hyperinflated over the last 20-30 years or so. I personally believe one of the reasons it works so much better in Europe is the fact that any given program is orders of magnitude smaller than American attempts. To improve quality-of- life to the level the article wants, I think America need to trim (trim, not cut) military spending and stop welfare spending entirely and let the states handle it (with parameters of course, but it would be a far less unwieldy beast for them handle).

<comment><USER26> Cutting military spending would also hurt the American economy massively. There are over two million soldiers in the military, with an unbelievable number of nonsoldiers building equipment that they use. If we scale back, all of that money injected into our economy would be lost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > There is a myth of exceptionalism in America that prevents it from looking > outward, and learning from the world

In my experience, this is not exclusive to America. It seems to be a feature of very large and diverse countries. I'm an immigrant from Brazil and I saw the _exact_ same thing there. When a country is large and diverse enough, people seem to think that all that there is to be seen is in their own land, and nothing outside can be much different from that. I had friends that refused to accept that life in other nations was objectively better. They claimed it was just "different", but that quality of life was the same everywhere. Evidently, they had never traveled abroad.

<comment><USER28> I wonder if religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, has anything to do with this?

America is deeply enthralled in it; in fact, atheists are considered "lowest of the low" in certain polls (like whether one would vote or elect such a person, for instance).

Brazil - correct me if I am wrong - has a similar enthrallment, but more of the "evangelical Catholicism" variety. It is (like many "south of the border" countries, if you will) is highly religious and Christianity is on display.

I tend to wonder how these similar trends play into the disparity, as Europe (as a whole) is known to not be as religious, and what religion there is, is relatively downplayed...?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I've moved between countries with different work habits and cultures a few years ago. In the old country, I arrived in the office in the morning and routinely stayed there until 10 or 11; in the new, work shuttle made sure that I never stayed in the office longer than 8 hours. Instead of weekends of crunch time, I got labour laws. Instead of everybody around me constantly talking about work, I got relaxed people going to the beach every day, discussing art, just "living the life".

For a couple of years, it was a great, relaxing experience. But on the third year I travelled back for a few days to realize that I miss it like hell - <USER2> moved back a month later.

As I'm typing this, I have worked two weeks of crunch time without weekend, in the office late in the evening. For the holidays (which are government mandated off-days), everybody's going on away on vacation, while I'll be coming back to office to finally work on a new thing in silence. I'm full of energy drinks, coffee and sleep deprivation.

I chose this. Not everybody wants a relaxed life. I will die in about 50 years, and I have even less productive ones - I want to spend them making something, not waste them relaxing, lying around. I'm happy like this.

May be that's what's special about America, too?

<comment><USER30> Sure, it's a great place for workaholics in just the way you describe.

<comment><USER29> I have only been in US for two weeks in my life, so I don't really know much about this. But different countries are different, people living in them value different things, and they optimize their lives for different values.

So, may be it's a national character of people living in this country, and an attempt to make it more like other counties with other cultures may be a little misplaced?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The article makes a passing mention to the British NHS which is universally loved by everyone in the UK.

Why do so many Americans object to universal health care yet complain about insurance premiums? Its something I've never understood as an outside observer.

<comment><USER32> >universally loved by everyone

I don't think something can be universally loved. There are many stories of long waiting times and people going overseas for private healthcare.

People like private healthcare because it aligns with America's love of freedom - which includes the freedom to fail.

<comment><USER31> >universally loved by everyone

Maybe a little strong on my part.

Asked "would you scrap the NHS?" to randoms on the street i bet you would get a very strong no vote.

<comment><USER32> Is such a system sustainable though? Isn't England in a massive hole of debt? And if that debt comes due, what would happen to the quality of the NHS?

<comment><USER33> Almost Every western country is in a massive hole of debt, the us included.

I think it is more sustainable than other systems, especially the one practiced in the US.

Also, please note than in the US, public spending on health is already huge, and there's a huge private spending as well - iirc about 20% of us GDP is spent on healthcare, which is double any other western country, and with worse results to boot. It is already unsustainable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Okay, I travel a lot between the US and Europe (primarily Berlin, Frankfurt and London) and also between the US and Asia (primarily Japan, India and Bangkok). I have had my choice in where to live, and I would live in the USA every time.

American exceptionalism isn't a myth, it's a thing. But it has both positive and negative side effects. The positive side effects are a big reason why America still dominates the computer science world - empowering individuals results in innovation, freedom to experiment, freedom to fail (this in particular is lacking in the rest of the world) and freedom to chart your own path. Obviously, this is a range, it's not a binary switch, but over and over, I consistantly see American engineers take risks and try things that their foreign counterparts don't often do. Of course, as with everything, individuals differ, but opportunity exists here. This matters - <USER3> routinely identify as happier, less prone to suicide, and have higher productivity.

The second factor that this author seems blind to is that the rest of the world has become more and more American - not just western, but American. This is often sad, the difference between walking down Sukhumvit in Bangkok even five years ago - with the tuk-tuks and ethnic celebrations and baht's in the pocket - versus listening to rap, catching a uber from the airport, and using your US credit card is pronounced. But in general, Americanization (under the name globalization) has resulted world wide in a world that is kinder, more inclusive, more humane, less people dying of war & starvation etc. There is a result of the post-war strategy that American embraced and led the world on (and is now turning it's back on with Trump). The fact that Europe can focus on it's own prosperity and not the never-ending regional conflicts is built on Winston Churchill's call for "A united states of Europe" and the security of NATO.

Now are there things that should be much better then they are? Obviously yes. Health care is a obvious one. But again, that also ignores the fact that Americans are basically fronting the R&D cost for almost all of the world right now. We have to improve this. We have to improve income disparity, but without going through the devesation that collectivist systems can impose. We have to relearn how to compromise, and return to the first principles of democracy. But this article is mostly the typical European-exceptionalism ;-)

</comment><comment><USER35> This really, really depends on where you live. If you live in New York, you can get amazing food everywhere. We have things like paid family leave, free college, universal pre-k, etc that most Americans don't have. Also if you're working at a high pressure finance job, of course you will work long hours. But those are the exception. Working from 10 - 6 is pretty common for most people I know.

