The Best Article Ever Written About Bragging - <AUTHOR> https://www.lesspenguiny.com/articles/best-article-on-bragging <comment><USER3> I really dont like bragging, but I've noticed in groups where no one is bragging or talking about themselves its really boring.

I have a bunch of really smart friends who do really interesting things and when we meet up its like what are you up to? Nothing much. Nothing interesting. Later you find out that they just visited Mongolia, another is learning Russian and the other built renewable power system for a holiday house they just bought, but they're too worried about bragging to bring it up. (exaggerated) Meanwhile I (and I'm guessing they) dont like social status but kinda disappointed they don't get loved much.

Meanwhile I have other asshole friends who talk about the new expensive kitchen he got installed and its actually nice to hate on him and have a decent conversation about it.

So I'm starting to rethink my views on bragging. Maybe its a good thing.

<comment><USER4> I'm surprised the author quoted Why Nerds are Unpopular and didn't cite what I feel like is the most relevant part:

 _When there is some real external test of skill, it isn 't painful to be at the bottom of the hierarchy. A rookie on a football team doesn't resent the skill of the veteran; he hopes to be like him one day and is happy to have the chance to learn from him. The veteran may in turn feel a sense of noblesse oblige. And most importantly, their status depends on how well they do against opponents, not on whether they can push the other down._

It is nice to be in a group where people can do praise-worthy things and be praised for them. And, as the conclusion addresses, it is nice to give praise when due. This norm can be eroded by braggers. But it can also be eroded by people taking any mention of an accomplishment as a slight.

For example, the Oxford anecdote seems like the author going out of his way to feel slighted and assume malice. The excited salesperson anecdote is similar. Do others have a duty to mask excitement out of worry that it could be interpreted as bragging?

One of the best habits I have adopted is muttering "good on them" and moving along when an emotion suspiciously similar to jealously starts bubbling up.

<comment><USER5> I disagree that the "external test of skill" is the direct cause of what makes it less painful to be at the bottom of the hierarchy. It's merely the membership in the group; to be an effective team camaraderie is important, so it will be pursued for its own goals, but there are other ways of camaraderie forming.

I (male) grew up in a neighborhood with several boys my own age. I was the nerdy/awkward &c. one and so I was picked on when it was just that group. However, I was absolutely part of that group, and I saw the difference that made both with my other equally awkward peers that lacked such a group, and my sister, who was less awkward, but had it much rougher.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hi less_penguiny - _absolutely loved this article_.

Brilliant writing.

I'm also finding myself thinking a lot about social interactions, especially the dumb nonsense vast swathes of our populations carry out, and being currently in the middle of Desmond Morris "Human Zoo" (brilliant, slightly dated, but you'll love it if you're not familiar) your piece really struck a chord - particularly with "Bragging is personally imposing what-you-believe- to-be status-elevating thoughts on your audience". Status, tribes, dominance, all seem explain so much modern phenomena from a species which ought to know better.

In "About" you write "I was heartbroken by the tumbleweed response I got for my last writing project, so I don't intend to spin my wheels writing in vain again."

Please don't feel discouraged I get much the same on pretty much every submission I post here, so it's not you, per se! Writing is the easy and fun part, but like a startup I suspect promotion, networking, and all that play a big part. Being an established name makes a huge difference too - it all gets much harder if you don't have a large following.

Are you on Twitter? That can be good for exposure. Happy to follow and RT!

Best of luck!

<comment><USER7> Your assessment of the article prompted me to actually read it. Now I can't help but feel that your whole comment is one giant brag!

> Hi less_penguiny - absolutely loved this article. > Brilliant writing.

Bragging about your good taste.

> I'm also finding myself thinking a lot about social interactions, especially > the dumb nonsense vast swathes of our populations carry out, and being > currently in the middle of Desmond Morris "Human Zoo" (brilliant, slightly > dated, but you'll love it if you're not familiar) your piece really struck a > chord - particularly with "Bragging is personally imposing what-you-believe- > to-be status-elevating thoughts on your audience". Status, tribes, > dominance, all seem explain so much modern phenomena from a species which > ought to know better.

Also a brag: "I'm so much more aware than the rest of them average people". Followed by one-upmanship brag: book recommendation.

> In "About" you write "I was heartbroken by the tumbleweed response I got for > my last writing project, so I don't intend to spin my wheels writing in vain > again."

> Please don't feel discouraged I get much the same on pretty much every > submission I post here, so it's not you, per se! Writing is the easy and fun > part, but like a startup I suspect promotion, networking, and all that play > a big part. Being an established name makes a huge difference too - it all > gets much harder if you don't have a large following.

Another "I've been here long enough" brag.

<comment><USER6> Ha ha it wasn't intended that way but I can't argue with you right now, I need to clean the mess one of my horses just made beside my new Porsche. Honestly, servants can't get anything right these days...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The unfortunate reality is that if you don't sing your own praises, you will miss out on opportunities in life. Most people don't have the time to really pay attention to what you're doing (bosses, interviewers, dating interests, etc), so you have to make them aware - or you're just off in the corner being unseen.

<comment><USER9> Of course marketing on your own behalf is helpful, but I've found that the most successful people don't brag about their achievements. Instead, somehow they get _other_ people to talk about their merits within the organization.

<comment><USER10> Is this _before_ they became successful or _after_? Once we reach a certain level of success, it gets much easier to get other people to talk about us. But when we are just starting and unknown, who is gonna sing our praises (assuming we are good at something) other than our moms? :P

<comment><USER11> >But when we are just starting and unknown, who is gonna sing our praises

What I've noticed is just conversing empathetically with others a la How to Win Friends and Influence People and having technical discussion is enough for others to sing my praises, from my time as intern through middle-manager. Basically, be interested in others over yourself. For more on the nuance of "interested" I'd suggest the above book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's almost as if we're a bunch of barely evolved primates jockeying over money, power and status for a limited pool of breeding partners and resources. _Of course_ I realized _long_ ago that I'm above such petty concerns.

<comment><USER13> Very good subtle bragging, I applaud you sir.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The statement is missing two words: "other people's". Insert between 'hates' and 'bragging', and the question after the comma obviously isn't needed anymore.

<comment><USER15> I understood the title more as, "since we all know other people's bragging is insufferable and does little to convince us of the bragger's supposedly higher status, why do we continue to brag ourselves as if we believe it will have the intended effect on others?"

The answer, and the article gets at this in the last section, is a variety of anxious human emotional impulses. I guess we knew that, but the way the article teased it apart was interesting for me anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I enjoyed the article very much, but I question the premise of building a framework around bragging that sets it apart from normal conversation. I preferred the ending where we had the opportunity to understand how the lines between bragging and information sharing break down, and that riding that line can be a positive experience for both parties. I especially loved the end where we realize that our reaction to bragging can offset the impact on ourselves and bring joy to others simultaneously.

</comment><comment><USER17> Very fun read. Though by focusing (with great humor and nuance) on the "Others" and their faults, it perhaps misses an important question (imo) namely, why does other people's bragging affect _me_ negatively? Why do I not feel genuinely happy for other people's accomplishments, or just joyfully notice their childlike attempts at feeling better about themselves through social approval? God knows none of Their motivations are foreign to me ...

</comment><comment><USER18> This made me smile: _I claimed that I was both a Haskell and Lisp programmer, a statement that you can roughly translate into non-programmer talk as "I only listen to My Bloody Valentine shoe-gaze and Radiohead B-sides played in reverse"._

</comment><comment><USER19> @less_penguiny: Very nice article, as others have said. It seems like you really nailed a lot of subtleties.

Your article hinted at a problem we all face: sometimes we're left _guessing_ whether or not the other person is intentionally bragging. I.e., there's a problem of ambiguity.

I'd like to suggest a follow-up article: suggestions for how to communicate certain ideas in a way that minimizes the risk of being interpreted as bragging. Or maybe better, minimizes the risk of making the audience feel bad because of the same underlying psychological issues (insecurity, envy, etc.) that get tickled by bragging.

For example, another comment in this discussion [0] points out how someone trying to praise you could be (mis?)understood as actually bragging. It would be awesome to post a catalog of ways people can avoid this kind of ambiguity.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18148282](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18148282)

<comment><AUTHOR> cheers :D

So the intention of the article was partially to do exactly this, but I didn't want the tone to be too heavy-handed or self-helpy so I relegated this information to being between the lines. If you take a look at the number of penguins I gave each technique, that roughly correlates to how positively I view each bragging technique. As the website name suggests, the less penguins the better!

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I love this article. Unfortunately, looking back at conversations I had with people this summer, most of the talks I had _very_ easily fit into these categories.

If one can easily categorize bragging techniques in these buckets, it begs the question: how can a person who is genuinely interested in making a conversation interact with people who brag? A lot of people brag. If that makes you feel bad, do you just give up on them and move on? Is there some way to use these bragging forces to a positive effect?

I'm genuinely asking. I'm constantly craving good connections with people, you don't meet a lot of people who are able to talk about themselves and inspire you without looking like they are bragging and get you annoyed. (Any answer will not fit under the "Beneficence Brag" category since I'm explicitly asking for help :))

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't have a general solution but perhaps a few ideas:

One is to lower your threshold for what you count as being bragging — sometimes people are just sharing and they don't mean any harm. And sometimes they just really need validation. But then again, despite their benign intentions, hearing their status might sting, especially if things aren't going your way lately.