<comment><USER36> i wouldn't call new york an example of a "high quality of living." Subways that barely work? Terrifyingly chaotic traffic? A "me-first" attitude that is visible everywhere from the people complaining about citi-bikes to the advertisements literally EVERYWHERE.

Going from coast-to-coast is like walking into a time machine.

<comment><USER37> Yes NY subways are in a state of disrepair at the moment, but that misses the forest for the trees. Public outcry is already starting to force bureaucrats to address this. I hope people remain outraged here.

But 99% of the time you can get from A->B in NY without much stress. You hardly ever need a car. You have almost literally the best of anything in the world within that hour-or-less subway ride.

You may not be able to _afford_ all the best-of-everything, but the best X is there as an option if you decide you'd prefer X instead of rent (or paying medical bills). Almost always you can turn sweat into $ to buy X without anybody saying no. Nobody forces you to live in NY, and nobody forces you to buy X. But it's there if you want it.

(Of course you can argue that X is too expensive or that the sweat-to-$ ratio is wildly unbalanced but that doesn't change the facts.)

<comment><USER36> They will never be able to address the issues in New York. The whole place is polluted to hell -- the beaches are gross and dirty. I mean for fucks sake you have to ASK to not get a plastic bag (usually two). What year is it, 2002? The place literally smells like hot garbage and piss. The people have no respect for the land (ever go into prospect park on a summer weekend?). People working in business al

> You have almost literally the best of anything in the world within that > hour-or-less subway ride.

Bullshit, You can take a 10 minute Bike/Light rail ride in portland and get to straight up farm-land or forest. In an hour you can get to the coast, desert, or mountains. In San Diego you can bike to the beach from anywhere in 10-20 minutes (that arent crowded and over trashed).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Ameericans do realize how unhappy they are. There's an epidemic of opiate addiction.

That unhappiness is the result of many things: major changes in the job market leaving millions without opportunities, the collapse of hundreds of small towns and communities, the disintegration of the nuclear family, etc.

Ironically, materially, Americans are much better off than they were decades ago, but all that material prosperity has left people unsatisfied.

In my opinion the problem goes much deeper than this, as Augustine said:

> You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it > rests in you.

But the inadequacy of consumerism is maybe more clear.

<comment><USER39> Non-medical opiate use is up double digits in Europe as well. The opiate epidemic is coming to Europe. There's more to it than "life is hard".

<comment><USER40> I think you refer to this article: The Opioid Epidemic Hits The European Union [1]. Note that the title of that article contradicts the contents though. There is a big difference between the current opioid epidemic in the US, and an 'increase in non-medical drug use for prescription painkillers'.. One of the researchers is even quoted to say: "We can learn much from the E.U. in terms of how to prescribe opioids in the context of a national healthcare system"

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/cjarlotta/2016/08/09/high- rates...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/cjarlotta/2016/08/09/high-rates-of- nonmedical-opioid-use-hit-european-union/#6a50baf721fb)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I think this is an indeed an unfair jeremiad (despite its disclaimer) yet it does make a correct point.

The overall objectives in the US are different. So in most countries, for example, a transportation system is designed to move people around. So a train line can run to an airport,for example. In most US cities its goals are seemingly different (spend as little as possible, regardless of externalities? Punish people who can't afford a car? Make a political point? It's never clear).

The transaction costs (both in time as well as actual $) of the most routine things are higher. So yes the taxes are lower but overall costs (the difference between total and disposable income) usually end up higher.

I do love _working_ in the USA, and have done so for the majority of my (35+y) working life. The people are friendly (as they typically are most places). But day to day life in the US is a _drag_ compared to life in other wealthy countries (I have lived and worked for years in Australia, Asia and Europe).

Part of my objection to that article is that things are more alike than they are different. Cartels can exert control to maintain rents (taxi unions, for example -- my train example isn't quite as cut and dried as I made out).

And in in the US when there's a difficult political dispute both sides typically battle it out, and amp it up, making resolution _harder_ and fostering public cynicism and apathy. In Europe when there's a difficult political dispute both sides typically make a muddle, kicking the ball down the street and hoping the problem will go away, making resolution _harder_ and fostering public cynicism and apathy. In the parts of Asia where I lived, when there's a difficult political dispute nothing really happens unless someone is strong enough to simply make a decision (a strongman perhaps, or the bureaucracy) which isn't particularly democratic and fosters, at best, public cynicism and apathy.

</comment><comment><USER42> >pick up some mass-produced groceries, full of toxins and colourings and GMOs

Seriously? This is an absurd exaggeration. For one thing, GMOs are safe, and EU policy on them is utterly backwards. For another, this is some transparent application of the "natural food is safer" fallacy. Food here isn't "full of toxins", that's mythology invented to support the bottom line of "organic" grocers -- there are occasional issues, but those also happen in Europe. And food colorings are much less dangerous than, say, sugar. But Europe has fake olive oil and the infamous practice of dumping substandard products in Hungary and other poor countries and probably some other problems I'm not aware of because I'm not a propagandist.

Should we have a better healthcare system? Absolutely. Everything else in this article is mostly an issue of lifestyle preference and ideology.

</comment><comment><USER43> This seems oversimplified to me. I think it's fairer to say the graph of quality of life vs. income in Europe has a lower slope than America. Meaning, quality of life in America can be much higher for the wealthy, somewhat higher for upper middle income, lower for middle income, and much worse for low income.

</comment><comment><USER44> They have no point of reference for comparison.

<comment><USER45> Indeed, and they travel more domestically than abroad [1]. There isn't enough difference between states to broad those horizons.

[1] [https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-whose- citizens...](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-whose-citizens- travel-the-most.html)

<comment><USER46> A large part of that is because traveling abroad is prohibitively expensive for a lot of people (which the article touches on). Especially if you don't live on one of the coasts. California to London is over 10 hours of flight time. I don't think Europeans fully appreciate how huge the United States is. Texas alone is bigger than every country in Europe, save Turkey.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands Another one of these, "Europe is sooooooo much better than the US." articles.

I love how he compares the some of the worst US cities to some the best European cities. All the while ignoring the issues those European cities are currently facing (mounting debt, exit from the European Union, mass immigration) while highlighting all the bad things in the US cities he cherry picks to prove his points.

I wonder if the author has ever been the Northwest. Has he ever been to Washington? Oregon, Idaho, or Colorado? I have and they're all amazing states with many, many cities with their own little cultures and laid back lifestyles. The scenery is second to none, the air clean, the people incredibly hospitable.

I won't dissect the entire article, but when you're cherry picking statistics to prove your points (most of which are subjective and not even factual) it's easy to say how much more awesome Europe is.

</comment><comment><USER47> Bread and circuses worked for the Romans.

</comment><comment><USER48> We do, but what are we gonna do about it? We don't really have any ability to effect these kinds of changes as a common man. Our opinions have literally 0 effect on the legislative process. Our country is bought and paid for by corporate interests. Multiple studies have shown that our opinions count for nothing, and that lobbyists control legislation and policy.

We have now descended into the hyper-atomization of the individual as a series of micro-collectives, for whom we must fight among ourselves against others with different series of collectives. We now care not for whether our lives are good, merely that we see the other having a bad time.

Mourn for us, and learn from us - do not follow in our footsteps.

<comment><USER49> >Multiple studies have shown that our opinions count for nothing, and that lobbyists control legislation and policy.

And yet Donald Trump was basically memed into office.

<comment><USER48> And? Like 2/5 of the people that voted for him regret it because he isn't doing what they thought he would. He campaigned for the common man, and is now fucking him over hardcore.

I think this only provides evidence for my point.

<comment><USER49> Trump's election provides a counterexample to the claim that the opinions of voters count for nothing, otherwise we'd be looking at Hillary Clinton's second term or first after Mitt Romney.

Many of the promises Trump made were absurd, irrational and couldn't reasonably be delivered on, and Trump himself was the easiest candidate to read in recent American political history. Voters being unwilling to exercise their power judiciously isn't the same as them having no real power to exercise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> In America Europeans are easy to spot because of their clear healthy looking skin. My theory is their diet is better, but it's likely due to many factors that relate to a healthier higher quality of life.

<comment><USER51> Come to California coast towns to see some really healthy looking people :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Maybe this is because, as someone once put it, Americans don't see themselves as worse off. Rather, they see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"?

</comment><comment><USER53> Completely unnecessary stab at GMOs

</comment><comment><USER18> For some context, I travel about 20% of the time for work. While the amount of that that is international varies from year to ear, it's usually the majority of said travel. I've been to every continent on the planet, except for Antartica. My opinion here is not formed by lack of exposure.

While I generally try to avoid talking like this on HN, I don't see how to avoid it here:

The author of this piece is a pretentious asshole. Basically every premise he argues is wrong or purely opinion based. Taking a quick look at his Medium post history, this sort of article seems to be his bread and butter of writing subjects, as well.

Some people have to work earlier than 9 or 10am in these countries. (Who does he think is making the trains run and brewing the coffee he drinks? Do they not count as people working?) Plenty of people in the US don't have to work until 9 or 10. Plenty of people go home at 5 in the US.

US food tastes worse? Man, I've been to London. I've been to Berlin. Two of his examples. I've had a variety of food at each. Were their non-chain cafes and restaurants better than some of the US chains? Sure. Were they better than non-chain cafes and restaurants in the US? No. And the US has EVERYWHERE else beat on food diversity. Not a single city in Europe can hold a candle to the food diversity you get in New York City, Los Angeles, or even Houston. With average quality being similar at non-chains, and the absolute diversity being significantly better in the US compared to anywhere else in the world, the American diner that wants to eat more than Chile's or Applebee's or whatever is in a better position than the average diner in the UK. On the top end, in the Michelin world, I don't think there's a clear winner, but having eaten at a variety of 3 star places in the US and abroad, I can say it's comparable.

You can't watch documentaries on US TV? Completely false. You can't watch Swedish crime noir? Well, probably true. But we're also living in a post-cable world. Things like Netflix and other streaming services open up much more global access to media. And the idea that America is incapable of producing quality and interesting media is insane.

Fashion, art, etc? All somehow objectively worse in America? The suppositions here are just blatantly influenced by personal opinion.

I don't think America is the best at everything in the world. Basically everywhere I've spent time internationally - and some of that is a lot of time! - there are specific things that I think are done better than their American counterpart. But I can also point at things that are done worse. Even things that people laud a country for. People act like Germany has the best beer in the world - yet from an objective standpoint they have been largely at a creative standstill for more than a century. America is clearly at the forefront of craft beer, experimenting more, creating more, doing more and better than anywhere else. And beer might seem like a silly thing to measure anything by, but this whole article kicked off by talking about coffee, so whatever.

He pulls out one statistic that he can prove - life expectancy - and then lists a string of others stating that they are the same. Some of them are so vague as to be meaningless - America is statistically worse at "stress" \- what does that mean? Others, you look, and sure enough, America isn't on top. But then you look at something else. Japan is #1 in Life Expectancy - but then press freedom, another one of the things the author is championing as an important measurement, Japan is significantly worse than the US. Or the UK is ranked basically the equivalent. Quality of democracy? The US ranks higher than portions of the EU, lower than some, but the absolute quality is so similar that the first 30 points in ranking are largely indistinguishable.

There are things wrong with America. There are very few things I can say that I think America is best at - though there are some!

But it's a pretty good place to live. And if you look at the balance of all of these important rankings, the US averages out pretty well, because while it isn't topping any of them, it'w consistently good to okay at worst, whereas some other countries that are exemplary of some of what he claims as important have crazy swings on their rankings and are terrible at others. The US ranks higher in happiness than the majority of the EU. It ranks lower in suicide rates. If we're going to look at specific sets of statistics, are these not important too?

If this article was "Why don't Americans understand that they're not the world leaders on every single aspect of life", it would make sense. The US could do with understanding that it is a world leader in very few things. That there is a lot of room for improvement. But the idea that life on average is so much worse in America than it is in the rest of the world is stupid.

</comment><comment><USER54> The author's bland food, bland commute, bland coffee and bland entertainment options can easily be fixed by money.

America's got the choices, they are expensive because they are not subsidized the same ways or at all.

</comment><comment><USER55> This is true of every nation, just the premise changes. In India it's how bad the corruption is. In many countries it's how their religious leaders are screwing them.