Another option is to poke fun at them, assuming you are on joking terms yadayada. E.g. I caught myself bragging about the achievements of my previous business partner at a party last weekend and the room was having none of it. As soon as I finished my sentence, they erupted into "woopdey doo" or (impersonating me) "I don't mean to brag or anything!!"

So there's that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Took me a while to figure out why the title was so blunt.

<comment><USER22> It checks out. My face hurts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see what I call "deal bragging" (which is very common I believe and that particularly irks me).

Basically everyone (but me) manages to get things (or work done) for much less than their common market value is or however much less than what I can get it at.

Be it a car, a pair of trousers or a phone, or the renovation works of his/her bathroom, the "deal bragger" tells you that he/she found (through his/her network or friends, or internet, or whatever other means) a supplier that sold the item to him/her at an unrealistically discounted price or - say - <USER2> plumber that did the work for a fraction of what is normal for that kind of work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, this is definitely a thing. Very modern too.

Indeed I had a whole section on _what_ people brag about (deals being one of them, as well as "potential" or being c-r-a-z-y). I plan on releasing this stuff soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Absolutely love this article! This one especially popped out at me

> IV Brag Gags: Avoiding Bragging At All Costs

I've met too many people that say they "go to school near Boston" or "work in Mountain View". I don't think it's the intention, but more than the "status anxiety" part sometimes it feels like the other party seems like the listener isn't "worthy" of knowing, or at least _should_ know from the implication if they were.

<comment><USER25> Well, I'm guilty of that, but it's because I don't assume people actually know the specific company I work at, or the university I went to. Even if the latter is generally deemed "prestigious", in the end, only a small set of people know it, so it's a generally useless precision.

Admittedly, if you work for a let's say a GAFA, you can probably safely assume people know the name. But for let's say MIT, I'd very curious to know which percentage of the us population actually know the name and attach it to academic excellence.

<comment><USER24> > I don't assume people actually know the specific company I work at, or the > university I went to.

When I started interning out of state I thought this as well, but then people thought I was just obfuscating going to Duke or UNC (when in reality my actual school was a few tiers lower). In most circumstances where this sort of thing would come up, I would imagine even the general public would understand the weight MIT has - hell, Tony Stark went there!

(Also, what's GAFA? Google, Apple, Facebook, Airbnb?)

<comment><USER25> Haha, I don't know either Duke or UNC ! (but I'm french, so there's that I suppose...)

Around there, GAFA is what you said except it's Amazon and not AirBnb

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Another reason to brag is to quickly establish credibility/confidence in noisy markets. You want to quickly establish yourself as a peer or credible individual so that you can get down to business without wasting time feeling each other out. If you're a VC it's much better to get an email with team credentials. Similarly if you're a VC that wants to get into a deal you might say who you invested in and who you coinvest with.

</comment><comment><USER19> This article reminds me of a phenomenon I sometimes see on LinkedIn streams: people who post about their own accomplishments, and use the headline "Humbled to/by ..."

As a contrived example: "Humbled to be named to SomeRandomMagazine's Top 30 under 30 list".

My first thought when seeing such as headline is, like heck that person is humbled. I can't think of any _honest_ reason to post a story about one's own humiliation on a website focused on self-promotion such as LinkedIn.

And, perhaps I'm over-reaching here, but... Based on my assumption that such posts are disingenuous, I hold this against whoever posts it. Not only because it's (AFAICT) dishonest, but because it diminishes the avenues available for persons who which to show genuine contrition as a first step towards righting a wrong.

<comment> Digit-Al Humble and humiliation are completely different. I think the word you are after is humility.

Just trying to help - not attempting to brag that I'm better than you in any way :-)

<comment><USER19> You're right of course. It was a mistake for me to use the word "humiliation" in that way, especially where it would cause such confusion.

Here's my main point, reworded:

Being "humbled" is basically the opposite of being "exalted" [0]. But posting on LinkedIn a story about being recognized as awesome by some third party is absolutely a form of exaltation.

And IMO it's a particularly revolting form of exaltation: it's _self_ exaltation using the verbiage of self-effacement.

[0] [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/humble](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/humble)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> On further exploration of this topic, I'm also noticing that maybe I could put a certain spin on this blog post by the following logic. The age we're living in we're seeing a lot of boundaries become far less rigid. Class and social distinction being a few of those boundaries.

I'm not sure if this was the intention of the author, but I'd prefer to look at this maybe as a "guide book" for etiquette in this regard. Regardless of a speaker's intention it's also perception that is at play here. If braggarts are more aware of the audiences they are with, and audiences are less sensitive to these things that separate us in our life experiences, on both ends of the spectrum this has the potential to "move the needle" to a more comfortable place for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER28> I can't believe this guy wrote this whole essay just so he can brag about having an athletic girlfriend.

<comment><AUTHOR> Caught me red-handed :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Elsewhere on Hacker News: [http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181004-why-pride- evolved-a...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181004-why-pride-evolved-and- its-benefits-versus-modesty)

</comment><comment><USER30> I am proud to say I have never bragged in my life.

:)

<comment><USER31> > I am proud to say I have never bragged in my life.

How is that figure of speech called in English?

<comment><USER6> You might call it "tongue in cheek" in the UK, a statement made with no pretense that it's true, with a gently humorous intent.

<comment><USER5> If anyone is wondering, "tongue-in-cheek" is also a term used in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Do people really brag about their salary? I've always found that announcing my income will provoke jealousy and the expectation that I'll "invite" people to more things.

Perhaps it's also tinged with a little bit of inner guilt that I should be doing more for people that are less fortunate.

But I've always had a policy of "that's between me and my accountant (though my accountant recently has been those cheap online tax filing websites)." For example if a recruiter tries to ask me how much money I make. I have shared with my mother and my uncle also.

What are some HN commenters' attitudes or policies towards this and how is it working for you?

<comment><AUTHOR> Depends on where you live. I've been both in the US and in Europe, and I heard it much more often in the states. In fact, it led to some ugly evenings, e.g. if someone finds out someone else is getting paid way more for basically the same job.

I also noticed that freelance stuff gets bragged about more often — how big their last contract was closed for, or what daily rate they got from a client.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think sure there is bragging in the world, but in my experience I have come to learn that most of it is in the head of the person judging you, or you judging the other person's intention. I'd say probably 90% of what people think is bragging is more likely simply misunderstanding or a difference in one's perception and / or misreading context of either party. Or even each party's difference in upbringing / understanding of or attention toward certain styles of etiquette.

The other 10% is probably legitimately what I would call bragging, none of which really tends to get under my skin.

</comment><comment><USER33> Enjoyed the article and was surprised by how exhaustive the brag type list is. It really activated my restrospection. The pictures I could have done without, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the compliment!

The idea behind the pictures isn't so much about them being useful (they mostly aren't — I'm well aware of that). Instead it's about breaking up the wall of text and adding visual variety so as to prevent reader fatigue.

It's a tip I picked up from reading the Star Slate Codex piece on writing: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/20/writing- advice/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/20/writing-advice/)

Also: HN readers != average internet readers

<comment><USER34> Some counter-anecdata, I was rather amused by the images.

Congrats with your fascinating article, really enjoyed it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Haha, how many penguins for the title? What category would this classify? As I'm sure it's the author playing a joke

<comment><AUTHOR> ~4 penguins :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> In my view there is a certain amount of bragging that is warranted. And that amount depends on the person: his/her "utility" to the people that take the bragging, his/her "objective greatness", his/her willingness to take your own bragging with awe, etc.

Terms quoted as they shouldn't be taken in literal meaning.

</comment><comment><USER36> I read the entire article to my girlfriend earlier. Yes, she can read, she just prefers to listen to the sound of my own voice #blessed. Just wanted to say a big thank you! It prompted a lengthy discussion that went on till late. Would love to read some more of the potential articles you're thinking about writing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh wow that's great! Did you two come up with any ideas or personal epiphanies about bragging and status?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> excellent read. My brother in law has been extremely successful with real estate from his single apartment beginnings, nowadays when we meet and I ask him "how are you" he replies "I'm blessed".

dude I know you have a lot of money, I just wanted to know if you were sick or something. smh

</comment><comment><USER38> this is a fantastic read. i thought i was a connoisseur of bragging but this is next level. also a little painful- it may expose your own bragging to you. to the author: truly enjoyed this, thank you and keep writing!

</comment><comment><USER39> In my culture people are, if anything, too humble about their achievements.

<comment><USER40> But there are other people who point about others achievement, everyone still feels same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I noticed author did fantastic job on bragging about his writing skills!

</comment><comment><USER42> Why does everyone ask questions they know the answer to?

<comment><USER43> Hey, some of us truly clueless people have no idea. Like I'd been searching for years for an article to explain to me why people get emotional, as there seemed to be no utility for it to me. Finally someone posted a couple to HN that finally explained to me, and I appreciated it.