The cause it seems is propaganda.

</comment><comment><USER56> A lot of money is spent keeping American attitudes this way.

</comment><comment><USER57> > Everything I consume in the States is of a vastly, abysmally lower quality. > Every single thing. The food,

You're going to the wrong restaurants, friend

</comment><comment><USER58> I'm sure the baker who made your croissant didn't go into work until 9am....

</comment><comment><USER59> Europe is still to some extent enjoying the fruit of capitalism, but probably not for too long. There is always a day when roman does not have free bread to hand out any more.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Did this post get flagged? It currently has 83 points in 53 minutes, yet it is on page 4 at rank 112. Just curious. It currently does not have [flagged] next to it.

</comment><comment><USER60> You lost me at "toxins".

</comment><comment><USER61> My understanding is that it's easier to get a culturally homogenous population to buy into economic collectivism, vs. a culturally diverse population. E.g. the migrant "problem" that the EU is dealing with--last I checked, most of Europe wasn't stumbling over themselves to provide social services to all of their recent arrivals...

<comment><USER62> I'm not sure how that's relevant. The US is remarkably homogeneous for its size

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Why don't Europeans understand how little we care what they think? Their rights have been systematically eroded and their countries stolen right out from underneath them. That condescending, undeserved attitude of faux superiority means absolutely nothing to red-blooded Americans. They can keep their baguettes, I'll be just fine with my 30.06 and my F-250.

<comment><USER64> I absolutely like how comments like this one confirm most of this article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Many comments have this delusion of things being free. Free college, free healthcare, free this/that, etc. In this world of limited resources nothing is free. Either your tax money, someone else's tax money, or your govt through debt is paying for these "free" things.

<comment><USER66> The UK has healthcare free at the point of delivery. The UK government spends considerably less per capita on healthcare than the US governemnt.

"Free" healthcare is cheaper to provide than non-free.

<comment><USER18> This isn't the whole story, though. Part of the reasons US healthcare costs are so high is that the majority of all medical research is done in the US.

America needs to do a hell of a lot better on this front - <USER4> healthcare should be a basic human right! - but it doesn't immediately solve the issue.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: My applications for FAANG dev roles are rejected immediately - <AUTHOR> I'm a dev with a CS degree, and around 8 years of experience at startups and agencies. During this time, I've worked my way through various different roles, and languages. Most of my experience is in C# or with JavaScript, but a year ago I joined a consultancy and now work with Python, Node, and Ruby.
Like many, I've always wanted to interview at a top-tier tech company, but for some reason I've found myself unable to even get as far as an interview with any of them. Applying directly to the likes of Facebook and Google either results in a rejection email a day or two later, for roles in several cities/countries, or sometimes no response at all.
My CV is fairly straightforward. I joined a startup straight out of uni, where I became the sole developer and ended up being handed the lead dev title and having to build a team of three. We were acquired 18 months later for the platform we had built. After the acquisition, I have worked at a handful of digital agencies in a mid-level and senior capacity, and I now work at a consultancy firm that deals with early-stage startups. I have also contributed to open-source, either through my own projects or via PR's on others, and have given a handful of talks at local user groups.
On paper, you'd think I'd be worth at least a glance, but over the past decade I've applied a handful of times to FAANG, Twitter, GitHub, and Microsoft, and 80-90% of the time I am rejected outright within the week. A few weeks ago, I decided to try all at once, and was rejected by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft within 72 hours.
It genuinely feels like I'm on a blacklist, and although I would love to work for one of the big firms I have no intention of spending the next decade applying to places that don't want me.
I thought I'd reach out to HN to see if you have any advice for me on either how to get an interview at one of these companies, whether a blacklist is even a thing, or whether my experience is even that uncommon. <comment><USER2> One of those "A"'s is a different story in terms of recruiting than the others (it has three headquarters, the first of which is in Seattle and it is not mentioned by name in the post above.)

If you could not get interviews with that particular company I would be worried. At times they will interview anybody with a pulse.

The other companies on your list all have more people who want to work for them then they could possibly hire so they can filter for a profile for people who are at different career stages and if you don't fit that profile you don't get through the screen. The hiring manager is filling up a platoon of two squads and is not so interested in anything about you that makes you hard to evaluate.

(Microsoft|Google|Facebook) are not startups and they may not find your startup experience useful. In software they are what Nestle or Kelogg are to food and they don't look at product development in the way a startup does at all.

I have seen solid performers in large companies who do well with structure (where the solidity of process means you can go to an atm 24-7 most places and expect to get money) just not be able to cut off chunks of our startup mountain into units of work they can do. Salesforce.com sends fresher salespeople to a gala conference in their home city. They will get sales training and a proven playbook. In our startup you are going to write the playbook.

If you want to get into that kind of shop and you are an oddball at all your best bet is the "aqui-hire" but the person who succeeds at that often can't stand to stay.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was going to mention Amazon, but I had already reached my character limit. I've applied there twice in the past, once in the UK and once for their Seattle office. My recent application from a few weeks ago was rejected.

Amazon certainly have that reputation, but there has been a time where many of the other companies have had a similar reputation. I applied to Google, Twitter and Facebook during the time where they were pushing to hire more employees than ever before, and even then I couldn't get past the initial screen.

Regarding my focus on startups, that was mainly to highlight that my experience isn't purely Web Dev at digital agencies. To be perfectly honest my main reason for working for a FAANG-level company isn't because I'm in love with them, or because I want to work for a big company. It's mostly because the interview process is challenging, and because it's an opportunity to work with the top tier of talent on hard problems.

You're right, though. Some of those companies have a reputation for aggressive hiring, and the fact that their recruiters seem to want nothing to do with me indicates that there is a problem. I have absolutely no problem getting interviews anywhere else in the UK. Hell, Reddit offered me an interview a number of years back, so it's not a location thing. You say my startup experience isn't relevant to them, but if Google will fall over themselves to hire CS grads to graduate schemes or recent graduates with a few years experience for interviews, why can't I even get the time of day from a FAANG recruiter?

The whole situation has really soured my opinion of these companies, which is a real shame because I would love to work for them. Ultimately, there's only so many times you can be rejected before you become resentful.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to mock up physical products that don't exist? - <AUTHOR>

What's a lean way of mocking up a physical product without actually building it?
Also, what are some ideal ways without being strong in design skills?
How do people typically validate physical products without the investment of building them? <comment><USER2> 1\. The physical product - it is actually a good idea to take a simple piece (you can just take a piece of wood like the inventor of the Palm Pilot did) and do an improvisation theater with it. For this you explain to a user what it does and hand it over to them and ask them to explain to you how they use it.

2\. The visual mockup: For me the best results have been to do a simple 3D model and render it with Keyshot - there are rendering alternatives called Bunkshot and some others. Basically these are 3D Rendering programs that very easily allow you to assign materials to a product and create a high quality render very quickly without having the very complex and advanced knowledge required to do a VRAY render. Regarding the 3D model itself a good start is Sketchup, formerly owned by Google.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sketchup - Looks exactly like what I was looking for. Seems very powerful and easy to get started with.

Thanks a lot!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Using good old pen and paper or adobe ideas are a good starting point. Don't worry if your sketches look like crayon scribbles by a 3 year old, the act of putting your thoughts down will likely lead to more thoughts/tweaks to the original idea. And the more you do this, the better your design skills will get. After that, and acknowledge that you had said not to actually build it, I'd move to putting together a basic prototype with any parts that you can get your hands on - trade/building supplies/art and craft store/daiso/discount store etc. The benefit of doing this is that once you/potential customers can handle the product, you'll learn more than any visual mockup will provide and the design will likely change again. Going through this cycle several times will lead to a much better design.

List of visual mock up tools (free and paid): [http://i.materialise.com/creationcorner](http://i.materialise.com/creationcorner) [http://www.shapeways.com/tutorials/supported- applications](http://www.shapeways.com/tutorials/supported-applications)

</comment><comment><USER4> From an engineering standpoint, digital prototyping is a huge time saver when mocking up products.

If your product will be under some physical stress it is good to understand where the weak points exist and how to negate them. If manufacturing costs will be a major concern (eg plastic parts, tooling, and mold design) then you need to know how to reduce them.

Autodesk Inventor is a fairly easy to use option. Ansys is much better if you need to simulate how it will react in the real world and have a fat wallet for their licence costs.

I just built a book press out of bubinga and stainless; Prototyping it in Inventor allowed me to see where the weak points were in my design and make modifications that allow it to work beyond the typical load required of a book press.

<comment><USER5> Sorry for jumping a reply on this reply, its not connected but all the other reply buttons are missing?..

Go check out the architecture/industrial design realm. Paper mockups, foldable concepts, foam, clay, legos....there are a myriad of techniques to create the physical form.

Then if its electornic you have arduino/sparkcore/etc. etc. Sooo many ways that you can move through, whether its purely visual, 3d printing, etc.

Really I'd say don't jump into the 3D modeling environment. Jump into clay/foam/blocks/glue/crafting. Spend a little time there first, then get into the more precise realm. You'll thank yourself later. Iterate and develop, its the sort of thing the creators of NEST did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Do you need an accurate model (from an engineering standpoint) or just a visual representation of the product?

If you don't need a complex model, you can use a simple 3D tool like Google SketchUp. That would probably be the easiest solution. If you've got a little money to spare, there are plenty of CG artists that can work up a model for you and render it in a photo-realistic manner.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think this is what CAD software is for?</comment>


Do We All See the Man Holding an iPhone in This 1937 Painting? - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/xww5xd/do-we-all-see-the-man-holding-an-iphone-in-this-1937-painting <comment><USER2> Not all of us</comment>


JavaScript (and Node) Best Practices - <AUTHOR> http://noahbuscher.com/practices/

<comment><USER2> The author says that as a rule of thumb, he uses callbacks for every function, synchronous or not. wat.

When you design an asynchronous function, you're telling your caller that he can go and do other stuff (e.g. process other requests) while you're fetching his result in the background. Async functions should never block. If making everything async was a good idea, then underscore would be async.

The author also mentions that it is node convention to use callbacks. Sure, that's true. But he's calling his callbacks the wrong way. Node convention is `callback(error, result)`, not `callback(result)`.

Oh and promises ftw.

Articles like this hurt JavaScript's credibility, and certainly doesn't help new JS/node devs.

<comment><USER3> I agree that it is a bit overzealous to say that _every function_ should return its data using callbacks, but sometimes it makes sense even for synchronous functions. By making a function which doesn't accept a callback, you are creating an API that can never be made asynchronous, which could cause you more work in the long run.

For example, consider a function with a synchronous implementation. It gets the data from a place that is quick and easy to access, so making it async is not necessary. But later on, that data gets moved to an external database. Now, in the best case, every place where that function is used must be updated to be made asynchronous. In the worst case, every caller of the function, as well as every caller of those functions, and so on, must be updated. And quite often, converting synchronous code to async is no small feat.

<comment><USER2> I knew someone would say that, hah!

I am 100% for making sync functions asynchronous if it's implementation might have to be async in the future.

In fact, I have done so many times for the exact example you have mentioned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really appreciate the spirit of this, but this was super-light and I was hoping to see a few more fairly common idioms. I also take issue with a few points, addressed below. His note about logic not going in app.js is one that I wish more Node developers I worked with would pay attention to: the first Node project I was thrown on at my current shop, app.js was about 2k LOC (things have gotten much better since then).

Some I would add:

      - Prefer === over ==

      - Prefer pure functions whenever possible

      - Use promises, not callbacks.  Wrap callbacks with promises when necessary.  Do this once, and put that in a module.

      - *Learn to use Lodash.*  I've seen so many wheels reinvented you'd think I worked at Firestone.

      - *Learn the rest of the ecosystem.*  See above.

      - Logic shouldn't go in route handlers. Routes should only orchestrate.

      - Learn to love the Array functions.  ForEach, Map, Reduce, Filter: use them.

I also have some beef with the article's content.

> [...] as a rule on thumb, I always use callbacks for any function, > regardless of what it does.

Please don't. Callbacks are a (somewhat - see below) necessary evil, not an idiomatic good. Only use this if what you're doing is actually asynchronous - talking to the network, reading from the disk, making DB calls, etc. Maybe for _really_ computationally expensive stuff (see bcrypt), but in day-to-day web dev you just won't run into that.