Take it from a socially clueless person, some of us don't know the answers to these questions. :)

<comment><USER44> > I'd been searching for years for an article to explain to me why people get > emotional, as there seemed to be no utility for it to me. Finally someone > posted a couple to HN that finally explained to me, and I appreciated it.

That sounds interesting, would you have the links handy? :)

<comment><USER43> Articles listed in order of what I felt was most educational, useful, and enlightening, with most educational at the top:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17493303](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17493303)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15356760](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15356760)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12885356](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12885356)

edit: Interesting, the most useful article for me is also the newest. I guess I'd been dissatisfied with articles I found for a long time. :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What the FOOP? Functional OOP in newLisp - <AUTHOR> http://www.neglook.com/movies/what-the-foop-H264.mov

<comment><USER2> Everything I see in newLISP seems to be just writing Python/Rube in a LISP syntax, whereas something like, say, Clojure seems more interesting and idiomatic to LISPs

<comment><USER3> You can check my blog. There is a lot of code=data manipulation there. For example, this one:

[http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com/2009/12/symbols-as- sexpr...](http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com/2009/12/symbols-as-sexprs.html)

This post describes implementation of hygienic (even recursive hygienic) fexprs in Newlisp.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Errr.. As noted in the end of the video, the F used to stand for "functional", but FOOP recently gained mutability, so now it's more a historical misnomer. It can stand for whatever you want. :-p</comment>


How young does a startup founder have to be? - <AUTHOR>

What do you think? <comment><AUTHOR> sorry about the duplicate posts, my HN client was acting up!</comment>


Simultaneous cat and external keyboard input causing kernel panic - <AUTHOR> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/3/110

<comment><USER2> _The similar but black input weight was not in use._

What is it with people's refusal to do proper split testing?</comment>


Microsoft's Resurgence to Prominence - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsofts_resurgence_to_prominence.php <comment><USER2> Microsoft is starting at 0 market share on pad devices, and expects to dominate android?

they are only #3 in search with ~10% market share. Ever heard of microsoft money or microsoft office accounting? Both dead and never out competed intuit's quickbooks/quicken products. Microsoft had 16% of the smartphone market at their heyday... now 4%. Microsoft does not win them all. And yeah, they've done the phone partnership before... never dominating.</comment>


When a startup you love becomes your customer - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bugsense.com/post/7761865298/grooveshark-uses-bugsense

<comment><USER2> We've been fortunate to have a bunch of startups we love and respect try us out, and most have become our customers.

When I see them on our signup dashboard, I typically reach out to them individually, telling them that we use their service/love their restaurant/whatever, and offer to personally ensure they have a great experience. Our product is one that many try, but few "buy" even though it's free and almost always a good financial decision.

These personal emails have been very useful, in getting feedback about our service, helping convert customers, and creating relationships with other companies we love.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely correct. When a new user subscribes we get an email and check who he is on Rapportive and get back to him via personal email. We have established some great contacts this way.</comment></comment>


Survey: Please help us by taking this quick survey - <AUTHOR> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=p5YXLx6XJQGvKDzh6WsGDg_3d_3d

<comment><USER2> People have cell phone insurance? Now there's a market I would have never thought existed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Think about how many of your friends have lost or broken a phone. Many companies that give out blackberries to staff have phone insurance on each phone to ensure productivity will stay at optimum levels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You forgot to ask if I even have a [cell] phone, because I don't.

I do have a pda though, and I would hate to loose that.

And rename the title of this submission to something about phones and loosing them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the advice and input. I'll repost in 1 hour with a changed name. Does "Survey: Phone Loss & Misplacement" sound good?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The willingness to pay questions should probably have a $0 - $30 option. You might get biased responses from people who would use it, but not pay much for it.

<comment><USER5> agreed.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will add that option. Thank you for the input! Any other criticism/thoughts on the survey?</comment></comment></comment>


Map of Britain Based on Telephone Calls - <AUTHOR> http://www.mcwetboy.net/maproom/2010/12/map_of_britain.php <comment><USER2> Story previously submitted:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1988110> \- 4 days ago

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2001426> \- 1 day ago

Also, from <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

      > Please submit the original source. If a blog post
      > reports on something they found on another site,
      > submit the latter.

Here's the original:

[http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0014248)

</comment><comment><USER3> Blogspam. Original article: [http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0014248)</comment>


Only You Can Stop the Expanse from Becoming the Next Canceled Sci-Fi Classic - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2017/03/geeks-guide-the-expanse-2/?mbid=social_fb <comment><USER2> I _love_ the books, devour them as soon as they come out, and I think the show has done a fine job adapting the story.

I'm happy that the show has survived the weakest part of the book series - Detective Miller - and gotten past the admitted cribbing from Firefly without looking derivative. The show has truly gotten stronger from every episode.

One change I would make is to subtitle the Belter dialogue. It's such a fun part of the books which in translation to an audio track ends up getting lost as a word-mash.

HOWEVER! As far as whether the show will survive: The show either needs more cash, or to allocate that cash in a more narrow, strategic, and modest way. It suffers the problem endemic to all under-budgeted TV sci-fi: the low budget always visibly bleeds in at the edges. "Yeah, that actor's really not the best fit for that part, and we could have made the plot easier to grasp with an additional scene, but with the money we save, we can afford some CGI for the rail gun!" Maybe it's just me, but I would rather watch an excellently executed sci-fi drama on an obviously artificial Dogville-like set than watch an "OK" space opera that has a nominally realistic looking space-ship brig which I won't remember anyway.

(Not to diss The Expanse's actors! - the majority are quite good, subtle, and growing on me with each episode.)

Action and special effects together are the number one self-defeating conceit of all sci-fi, especially television sci-fi. In order to please the action- craving audience (I guess?), they starve the heart and soul of the show: focusing on characters. What I love about Star Trek: TNG, one of my favorite shows of all time, is that in the Riker's Beard Era, it focused on the truth and depth of the characters through and through. That focus allows the audience to overlook the latent camp of the setting, and forgive the sometimes poor execution. As a result, TNG is still watchable today.

Special effects age. Characters are immortal.

<comment><USER3> Funny - I felt that Miller was the most interesting part of the first season. Mostly everybody else seemed to just be 2D cliche templates (Amos continues to fulfil the 'Space Gorilla' cliche so hard it hurts), and I consider most of the acting for the main characters rather forgettable. At least Miller had a narrative and a motivation, rather than just being tumbled round by whatever was happening at the time.

I started reading the books and it seems like a lot of subtleties got thrown out - there's an awful lot of "Drama" injected into the series by having the characters make stupid decisions/hiding irrelevant information just so that it can be 'discovered' or reversed later,

I also get the feeling that they stopped bothering to remember the setting was mostly supposed to be "Hard" Scifi, outside of specific references to the books, but that's a pretty specific complaint.

<comment><USER4> I don't know. I would watch Shohreh Aghdashloo read the phone book. She's a very compelling actress.

<comment><USER3> She is - but not somebody I'd classify as a main character, especially this second season. She's turned up, what, twice?

<comment><USER5> Right? And she's not in the plot of the first book AT ALL so all of her characterization is completely irrelevant until Ganymede.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It is strange that the Netflix deal has them waiting until all of season 2 has been aired.

So lots of people internationally who would watch it on Netflix will be pirating it.

<comment><USER7> > So lots of people internationally who would watch it on Netflix will be > pirating it.

Unfortunately that's what I have to resort to at the moment. I'm in Australia, and The Expanse is a marvellous series. I watched the first episode of the first series on Netflix when I couldn't find anything else to watch - I then binge-watched the entire first series at that point.

Now that the second series is out, I am back to good ol' pirating each episode as they air in the United States, as there is no other way to obtain it. And because of this, Netflix will unfortunately miss out on me binge watching the second series on their platform and won't get the viewership / statistics for it because I would've already seen it.

Why can they not do what they're doing for The Last Kingdom, another show I discovered on Netflix and subsequently love, and air the episodes in a weekly fashion as soon as they air in the producers domestic market?

Oh well, their loss. And likely ours when the series will inevitably get cancelled due to "lack of viewership" :-(

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Love the show. And I DO pay for it....with my Dish Network subscription that includes SyFy channel. Asking people to pay for it twice is a little ridiculous.

<comment><USER9> The real trouble is that metricslike this suck. They don't really have feedback on who is watching. They could monitor chatter on social media (someone must do that, right?) But they don't have much to help predict whether the show is an instant classic or not

The article even mentions that studios give no indication for what they're looking at to see if the show is successful, ie we don't even know if buying it on iTunes or Amazon or Google will make a difference

<comment><USER10> The metrics may suck, But finances are tied to it. So it doesn't matter if the ratings are accurate or not, when the funding derives from them. It is a measurement problem. Fix it, and then you can have further discussions. Until then, you can talk about quality and classics until you are blue in the face, but that isn't what drives the funding.

That is why people are talking about paying for it directly as an alternative -- because what needs to change is the funding model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't think the kind of stuff that would make the show more popular (forced relationships, character angst, etc) is the kind of stuff I want to see it in. So, personally, I'd rather they stick to their guns and deliver the best 3 seasons of sci-fi TV ever, filled with military, politics, physics, and characters that are fumbling their way in a universe much bigger than them.