> If I know I'm going to be nesting callbacks more than two levels, I'll > switch over to a package like async or write my own function quene method to > help me out.

No. Do not do that. If you know you're going to be nesting callbacks more than 2 levels deep, just use the async package. Better yet, use promises from the beginning and don't worry about it.

> I know I've already made some people angry, and I'm okay with that.

You shouldn't be. If you've made anyone angry, it's because you're putting bad advice out there. Worse, it's mixed in with some really good advice, making it all the more deceptive.

Once again, I really appreciate the spirit in which this article was written. I just wish it wasn't mixing utter nonsense into otherwise sound advice.

<comment><USER5> Why is this bad advice? You haven't quantified any of your points, so I'm not sure whether there's any merit to either side.

<comment><USER4> Well, I feel like I explained why not to use callbacks everywhere (worth restating: it leads to unnecessarily messy code). As for why writing your own shoddy implementation of the async package, do I really have to explain why reinventing the wheel is a bad idea? If I did it would border on the hypocritical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> On the topic of using callbacks, promises + generators will enable you to do the same job with almost the same level of performance (see [http://spion.github.io/posts/why-i-am-switching-to- promises....](http://spion.github.io/posts/why-i-am-switching-to- promises.html)) whilst avoiding callback hell and having to perform error handling in multiple places.

A good Promise library (like [https://github.com/petkaantonov/bluebird](https://github.com/petkaantonov/bluebird)) even provides mechanisms for writing functions that both return Promises as well as accept callbacks, allowing your API client to choose how they wish to use it.

Also, beware of making a function "asynchronous" by simply having it accept a callback parameter, e.g.:

      function myFunc(v, cb) {
        someOtherObject.v = v;
        cb();
      }

      myFunc(5, function(err) {
        if (err) return console.error(err);
        console.log('call done');
      });

      console.log('call started');

In the above code, you'll see "call done" before you see "call started" because myFunc() isn't really functioning asynchronously.

This is yet another reason to use a good Promise library like Bluebird, as it ensures that even if you wrap a synchronous function inside a Promise the resulting execution will flow as if it was asynchronous.

</comment><comment><USER7> I would also add that callback signatures should always follow:

      function (err, result) {
        //...
      }

<comment><USER8> isn't it usually just function(e){ and then e might have some kind of indicator that it's an error

<comment><USER4> Usually, when dealing with Javascript, you'll see function (e) { as the signature for DOM function callbacks, where e refers to the event object.

<comment><USER9> Similarly, `function(err, result)` is nice because HTTP handlers often use `function(req, res)`, where the res is a response object. Fumbling over this kind of thing while nesting async calls in HTTP handlers is a minor annoyance.

<comment><USER4> You should definitely be using promises. Q is a good library. Don't worry about performance, I can say with extreme confidence that promise execution speed is not your bottleneck. In that 0.01% of times where it is, use Bluebird.

<comment><USER9> Excellent call.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Using callbacks appropriately is the biggest point, I think.

On a related side note, I've started using the Chrome Web Inspector as my only text editor for front end development. It's great because you can map it to your project folder, make edits directly and harness the power of breakpoints, along with the network, console and performance tabs, without constantly switching windows. Breakpoints, in particular, make it much easier to work with callbacks in JS. (I do miss the nice syntax highlighting of Sublime, but Chrome's dev tools provides more powerful features for JS development IMO.)

</comment><comment><USER11> Commenting the purpose of every function just seems like a messy way of making up for the mistake that your functions are not written in a readable succinct fashion that can be easily understood.

I also think it encourages new developers to write messy functions and then think "that's ok I've described what it does in a comment above, so the next person will understand it anyway".

</comment><comment><USER12> Are there any applications or libraries that you would say follow these practices really well?

Seeing basic examples was really helpful, but a more expansive project that employs these elements would make for good reading.

<comment><AUTHOR> I really enjoy NodeBB's source code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well written, but what I really appreciate is succinct.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, Brian! I really tried to keep things short, sweet, and to the point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "my own function quene method"

Huh?

<comment><USER4> I think he was getting at "queueing" (or just "queue"). Regardless, it's a wheel that doesn't need reinventing.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is college even worth it if you're worth your salt as a programmer? - <AUTHOR> Let say you're consistently getting offers at mid-high sized startups and a few "mainstream" companies. Or if you have a few indie projects that generate you some side income. Is there any point in going to college at all? <comment><USER2> Do you know what second normal form is? Do you know what the three basic functions that form all mu-recursive functions are? Can you write an A* search from memory? Do you know what is stored during a context switch? _Are_ you worth your salt as a programmer?

Tech is booming. I know someone who went to a bootcamp for a few months and is working as a programmer right now. A college diploma doesn't matter now. It matters in years like 2000-2002 after your company goes bust and you're looking for work, or if your division does massive layoffs in 2008 and you're looking for work.

If you're going to go to school and take it seriously, the earlier you do it, the more it pays off. The easier it is to do as well - you don't want to be married at 37 with two kids and decide that you really need more than a high school diploma. Then you're juggling a full-time job, college and a family.

If you want to be worth your salt as a programmer you're going to have to sit down and study databases, operating systems, calculus, theory of computation, computer graphics, algorithms, data structures and so forth any how, so why not do it while studying CS at school?

When kids ask me, I tell them if you can go, go, if you're going to take it seriously. If they have financial issues or whatever I tell them to not take a full course load. One night class a week at the local public college is affordable (with Pell grants, loans etc.) and doable by most people.

<comment><USER3> I agree that University is worth going to. But not for any of the reasons you mention.

I've had a very successful career in this industry not being able to do any of the things you ask in your first paragraph. Sure, I've taught Normalization to new devs (without needing to recite the actual forms), but I find that Google is pretty good at memorizing algorithms, and it did in fact have A* ready to go every time I've done pathfinding. It probably still will when this kid needs it.

University, in my mind, is for two things: It gets your brain shifted into "Engineer Mode" (or painfully informs you that you are not capable of thinking that way), and it teaches you how to be an adult.