<comment><USER12> > I don't think the kind of stuff that would make the show more popular > (forced relationships, character angst, etc) is the kind of stuff I want to > see it in.

This is what ruined halt and catch fire for me, way too much sex and personal dram forced in. Does it ever help them get the demographic they're chasing? If people wanted light erotic I can imagine some better backdrops than the creation of the 486.

<comment><USER13> Off topic but Halt and Catch Fire season three was my favorite yet. There is some drama that the characters mostly bring on themselves (Can and Joe) but after watching some episodes of the show Suits (Scandal has the same issue) the drama in Halt and Catch Fire is barely noticeable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've been interested in this show for a while, but don't have any TV. Looked at it on Google Play [1] and some of the episodes say "season only" where the price goes. What does that mean? I have to buy the full season to see them? Why on earth would they do that? I'd really like a way to pay $2 for each of the first episodes and then to shell out the remaining price for the whole season if I like it.

[1] [https://play.google.com/store/tv/show/The_Expanse?id=qSBdK4f...](https://play.google.com/store/tv/show/The_Expanse?id=qSBdK4fbIYc&cdid=tvseason- ypOyuMxuuAGqjDLaC9vsXg)

<comment><USER15> The "Season Only" Episodes are, in this case, behind the scenes type things. You can buy 1 by 1 without issue, I've been doing the same. The other nice thing (I think it's new) is that Google Play will deduct the price of episodes you've purchased individually from the season price if you do decide you want the whole thing later.

<comment><USER14> Fantastic, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was very interested in this show, and gave Season 1 a try via Amazon streaming. Unfortunately I found it to be too dry and plodding to sustain my interest. The characters were underwritten, and the storylines the show wanted to put front and center were its least engaging, which is just fatal.

Maybe it got better in Season 2, I dunno; I wasn't interested enough to find out. And I haven't read the books, so I can't say if the problems stemmed from the adaptation or from the source material. But I'm the kind of person who _should_ be in the core audience for a show like this, so it doesn't surprise me to hear it's having ratings problems.

<comment><USER17> What scifi TV shows do you watch? Sometimes I see people provide an opinion on a show - but I have no idea if we share the same tastes. It's hard to determine who to listen to if I have no idea what the rater actually enjoys.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Didn't it already get renewed for another season, whats the point of this article?

<comment><USER19> Yes, the third season. Speculation is that the current ratings are diving, thus the fourth season is unlikely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Have we had a fan-funded TV show yet? I know boardgames sometimes get crowd- funded on Kickstarter or similar sites. Video games, too.

<comment><USER21> [https://www.kickstarter.com/discover/categories/film%20&%20v...](https://www.kickstarter.com/discover/categories/film%20&%20video?sort=most_funded)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The first season was absolutely stellar. I thought it was actually shaping up to be better than BSG and others.

And then, S2 started off bad, and midway through, completely jumped the shark. Without going into spoilers, they contrive a really, really awful bit of "romance", and place it squat in the middle of everything. Really too bad.

</comment><comment><USER23> Well the only way I can watch is via Netflix. I'm region locked out. I'd happily buy a box set, but I can't find it for sale in NZ. I can't buy over Amazon or Itunes, because I'm in NZ. Netflix will let me watch season 1 and that's it.

So maybe more would watch this show if they could?

<comment><USER24> In NZ it's on Sky as part of the basic package - season 2 is playing now as it's released in the US

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I have bought seasons 1 and 2 on Google Play TV, and I have really enjoyed it so far. I bought season 1 because a friend I met at Google's son, who I met once, did the Belter language for the show. I will buy season 3 if it is released.

<comment><USER26> Season 3 is supposedly confirmed. It's Season 4 that's in question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Every episode of this series is one of the best sci-fi movies I've ever seen. If they expanded (P.I.) every episode to 120 minutes I'd pay $20 each to go watch them in theaters.

</comment><comment><USER28> Why America can't have good TV -- the whole system is designed around maximizing viewers, but by definition they mostly consist of lower "casts".

But hey. No worries. More Sharknado is on the way!</comment>


Elon Musk Says Boring Company Will Offer Free Rides to the Public This Year - <AUTHOR> https://www.inverse.com/article/44750-boring-company-tunnel-video-shared-by-elon-musk <comment><USER2> I've always been curious about this and digging rights. How far down do you have to dig before you do not require the permission of a city to go under them?</comment>


Ask HN: How exactly do you get a job interview? - <AUTHOR>

I've been sending my resume to websites and recruiters all day long.  The recruiters will call back but always mention how unqualified I am.  The company jobs websites never call back.
I hear rumors of "Fizz Buzz" questions but never been asked because nobody really calls me back.  I also hear rumors about how there are so many unqualified candidates there are out there and judging from what the recruiters are saying, I probably am unqualified as well but I'm trying not to be unqualified but no matter how much I learn, it feels like I'm still unqualified from the responses I get.
What exactly does it take to become qualified to just get a job interview?  What do you need to do to become qualified for a job?  How do you go from being incompetent to competent? <comment><USER2> Can you share your resume? (and maybe change sensitive data with fake one). Only then will we be able to provide you with a useful reply as to why you're not getting interviews despite applying to multiple companies.

</comment><comment><USER3> Each particular job has its specific keywords words they want to see in your resume. A senior position might make them look at how many people reported to you. A specific job may require technical know-how in a cutting edge project.I will suggest you refresh you resume to remove all cliche phrases and highlight your achievements, one sentence in the right spot may make all the difference.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm assuming you're applying to corporate, entry-level jobs?

Most corporations are still hesitant to hire candidates without a degree, so if you don't have a degree I'd shy away from applying to corporations the resume route.

If you do have a relevant degree and they are still saying you are unqualified, you are applying to the wrong positions.

</comment><comment><USER5> Send me your CV. I'll happily give you any advice I think might help. My info is in my profile.

</comment><comment><USER6> It is hard to make any judgement or give advice without some data...can you upload your resume to share? Maybe there is something that stands out?

</comment><comment><USER7> Networking and friend-of-friend is one of the clearest paths.

Next important factor is to have a LinkedIn profile with "Rails" in it

</comment><comment><USER8> Send me a CV.</comment>


Professional Starcraft Team releases documentary with pay-what-you-want model - <AUTHOR> http://www.teamliquidpro.com/liquidrising/ <comment><USER2> This is one of the reasons I love e-sports and the SC2 scene in general.

TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS $39,972.81 ESPORTS Heroes

2\. EvilGeniuses $666.00

For those that don't know...EvilGeniuses are a "rival" Pro SC2 team. It's awesome that they can support Liquid (and e-sports in general, I guess) like this.

<comment><USER3> A rising tide lifts all boats.

I really think all of the SC2 teams take that to heart.

<comment><USER2> Agreed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Maybe this is because I'm only a casual SC2 player, but it seems like there is a big flaw here- _what are we buying_?

Sure, it's a video. And it has something about Team Liquid.

...

???

<comment><USER5> Team Liquid is a rather popular professional gaming team, especially in Starcraft 2. I doubt anyone would end up on their website not knowing who they are (why would you go to teamliquid.com just for kicks?) so it's not that bad of a flaw.

<comment><USER6> Because you were referred to the site by a link on HN, for one.

<comment><USER7> The name of the post that referred you pretty much gives enough information to determine whether or not it will interest you enough to pay.

Even if it doesn't, you can bypass the login/donation and watch the documentary before you decide how much it is worth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've seen it and it's pretty good. I wish it had more of "following player X during a tournament day", but instead it's more based on interviews of all the members of the team. Still, worth the time and money (whatever you decide to pay for it).

</comment><comment><USER9> Slight OT:

I don't understand why Starcraft has such a big "Pro" scene compared to other RTS games, many of which are more sophisticated (e.g Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander).

Most of my experience playing Starcraft (the original) online was that the winner tended to be the one who could spam the most units out of the gate rather than any particular strategical cleverness.

<comment><USER10> I have played starcraft for ten years and reached a reasonable high level of skill. To be a good starcraft player, you need to be skilled in three broad areas

<comment>

\- Good mechanics and multitasking

This is your ability to have your units do what you want. You want unit X to go to place Y, you are quickly able to give that command, without taking up much of your attention. You're also able to simultaneously build units, advance your build at home, harass your opponent, reposition units, look at the minimap, and micromanage where necessary. Top players can have more than 5 actions per second average.

\- Good micromanagement and tactical skill

For example, your ability to spread your units to take less damage from area of effect spells, focus fire on the most important enemy targets to get them down faster, your ability to position your units for flanking, to keep a scouting unit alive while being chased, etc. Maximizing the effectiveness of individual units.

\- Good macromanagement and strategical skill

Your ability to advance your build at home correctly (what most effectively counters the opponent), to spend all your resources and not have it stack up in the bank, to choose the correct timings for expanding across the map or amassing an army, and to anticipate your army composition for what your opponent will do.

<comment>

If you expect to be playing a game of chess, you'll be far behind even in the first few minutes. Your opponent's scouting unit micromanages and interrupts your build without your being able to kill even the scouting unit, and while your concentration is on the harassing unit, your opponent, who can multitask, executes his build perfectly.