The actual algorithms and interview trick questions that a CS degree give you aren't very useful at all in the real world, and I'd actually go as far as to recommend getting your degree in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering instead, so you can focus more on mindset and preparedness. You'll find it easier later to forget the trivia about Brunell Hardness and Eigenvectors when they're far removed from your actual field. And you won't be that annoying guy in every meeting talking about Big O notation instead of actually solving the issue at hand.

But yeah, go to school if you have the chance. The big offers will still be there in four years. You'll have many of the experiences that you'll spend the next 50 years reminiscing about. And you'll come away with a whole pile of other benefits that you never expected. (And some trivia to get you through your first job interview that you can then safely forget forever).

<comment><USER4> > interview trick questions that a CS degree give you aren't very useful at > all in the real world

Usually trick questions aren't the one that you expect in real world, because they're trick questions. Nevertheless, it's very easy to consider a question being tricky, while it might be just a good check of your understanding of a given technique or algorithm.

> And you won't be that annoying guy in every meeting talking about Big O > notation instead of actually solving the issue at hand.

Talking Big O is the very exact thing that you should discuss _before_ solving (coding) the issue. It's only annoying if you do that _instead_. Please, do not underestimate this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Your question strikes me, because you've framed 'college' and 'programming' in terms of their potential, or lack, of monetary benefits. That's an entirely fair way of framing this decision, but not the only one. I would suggest, if you are as capable a programmer as you claim, that you have the unique opportunity to enjoy many benefits of the college experience, without the burden of debt or delayed employment/advancement that your peers will face. It really depends on what you think you can gain from an educational environment.

For my part, I recently left a career to return to school. I'm getting a graduate degree after a 10-year gap from my undergrad, and even though I'm working a job at the same time, it's inspiring to be in an academic environment again. Some assignments are tedious, but to share a cafe or a bar with other students who are working through intellectual questions is an experience that is difficult to monetize, and nearly impossible to expect outside the university. There is a reason it is called an 'academic bubble', but while many say that scorn, I am inspired by the space that bubble creates.

I would suggest that, if you're a capable programmer, then don't go to college to learn to program. Study topics that seem foreign/difficult to you, revel in the leisure time to discuss ideas with your peers, and rise to the challenges set by professors. The academy is intended to be a space for self inquiry and growth. If that is something you value, then try to find a college that feels right to grow with.

If nothing else, try applying. As a general rule, you should avoid closing doors on opportunities that don't exist. If you get accepted to an institution, then you have a right to decline it, but rejecting it without applying is hubris.

</comment><comment><USER6> College is good. Study computer science and learn well algorithms and everything underlying that machine in front of you. Also have a nice experience, make lots of friends and connections because later in life you'll need them.

The kind of connection you make with people you've worked with are different from people you've studied with for 4+ years, no matter what.

And also keep studying stuff by yourself.

</comment><comment><USER7> Man, I miss the good old days when I knew everything.

</comment><comment><USER8> Sure it is. I know a lot of good programmers that have created some awesome and reasonably complex data driven websites, but the minute we discuss byte order, bit manipulation or discuss using an algorithm for data manipulation instead of brute force they kinda glass over. That isn't saying everyone has to know low level details, but frankly, if you are writing code I think you should have a fundamental understanding of how the device you are coding for works and how you can make the best out of it. Just going to college and getting a CS degree won't guarantee you get those fundamentals, but you are far more likely to get a solid base at a good school then not.

Also, like others have pointed out, nothing says you have to get a CS degree. You could get a degree in any subject and apply your skills and knowledge of programming to a whole new area.

The younger you are too, the more benefit you get from the networking of college, the social and dynamic skills and the problem resolution capabilities.

Would going and getting a CS degree get you more money, probably not if you have at least 3+ years of experience. Also, plenty of companies always say they want a degree but when you apply with experience they seem to drop it. Even the government jobs that say a degree is absolutely required, I have had a number of friends get those jobs with no degree, although there have been a few hoops for them to jump through.

</comment><comment><USER9> Probably not, or rather your development experience will be more valuable.

It may be a barrier in 5-10 years, but you can worry about the problem then.

The main thing is to be continually learning and maintaining a network. If you aren't going to do that, go to college.

</comment><comment><USER10> I was in your position in the last dot com boom around 1999. I started working, mainly because I didn't like school/studying anyway. For me it was the right decision and I was lucky to be able to work on some really cool stuff right from the start. However, it is not something I often recommend doing.

Going to college will make your life easier in the sense that you have a socially accepted piece of paper that shows you have put in the time/effort. For most companies that are hiring, that is what they want to see.

If you go the DIY route, you will have to work harder and/or prove yourself more (or maybe I just had a bad case of impostor syndrome). The really cool projects on your CV will help people "forget" you don't have a college diploma.

If you have the character and tenacity to find your way regardless of the situation, you don't need to go to college. If you're not certain, or if you miss out on college for working on some quite straight-forward CRUD apps (instead of seriously cool CV building projects), then go to college.

</comment><comment><USER11> Couple points: 1) if you think there's nothing for you to learn at any decent quality University, you're vastly overestimating your own abilities. 2) taking time to focus 100% on your personal development, whether intellectual or otherwise, in a socially acceptable setting is a rare opportunity. College is essentially that. 3) there is value in being surrounded by like minded young people who have not settled for mediocrity yet.

All that said, whether there is a point depends on your own goals and whether you think you can achieve the above benefits outside of a college setting. On a purely financial basis, college almost surely does not make sense.

</comment><comment><USER12> Maybe, maybe not. I think that in any case the 'stuff' (Algorithms, Databases, Operating System Internals, etc) they teach in college is intrinsically interesting. (Or perhaps not.) In any case it is also extraordinarily useful when you're doing something new and can't rely on the work of other people who already knew it. The thing is, the more time you spend learning 'junk food' topics like frameworks and API's the faster you're going to have to walk the treadmill to stay relevant. The more theory you know the slower you go out of date.

Read more textbooks and fewer blog posts.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why not do both?

Negotiate a part-time role with the mainstream company, work around your class schedule. The boss surely wouldn't want to feel guilty that he kept you from completing a degree.