Without a base level of competence mechanically (which in starcraft is about 2 effective actions per second) you cannot even compete strategically.

All three of these areas impress viewers which makes for a very 'spectatable' game.

Good mechanics and multitasking are evident when, after you've watched a battle, you can see how many more units the top player has been able to produce - while he was simultaneously micromanaging his units in battle.

Micromanagement, at least in starcraft, is very fun to watch. You can see the small army outmanoeuvre the larger enemy by individual control of units - it's hard to explain why it is impressive in just words, but the joy of watching good micromanagement is a core feature of spectating starcraft games. Watch for example here, how the player's marines dodges the spines while he keeps shooting.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQtPMLOctBg>

Starcraft has a lot of 'soft counters' - units that counter other units but not completely. The focus on soft counters rather than hard counters gives players a lot of strategic freedom. Even if one player's units are countered, he can micromanage them and come out ahead. Or, for example, a player can take a risky early expansion to extra resources and rely on micromanagement of his few units to stay alive.

Finally, since the maps that people play on do change, it takes a while to find the optimal builds, so you do see a lot of really innovative strategic play that people love to watch. I really cannot give any examples on this without explaining many more details about the game. I am interested to hear why you think Total Annihilation would have more sophistication.

I must admit I haven't played many other games, but I have heard people complain that either the micromanagement or the multitasking aspect are not as much on the foreground in other games, and the combination of strategy + intense multitasking + micromanagement has kept starcraft exciting for both players and viewers.

<comment><USER9> Most of this could be applied to any strategy game (C&C etc), for example being able to build efficiently and Micromanage.

I would say that games like TA/Sup Com would seem more "strategical" since they tend to be bigger in the sense that they have bigger maps and bigger , more complex tech trees. You also have more options in terms of setting up queues and automated behaviours for units (patrolling,ferrying etc) which means that you don't have to worry about revisiting your base as often because you have already queued up everything you want built for the next 5-10 minutes. It also allows options such as going into a resource deficit to produce units you cannot afford (but will be built more slowly).

I suppose this could be said to reduce the importance of the "micromanagement" aspects of the game (although these can still be important) but I'm not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing in itself. Professional SC looks to me more like it is being played on the basis of quick reflexes and drilling build orders quickly in a sense closer to an action game where you control a lot of units rather than "strategy" as such, perhaps tactics is a better word.

To me it would seem that as technology advances strategy games should become less about micromanagement, since in a real war the General does not usually micromanage the actions of individual soldiers on the scale of "move left, now fire you gun" etc. Of course a general may make high level decisions such as how to train their soldiers which will affect how they behave in the field etc and this could be simulated with AI.

<comment><USER11> Dustin Browder, the lead developer of Starcraft 2 (and previous C&C titles) did a talk on designing a game for e-sports.

[http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014488/The-Game-Design-of- STAR...](http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014488/The-Game-Design-of-STARCRAFT)

One of the things he mentions about SC1, if I remember correctly is the limited number of units. If the possible composition of your army increases, more ways of using the army becomes available. This becomes a detriment because players spend more time exploring composition than actual strategy.

With regard to your point about automating behaviour, I think this is a more philosophical question. How much automation should an RTS have/allow? Given SC1's history as a mechanically intensive game, SC2 attempted to lower the basic skill level needed to reach a broader audience, but this demand is in constant struggle with the professional level of SC2.

On micromanagement, the SC2 community seems to regard this as the easiest way for an e-sports/SC2 newcomer to identify skill. Long-term strategies and the steps/timings that go into setting them up are fairly guarded secrets among professional players. While some can be particularly obvious, building a specific army at a specific time for a specific reason can be difficult to explain to a newcomer.

SC2 and SC1 certainly do not reflect a "real war," because experience seems to indicate an e-sports RTS requires elements that would not belong in a "real war." I think this is a philosophical decision and you might disagree with it. SC2 was an attempt to capture the popularity of SC1 for a broader audience, not just S. Korea. To do so, the developers attempted to incorporate the aspects that they thought would be most popular both to play and to watch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> this documentary seems rushed and too scripted, maybe it could have learned something from this short video of the broodware scene, in which players were interviewed before and after a major tournament.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D9NYaE0AH4>

</comment><comment><USER13> Direct link to the video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R2Ep6L5gIA>

It is edited a bit annoyingly but shows a nice view into the personalities of a esports "family of friends". Definitely recommended.

<comment><USER14> I'm a little disappointed there's no direct download (at least that I can see) for something they're asking money for. Could rip the youtube video I guess, but that's extra hassle and probably against the youtube TOS.

<comment><USER13> If you are on Linux <http://code.google.com/p/get-flash-videos/> is super easy and convenient.

I agree about your disappointment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wow, what a great way to waste your life.

<comment><USER16> One could take that perspective about most forms of entertainment.

<comment><USER15> Yes but entertainment per se is not bad - if you don't devote your life to it. Nothing against playing one or two rounds SC2 but becoming a "pro player" is so disgustingly wasteful. Imagine what you could create with all the time devoted to gaming instead.

<comment><USER17> would you say the same to football, hockey or soccer players?

<comment><USER15> Yes.

<comment><USER17> well then kudos to you for being consistent :)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Faster memory comparison in C - <AUTHOR> https://macosxfilerecovery.com/faster-memory-comparison-in-c/ <comment><USER2> the code is not exactly memcmp, because the sign of the result doesn't match the sign of memcmp. I verified this with my favorite open source C program prover, CBMC [http://www.cprover.org/cbmc/](http://www.cprover.org/cbmc/)

You can see that CBMC proves that (1) a zero result from mycmp guarantees a zero result from memcmp, and (2) a nonzero result from mycmp guarantees a nonzero result fro mycmp. But (3) a negative result from mycmp doesn't guarantee a negative result from memcmp and (4) a positive result doesn't guarantee a positive result.

So, modulo problems with "strict aliasing" in modern C standards, you _can_ use this code to compare blocks of memory for equality, but you _cannot_ use it to order blocks according to a less-than or greater-than predicate.

[https://gist.github.com/jepler/760cfcd4b326d6d11241256a6a4c7...](https://gist.github.com/jepler/760cfcd4b326d6d11241256a6a4c7a48)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that's true, because memcmp returns the sign based on the first byte, and this compares four bytes, on little endian architectures it may return the sign differently from the built-in memcmp(). That should be mentioned along with the caveats, that it's not a suitable drop-in replacement when people are not simply testing that the result is 0 (which I imagine to be the majority of cases).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> All of the difference comes from 1) inlining and 2) avoiding the alignment test. Once you adjust for that it's actually slower.

Regardless of alignment penalties, memcmp always needs to test for alignment so that it doesn't read past the end of a page, causing a segfault. This hack isn't appropriate for general purpose use; only where you know for sure an unaligned read won't overflow a page boundary.

<comment><AUTHOR> It checks that it wont overflow beforehand by making sure the length is >= 4 (and it's still faster).

And I'm not sure why you think inlining would result in the speed increase? I believe the compiler will inline it when the standard memcmp is used too.

<comment><USER3> You're right about the page overflow. Sorry.

Regarding inlining, using GCC 6.2 with "-O3 -march=native" on macOS I first had to remove "111111" and "222222" as constants, otherwise GCC precomputed both loops.

When I used __attribute__((noinline)) on mycmp, half of the difference went away. When I forced mycmp to check the alignment, mycmp became slower by almost a full second.

That was on a 2011 Mac Mini. Using a newer box with a Haswell chip (Xeon E3-1230 v3) and GCC 5.4.0 performance is about the same when preventing inlining and adding the alignment check, rather being slower. In both cases the assembly confirms that neither mycmp nor memcmp were inlined.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Hm, if the task is to identify a set of fixed headers at a variety of file offsets, what you really want is a rolling hash ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_hash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_hash)). Select a rolling hash of size N, no bigger than the smallest fixed header. At each step, update the rolling hash with the next byte seen. If it matches one of the known header hashes, branch to code to check if it actually is. Otherwise, continue to the next byte. As long as the rolling hash function isn't too low quality, and you can check if a hatch matches a known header, you can find all the headers in the block in O(F) time for an F-byte file, rather than O(F*P) time for an F-byte file and P patterns. That is, on average you inspect every byte of the file way fewer times with a rolling hash.

<comment><AUTHOR> It uses qsort and bsearch in practice

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A Study in Memcmp:

[http://www.picklingtools.com/study.pdf](http://www.picklingtools.com/study.pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. And also interestingly, they use the same method in their "fast_memeq" implementation:

if (* src1_as_int ++ != * src2_as_int ++) return 0; /* compare as ints */</comment></comment>


Launch HN: Together (YC S19) – App to facilitate employee-employee mentoring - <AUTHOR> We're Matt and Nathan, founders of Together (https://togetherplatform.com). We make an app that manages employee-employee mentoring programs, and that ultimately improves employee career development and company culture.
Matt and I met while we were working at the Boston Consulting Group, an unusual workplace that gets a number of things really right. They rank Top 5 on Glassdoor every year for best places to work. The best thing there is the culture of 'non-evaluative' mentoring. It was common to grab a coffee on a weekly basis with a senior colleague outside your team, talk through what strengths you want to develop, and that conversation would somehow eventually translate into a project together where you worked specifically on those areas. It's the reason why we felt our 'personal growth rate' really took off - someone was always aware of your goals.
That got us thinking about whether the experience could be replicable at other companies too, and that's why we started Together.
We learned that a lot of companies have tried to run mentoring programs but the experience for employees wasn't great. Examples: Someone picked your match for you, and it wasn't a good fit; your match left the company and no one on the HR team even knew; you had a few sessions but had no clue what to talk about / no sense of progress against any goals; as an HR person, you had no visibility into whether the program was working or not
Through Together, any employee can voluntarily sign up to be part of their company's mentoring program. You can sign up to be a mentor, mentee or both - we've even had VPs enjoy the experience as a mentee. Once you fill out your mentoring profile, the magic is in the learning experience that is personalized just for you:
As a mentee, you get a curated list of the top 5 people at your company who signed up and can help you reach your goals. You can be part of one or multiple programs at the same time that focus on different career checkpoints, such as "new manager" or "internship" tracks. With that comes special agendas and content to work through with your mentor/mentee You can track progress to your goals and look back through your personal session history with mentees/mentors - and if things aren't going as planned, an admin might even proactively reach out to you and see if they can tweak who you're working with
Many companies run mentoring programs today, but they largely fall flat. That's why companies like Disney Studios ask us to help them relaunch in a new and more impactful way.
What has been your mentoring experience at work? I'd love to hear about what worked and what didn't! What would you have liked to have? We'd love ideas for how an app like ours could support the mentoring experience for everyone involved. If you're interested in launching Together at your workplace, [let us know!](https://www.togetherplatform.com/join-list). <comment><USER2> I was genuinely interested in this but saw some issues in the pricing. The "starter" is for "up to 100 users" but then the "Organization Wide" plan is for 500 users and over. What happens in the gap between 101 and 499 users? Also, Office 365 integration is only available for companies with over 500 users, which makes it not really useful for me - I want (need) that integration, but would only have about 60 users. So, for those reasons, I had to pass. Everything else looked great, but there is a huge gap in features and pricing for small to mid-sized companies not yet at the 500 mark.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your honest feedback, really helpful. We provide the 365 integration for any size of customer, our pricing page just reflects what typical asks are at each size. For example, many large companies want to kick off a quick pilot of 1-200 people before rolling out, and don't want to bother their IT team.

We provide a tiered pricing on usage. If you change your mind, don't hesitate to reach out and we'll sort your plan out.

Sharing this feedback with the team for our site.

<comment><USER3> Maybe I'm misunderstanding your target customer. Are you only focused on enterprise?

The pricing comes across as something like "forced obsolescence." Forced handicapping? You might not have meant it that way but many of the features in the professional plan are useful for companies of any size. Like Google apps integration is a standard feature. I could see on-prem SSO (I think Oracle does things like this?) but my company deosn't get automatic calendar invites??

In agreement w/ the comment you're replying to, I wouldn't try this because the base features aren't useful enough and the pricing feels very customer- unfriendly.

<comment><USER4> +1

If good scheduling is necessary for a mentoring program to be successful (I'm guessing it is), then you shouldn't withhold the feature unless you intend to make lower paying customers less successful with the platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great idea! I've benefited and been a part of things like this at fb, and can vouch for how it can increase empowerment. Rooting for ya'll!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! What were the best parts of that program at facebook?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Are you doing anything different to [https://mentorloop.com/](https://mentorloop.com/) ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Great question! Generally, this is a new category of software, and there are really few companies and approaches are different. Some that I could call out: \- what workflow integrations are done (we try to be as professional-employee- friendly as possible with Outlook/GSuite integrations) \- pricing models \- UX design

Maybe a bit more color on the last one - there are tons of things you need to consider when dealing with relationships between professionals. How do you communicate unpairing people carefully? - just one example.

We strive every day to excel at this, and while I can't speak to exactly how other products work, that's what we differentiate on</comment></comment>


How Redux Can Make You a Better Developer - <AUTHOR> https://medium.cobeisfresh.com/how-redux-can-make-you-a-better-developer-30a094d5e3ec <comment><USER2> I know the article is about concepts applied in react/redux "combo" like high order functions and the like. But i wanted to ask, what is, apart from reproducible and loggeable in case of errors app states and components reuse, the key improvement point in terms of value of results (noticeable value for end users) from a good use of jqueryui, or knockoutjs?</comment>


Show HN: JSDB.io - A collection of the best JS libraries for front-end dev - <AUTHOR> http://jsdb.io/

<comment><AUTHOR> Any suggestions on how to improve this? I have plans for getting a more robust system of inter-linking similar libraries (i.e. jquery <-> mootools <-> zepto etc). Would love to hear what you guys think!

<comment><USER2> Impressive UI and use of github api, very nice work. Maybe have the readme show first instead of the comments box. It would make a nice UI for Components[1] or even npm.

1: <https://github.com/component/component/wiki/Components>

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea I'm definitely thinking of eventually expanding to node. Thanks for the suggestions and that link, looks interesting!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> FYI, was testing your submit form from an iPad and struggled to submit something because the validation is case-sensitive, so Https:// doesn't validate because of the uppercase H the iPad automatically uses.

<comment><AUTHOR> oh man—good catch! Ill fix that asap :)</comment></comment>


The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power - <AUTHOR> http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/crisis-middle-class-and-american-power <comment><USER2> > The expectation of rising real incomes was built into the American culture

Ah that's the classic propaganda line:

        "I am not poor, I am just pre-wealthy."

...So I sure don't want to vote for anything that would jeopardize my wealthy position when I get there.

The key in all of this is ability to manipulate the people into believing and voting in a particular way. US has no shortage of zombies who don't think on their won. Blame the education system, blame the system as a whole, I don' t know. As long as people don't base their votes on reality they will end up voting against their own good because they are being manipulated.

Basic health care, tax cuts for the super rich, trickle down wealth, futile wars, all this things are being delegated (via votes) from un-informed people to the politicians via a manipulative process. I see this within my own extended family, I see it on the streets, in the stores, in school and at work.

<comment><USER3> > US has no shortage of zombies who don't think on their won.

A human being is at the most juvenile when he encounters a view contrary to his own and ascribes it to stupidity.

If only everyone was as enlightened, as educated, as brilliant as he ... then everyone would understand.

No. Grow up.

I will never be wealthy and I will still continue to vote for a _fair_ tax system. A _flat_ tax system. Because everyone should pay the same, regardless of status or income.

I won't always be healthy and I will still continue to vote _against_ a socialist healthcare system. Because everyone should pay for what they use, no more and no less. Not just with healthcare, but with everything.

You don't believe what I believe? That's fine. But how dare you ascribe my beliefs to ignorance? That in itself, is ignorance distilled. The refusal to even consider anything but your own stunted views.

<comment><USER4> A flat tax? That's a bit too socialist for my tastes... should a man making $100k per year really be forced to pay twice as much as a man making $50k per year, just for being more productive? Wouldn't a head tax be better, since everyone would then pay equally? Plus you would not have the disincentive effect on marginal labor of your "make twice as much, pay twice as much" scheme.

Also, why should I be forced to pay for your military and your police force? Shouldn't it be my choice to consume what I want?

<comment><USER5> What if your paying the way for the other guy, who is 20 years your junior, allows him to better pay your medical bills when you get sick at age 70, and have no money to pay yourself (through no fault of your own you have lost a lot when X disaster occurred)? The swings and roundabout of the system aren't ever simple. Likewise, what about the 5 year old who needs state help, has contributed nothing, has had no chance to and has done nothing wrong. Who should pay if the parents don't?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would be interested to see more statistics and trends of people over time. Many of the statistics I see divide people into classes by income, but ignore the fact that the people within those classes change.

For instance, let's say that people in the next generation decide to go to college for 10 more years, leaving at 32 rather than 22. Then, when they get out, they make 50% more income than the previous generation. Overall, they might be better off throughout their life; but the statistics will make it look like there is a huge lower class (who are in fact just young and haven't reaped the benefits of their education yet).

The more our earning is concentrated to a small part of our lives, the more it will _look_ like class divisions. And depending on how the accounting is done, the upper classes may consist largely of people with temporarily high incomes (from inheritance, selling a house, etc.).

[None of the above is meant to imply that there is not a problem. Just that statistics can be deceptive, and can hide the real solutions from us.]

EDIT: Specifically, I think it would be interesting to divide people into classes like: "X% of people will see an income over $80K sometime during their lives". That seems like a better indicator of opportunity to me.

<comment><USER4> You see that same issue when people complain that X% of the population doesn't pay income taxes: it's true, as far as it goes, but it ignores that people nowadays have extended periods of studenthood, sabbaticals, and partial retirement (among other things). The daughter of two professors working on a PhD in mathematics is not of a lower class than a high school educated waitress, despite making a similar amount.