College value can be difficult to calculate. A good campus environment can expose you to some wonderfully random, useful people and ideas found nowhere else. The Steve Jobs calligraphy story is a classic example> [http://www.leemunroe.com/steve-jobs- calligraphy/](http://www.leemunroe.com/steve-jobs-calligraphy/)

</comment><comment><USER14> If you want to learn more about computer science, you can also study on your own. I disliked college because the major I chose just got me lost and in the end, I ended up learning programming just by doing it.

Like this other guy says, financially it just does not make any sense. You could also end up with really bad professors who teach you squat whereas you could just pick up a high-quality textbook.

<comment><USER15> You chose the major and then didn't succeed with it. What does that have to do with college? College is not a guarantee for success and if someone told you otherwise and you believed them then I have a nice bridge to sell you. College is a path like any other. You have to walk that path and make the most of the journey.

That said, there was an article on HN a few months ago showing a strong correlation between having a college degree and earning more over a lifetime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I kind of like this irresponsible advice: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yafAqdtEofY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yafAqdtEofY)

You don't know what to do, and most people here don't, and the best we can do is speculate one way or the other - but so can you!.

Gas is cheap, and terrorism and the middle-east problems are back with a vengeance, but things are cyclical so that means gas will be expensive again? And your easy come easy go job will really be gone (based on the cycle I guess) when shit hits the fan? Maybe not? Maybe the world has improved, and we won't throw out decent people who have work experience, but maybe things will get so rough that we'll have to stamp a "no-degree" tattoo on your for-head when the time comes.

This is a complicated question, I see why you asked it.

</comment><comment><USER17> It depends. Can you go to a prestigious institution without going into massive debt? Then do it, very few exceptions: [https://medium.com/@opirmusic/why- software-developers-should...](https://medium.com/@opirmusic/why-software- developers-should-still-choose-to-go-to-university-if-someone-else-is- paying-45091d22acc1?source=your-stories)

If you have to go into a good amount of debt or the institution is not particularly prestigious, and you already have plenty of skill/experience/connections, I'd spend time considering what exactly you expect to get out of it.

</comment><comment><USER18> Absolutely. As long as you go and study something you don't already know. A competent programmer who is also a domain expert in some field will always be in a better position than someone who is just a competent programmer.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you can always find a job and have side projects to fall back on, I don't see the point. However, if you imagine yourself taking a shot at climbing the corporate ladder at a huge company, a degree is absolutely essential.

I also have a side project that would be able to support me, but I do attend college. In my opinion, having that piece of paper (provided you don't go into massive debt for it) is much better than not having it.

</comment><comment><USER20> College will open your mind. It will expose you to areas of programming other than the typical industry job. It will provide you a holistic treatment of topics that you would only pick up piecemeal in the industry. The contextual knowledge you gain will enable you to pick up things quicker and have an overall richer understanding of how things work.

</comment><comment><USER21> Yes.

Besides programming, you can learn more things in the college, such as physics, arts, maths, finance, social skills, etc. Though they may not bring you money immediately like programming, you will benefit from them. And you can meet many people from other states and countries.

College is one of the happiest periods of my life (though I was very poor).

</comment><comment><USER22> If you already love programming then go learn electronics and hardware design.

</comment><comment><USER23> Yes. Unless you are a savant you won't get hired without a degree. If you are really 'getting offers at mid-high sized startups and a few "mainstream" companies' then you might just be one.

<comment><USER24> I don't know long-division and I make six figures. Don't believe the hype.

<comment><USER23> More like: don't believe the hype on this website that is stuck in a Silicon Valley and Venture Capitalist mindset.</comment></comment></comment>


Watch This Freaky Gyro Cube Balance Perfectly, Defying Gravity - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/design/2013/12/balancing-cube/ <comment><USER2> For those who are interested, there are many sources for this story (and related), giving different levels of detail, and making different claims. You can see some of them here, although there are no comments on any of them:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6949089](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6949089) (phys.org)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6946928](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6946928) (youtube.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6946485](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6946485) (youtube.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6946366](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6946366) (ethz.ch)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6945337](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6945337) (boingboing.net)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6943508](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6943508) (theverge.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6942360](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6942360) (robohub.org)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6942335](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6942335) (thetechblock.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6941890](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6941890) (digg.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6941104](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6941104) (youtube.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5285021](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5285021) (robohub.org)

This one is different, but clearly related. And it has comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6494517](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6494517) (kurzweilai.net)</comment>


Cartesian – generator for complex configurations - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sustrik/cartesian <comment><USER2> TLDR; you define test-case 'dimensions' (box arch, compiler, etc) and this will be expanded to a Cartesian product of test cases. You can then make specific exclusions by defining functions that return false on certain dimension combinations.

Alternatively (in python):

      dimensions = [boxes, compilers, testcases]

      def excl(box, compiler, testcase):
          """Test exclusions.
          """
          ## don't run loadtest when RAM is low
          if compiler == 'loadtest' and box.ram < 8:
              return True

          return False

      for c in itertools.product(*dimensions):
          if excl(*c):
              continue
          run_testcase_with_params(c)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, but with somwhat more convenient syntax:

        mutliplication_table = {
            x = alt(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10),
            y = alt(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10),
            get result() {return this.x * this.y}
        }

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> An alternative way to generate the final JSON from the input parts would be to use Jsonnet. [http://jsonnet.org/](http://jsonnet.org/). The benefits include support for using on the command line or from multiple programming languages (although, I guess not pure JS) as well as supporting more diverse generator functions than just the Cartesian product.

The `is()` function, or other system info, could be injected via Jsonnet's external variable feature.

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting project. I wonder what is the relation to approaches that allow explicit composition of enumerators, such as [1]? It seems that this approach could provide a nice interface for generators that need to be constructed explicitly. (This would be interesting to explore. By the way, I am the developer of the SciFe enumerator framework.)

[1] [https://github.com/kaptoxic/SciFe](https://github.com/kaptoxic/SciFe)</comment>


DuckDuckGo Traffic Is All-Time High (James Damore Effect?) - <AUTHOR> https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html <comment><USER2> I figured that their traffic was increasing because load times for searches has slowed tremendously for me personally. I have no clue if this has anything to do with a manifesto or its writer or simply just awareness.

Competition is good so I am glad they are seeing increases in their traffic even if the load times are a bit slower.</comment>