I dug up this paper, which seems like it might address it. Going to dig into it sometime after work: [http://economics.sas.upenn.edu/~manovski/papers/accounting_f...](http://economics.sas.upenn.edu/~manovski/papers/accounting_for_profiles.pdf)

<comment><USER6> Interesting, thank you (haven't read it yet, but the first page looks promising).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Decent basic points, but superficial and often missing the real underlying trends. For better analysis on the same general ideas, I recommend:

[http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/12/08/acting-dead-trading- up-...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/12/08/acting-dead-trading-up-and- leaving-the-middle-class/) [http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/06/08/a-brief- history-of-the-...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/06/08/a-brief-history-of- the-corporation-1600-to-2100/)

(ribbonfarm is my favorite blog)

<comment><USER8> Thank you for those links. Interesting analysis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article is a great explanation of what I've been thinking all along. The rising tide has been in efficiency and technology but every American is realizing these gains through computers, phones, and access to information. The baby boomers were able to get an education, buy a house, a car, have a kid and go on vacation, and all of those things have been squeezed to the breaking point in the past two generations. On the other hand, you can consume all you want on the internet, and with enough experience, cheat the system and download unlimited music, tv shows, movies, ebooks and software. If you want all the luxuries of the baby boomers, you have to be frugal and prioritize. Education: go to community college and transfer to a cheaper state school. Car: buy a cheap 90s honda. House: save for a down payment, but rent is still the same or cheaper than buying and you have flexibility to move. Kids: that may take more time.

<comment><USER10> You make it sound like a community college education and 90's Honda are bad things to have. They might not be as nice as your neighbor but it's certainly nicer than 100 years ago, no?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This sure fits an interesting middle ground sort of journalism. I don't think I'm quite qualified to describe it, anyone up to help?

For one, it tackles the same insecurity subject conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones approach. However, he keeps it in the realm of rationality. What is the "It"? The main subject seems to be a description of the position and orientation of classes in USA society, and how they're changing.

Now, why is this so different than what other publications publish? I've heard before that Class in America is a touchy subject, and I don't see it mentioned much in The New Yorker, the New York Times, on TV, or in any of the sites I read online.

It seems like something in the idea of Classes conflicts with the Left/Right narrative you hear in 'the media'. Classes should have interests within themselves, not necessarily 100% split among party lines. And the media mostly tells the stories from party perspectives. Does that make sense to anyone? This is confusing to me.

<comment><USER12> Stratfor isn't really a news media company like the times or a tv station. IIRC they sell analysis & forecasting services to governments and large corporations.

The author of this article wrote a book called The Next 100 Years which is a pretty interesting read.

<comment><USER13> That is their public, shiny face. But they do a lot of intelligence and paramilitary work as well.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Stratfor_email_leak>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One thing I don't see addressed here (or in other articles linked to in this thread): corporate governance. Abusing the standard corporate governance model, where shareholders delegate to a Board of Directors, is one of the key ways that rich people game the system.

<comment><USER15> can you explain a bit more about this? i dont understand how delegating to a board is an exploit.

<comment><USER14> Delegating in itself isn't, but it opens up a security hole as soon as corporate executives realize they can game the system by becoming board members--both in their own companies and in each other's companies. If you look at most corporate boards today, they are composed of executives of other companies, and their main function is to allow said executives to rubber-stamp each other's golden parachutes.

<comment><USER16> <http://theyrule.net/>

This is pretty old now (2000-ish?) but is a pretty great graphical and interactive demonstration of how interlinked the big corporations' boardrooms are.

Check out the 'popular maps' for some good examples.

Edit: It was connected to littlesis.org in 2011 ("a free database of who- knows-who at the heights of business and government")

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Related to this, Showtime is currently airing a rather brilliant set of documentaries narrated by Oliver Stone called the 'Untold History of the United States'.

It basically puts this article into broader context, from the entry to WW2 onward.

Would be interesting to know how much different the reception of those documentaries is for a US-educated citizen. They definitely fit to the overall history being taught over here in Europe, but might conflict heavily with the official narrative in the US.

<comment><USER18> I'm currently watching that series... interesting stuff. Another must, for any who haven't seen it, is the British documentary series "Century of the Self", about American conditioning specifically.

<comment><USER19> 'Century of the Self' is indeed amazing (as is everything else by Adam Curtis) and can be found for free here: <http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century- of-the-self/>

It's not specifically about American conditioning though... it starts with Freud (Austria, then UK), wanders off to Edward Bernays (Austria, the US), talks about the US PR/Advertising industry for a while (totally fascinating to bear in mind while watching 'Mad Men' IMHO) and then ends up with Tony Blair (UK) via Bill Clinton.

Thanks for the Showtime documentary pointer - will look that up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Great points in this article and I agree with just about everything.

But I think that to really understand the problem you have to look at things from a wider and more fundamental perspective.

First of all, the United States and what is happening to it does not exist in a vacuum. The US is part of a global system which has a lot of integration.

We need to look at actual human needs and real resource distribution on a global basis to understand the problem and come up with a solution.

We need to tie our financial and business calculations into human and environmental needs in a direct way rather than relying on indirect regulation by government. We also need to come up with a system that factors in massive technological unemployment, including large sectors of the professional workforce.

I think there are probably several different approaches that will work, but you have to get away from the typical 'economic' arguments and go at things from a more fundamental level. I believe the key is to find ways to ensure the application and distribution of technologies that meet human needs. We may need some new types of institutions.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm confused about the perceived dichotomy of taxation and private investment.

If the government threatens to take their cash, wealthy individuals and entities will find ways to use that cash to further their wealth instead of giving it to the government.

So if the government's taxes are too high, the wealthy won't have the money to invest, but if the taxes are too low, the wealthy have a no-risk, stable return on their cash- sitting on it.

I think this is exactly what we're seeing- low taxes and low inflation are encouraging inefficient use of capital- putting it neither into consumption nor investment.

Just as a wave of unemployment lays the basis for a more efficient workforce, couldn't a new wave of inflation (since taxes are politically impossible) right the ship?

<comment><USER22> The idea has possible merit, but I want to complain about how you're getting to it. For one thing, the implication that inflation is politically easy is probably not true. There is a large contingent of the right (e.g. the Ron Paul crowd) who are always running around talking about auditing the Fed and how fiat money is ruining everything, etc. More strategically, the people who have the greatest _incentive_ to fight inflation are money lenders who own outstanding fixed rate debt, i.e. banks, and as we've learned recently the banks are not exactly without political influence. Though granted increasing the rate of inflation probably is politically easier than raising taxes.

The second thing I want to question is this:

>So if the government's taxes are too high, the wealthy won't have the money to invest, but if the taxes are too low, the wealthy have a no-risk, stable return on their cash- sitting on it.

How does sitting on cash generate any return at all? You have to invest it in _something_ to cause the value to increase, unless the value of money itself is actually increasing (i.e. a period of deflation), which is almost invariably its own brand of near-immediate catastrophic meltdown.

But you're on the right track, because the problem at present is that they invest their money in _safe_ investments, like treasury bonds, as opposed to higher risk private investments.

The relationship between the investor purchase of government debt and economic growth is very squishy: It's effectively investing in the government. Higher demand for government debt reduces the interest rate the government pays. The money not paid in additional interest by government is then put back into the hands of Congress which it can use to either reduce taxes or fund additional programs at the same level of outstanding debt principal. If the government uses the money wisely then it helps the economy; if they use it inefficiently (or just less efficiently than private enterprise would have) then it hurts.

Naturally this leads to all of the arguments about who should get tax cuts and whether government spending, or _what kind_ of government spending, is better for the economy than putting the money in the hands of private enterprise.

But the other compounding factor is that the normal way we know of to cause inflation is for the Fed to print money and buy government securities with it. This will certainly drive private investors away from government securities, because you simultaneously have the Fed bidding down nominal the interest rate and the inflation reducing the real returns at a given nominal rate, but that doesn't mean you don't you still have the same amount (or more) of capital being "invested" in the government (i.e. the real interest government pays on capital goes down not up), it's just that the Fed is doing the investing with newly created money instead of private enterprise doing it.

Furthermore, if you drive the private investors away from government securities, the question becomes what _they_ invest in instead. This is the flip side of the "who should get tax cuts and what should taxes buy" question: If investors tend to take their money and invest in R&D then we're in business. If they tend to do commodity speculating with it then we're in trouble.

It pretty much seems to come down to this: We need to find a way to get investors to invest in things that help the economy. "Quantitative easing" may cause them to do that either if the default private alternative to government securities is economically beneficial, or if we can arrange for it to be using e.g. tax incentives or government subsidies.

<comment><USER21> I think we're grokking the same here, but one disconnect:

You're presupposing that the wealthy want _some_ return on their wealth, and I think that in many cases, that simply isn't true.

Take a look at all of the money stranded offshore that corporate America is waiting on Uncle Sam to allow into the US without taxing- that money is probably not earning much if anything; think of the tinpot dictator or the kleptocrat who squirreled away a nest egg in a Swiss or Cayman bank account, and think of the smuggling kingpin south of the border with a swimming pool full of cash.

They all share the following in common- highly liquid and inefficiently invested wealth. They have little hope of increasing the value of this wealth by investing it or consuming with it because to do so requires a big hit to its dollar value (taxation or risk of seizure). The best return (for them) is to let it slowly (in our case very slowly) inflate until a rainy day comes.

The only practical and sure-fire way to bring that money back to productive use is to redistribute it via inflation.

<comment><USER22> Why do you expect that capital held offshore for tax reasons is invested inefficiently? These companies are not (in general) in violation of the law, they're just exploiting transfer pricing[1] to accumulate capital in a foreign subsidiary in a low tax jurisdiction. That subsidiary can for the most part still invest it in whatever, including U.S. stocks and other securities. They can in many cases even loan it back to their domestic sister company so that it can use the money to grow its business (without paying tax on it, because it's a loan instead of income), which often provides even more tax benefits because the interest paid on the loan is often tax deductible in the higher tax jurisdiction.

There are some restrictions, e.g. the U.S. company may not be able to issue a dividend or do a stock buyback unless it reports at least some taxable profits within the U.S., but as long as the foreign subsidiary's capital account keeps growing, it causes the parent company's stock price to appreciate accordingly and that provides investors with their ROI.

There are ways that this can be less efficient. In particular, the parent company's investors may themselves have made more efficient investment choices than the company's executives investing the money on their behalf if their returns were provided in the form of dividends or stock buyback instead of stock price appreciation as the existing tax code strongly encourages. And this is actually very likely to be the case in practice, because e.g. Apple executives are now sitting on a huge mountain of cash that it likely will never be more cost effective to issue all of as dividends under the current tax code than continue to invest in situ, which means that computer company executives are now permanently in charge of picking stocks for however many hundred billion dollars worth of the world economy. That doesn't guarantee that those execs will make worse investment decisions (or will choose poorly in hiring someone to do it), but it seems at least plausible that someone hired primarily for their ability to sell iPhones or manage a global supply chain will be a worse hedge fund manager than an actual hedge fund manager. But this is just the capital gains tax debate all over again: As long as we tax even reinvested dividends immediately but allow unrealized stock appreciation to be tax deferred indefinitely we're going to spur that sort of crazy economic machinations.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_pricing>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Globalization is much of the reason.

When unions were strong (c. 1950-1980), they were essentially a monopoly on certain types of workers that were vital to production in many industries.

This monopoly allowed the workers to extract a larger proportion of the value of this industrial production through higher wages.

With the US focus on free trade (c. 1975-present), the unions no longer had a monopoly on labor, since companies could now find labor in other countries. Labor could no longer enforce their favorable monopoly pricing. (They tried, and had some success in the US, but often the "victory" caused companies or factories that paid good wages to their workers to be uncompetitive with overseas companies or factories that did not, and forced to close.)

The bottom line is that I'm very much afraid that globalization and a rising middle class are mutually exclusive, and will continue to be so for several decades.

</comment><comment><USER24> I hope his analysts are better than he is. This is shockingly insubstantial analysis coming from the CEO of Stratfor.

</comment><comment><USER25> surprised the corporate agility theme doesn't explicitly include globalization displacing former US-based middle class jobs? globalization has positive economic consequences for the US as a whole, but not to key parts of the displaced middle class, at least not yet?

</comment><comment><USER26> When Karl Marx wrote Capital in 1867, he said capitalism would never be able to get rid of credit bubbles, financial crises, high unemployment etc. He said that over time the problems would get worse and worse with greater and greater financial crises. Here we are about a century and a half later and you just have to look at the housing bubble, the bank crisis, TARP and the government bailout, unemployment in the US and Europe and the Arab countries which helped cause the Arab spring to see how prophetic he was in this respect.

Marx and Engels wrote that the world has seen five economic systems. Each system collapsed due to internal contradictions. The first system was hunting- gathering, then Babylonian/Greek/etc. style slavery, then feudalism, and then capitalism. They saw the Paris Commune as the harbinger for the next economic system which would replace capitalism.

The central contradiction in capitalism Marx spells out clearly in Capital, although its a little too much to explain in a comment. Basically workers create $240 of wealth every eight hour work day, but are only paid $200 a day. The $40 goes to profit, to get more capital, to make more commodities. But what is happening here - the worker is shorted $40 a day, and what happens with that money is commodities are made. Who are going to buy all these commodities when workers are not getting all the wealth they create? Well credit fixes that in the short term but creates a bigger long term problem.

The communist manifesto says "the commercial crises that by their periodic return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on trial, each time more threateningly". I certainly feel this way. So apparently does Stratfor. On this point, the left and right are in agreement.

<comment><USER27> Because socialism or communism works so much better right? People are especially envious of the great freedom people in North Korea are enjoying? Same as Cuba? Venezuela? Argentina? (wanna change your currency to another one in Argentina to hedge yourself against a very strong inflation? you can't, because the socialist state won't let you do that)

What's next after Karl Marx? That the homophobic racist murderer that was the Che Guevara was correct?

The thing that saddens me the most on a forum supposedly made of entrepreneurs trying to create wealth is to see that there are so many people who are still failing for the poisonous words of a corrupt few who would have just loved to rule the earth: be it Kim-Jong Ill or Kim-Karl Marx, it makes me very very scared.

The first thing socialists and communists tries to do is to ruin everyone and reinforce the power of the state.

I choose freedom. Even if it means bubbles and crises.

I prefer that to slavery.

"Better dead than red".

Thankfully I'm not alone.

<comment><USER28> You know, a reactionary living in 19th century might have said "because democracy works so much better right? People are so envious of the great freedom people in France are enjoying." With the memory of the French Revolution fresh in their mind, they probably would have been reasonable to say so.

<comment><USER3> Liberal western-style democracy with open markets has certainly seen its failures. And it has also seen its successes.

Pray tell, what successes has communism and radical socialism achieved?

<comment><USER4> That's tricky, because it's not so much a question of successes relative to the past (which I assume you'd agree are many) but a question of successes relative to alternative worlds where a capitalist system had developed in those countries. And there's also a question of what counts as communism/radical socialism in your book--China, even now, has far more government involvement in the economy than many Western countries, and even more so under Deng. Does it count? What about Congress-style socialism in India?

That said, and emphasizing I have no love of the following countries and think some form of liberal democracy would have worked substantially better...

Cuba started from a fairly good baseline, so we shouldn't read too much into it, but it has superior healthcare and education to much of Latin America.

The Soviet Union had a couple decades of breakneck economic growth: many economists, perhaps even the majority, expected it to have outgrown the West by the 1980s. This should be discounted somewhat, though, this time because the UK and the USA also rapidly developed at various points in their history.

The USSR also excelled at generating a large class of engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, who contributed a large body of knowledge to the world. And it made some pretty good chess players, too, when it wasn't cheating like crazy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> _If we move to a system where half of the country is either stagnant or losing ground while the other half is surging, the social fabric of the United States is at risk, and with it the massive global power the United States has accumulated._

Translation: If half the US citizenry is utterly suffering, we won't be able to keep drone-bombing Yemeni infants, _Oh the horrors!_

You'd think that preventing the suffering of half of the USA might be an aim in itself.

Also, what's wrong with leaving the Yemeni children alone? Oh, I forgot, we want to provoke more terrorism. Maybe even hit the jackpot and start World War 3.

What a stupid article.</comment>


Ask HN: Does anyone else despise mechanical keyboards? - <AUTHOR> https://imgur.com/a/vOELehA
Am I alone in my preference, here?
I bought this aluminum frame keyboard from SIIG like 10-15 years ago. Short travel and low keys means I type faster. It's quiet. It's sturdy. It has lasted longer than most things, or people!, in my life. We are almost family. :D haha. It's so well loved the shift and ctrl keys are fading. I even left a review (rare for me), because I have gotten such great use out of it. It actually still works. I just have noticed the plastic on the S key is bending finally.
Google, Amazon, old HN threads ..all have not shown me a replacement option. Out of stock, everywhere, as expected.
In order to maintain this level of satisfaction and productivity I am still refusing the popular mechanical keyboards. I really like being able to roll my finger from one key to the next on occasion. You can't do that as well with full-height keys. Can't really at all with chiclet keys.  Also, talking to people on meetings while on the phone and typing at the same time is a daily activity... so having one that is quieter is kind of crucial. <comment><USER2> My first keyboard on a PC was a Buckling spring keyboard from Original IBM PC (XT). Actually I liked the feeling of typing on it and nothing came ever close to it in my opinion.

But.... nowadays I also want to be fast,quiet and small and do not prefer too much typing "force". So since years it's the Apple magic keyboard 1 everywhere [https://i.stack.imgur.com/WV6up.jpg](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WV6up.jpg) Also with an old Macbook Air there is not much difference from Laptop to the wireless keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are no mechanical keyboards in my house - and for good reason. My spouse has misophonia, and the keyboard sounds are one of his triggers. They also keep me from falling asleep. I also don't really like the deep keys - I can type faster on the low-profile keys.

Both of the ones in my house are Logitech Illuminated Keyboard K740 [1]. The physical keys look much like the one you are trying to replace - low profile keys, and seeminly standard sized keyboard. There is a wireless available if you choose. Now, I don't know about wear and tear: My spouse has managed to destroy one of these, but this death also came with a great deal of abuse and dropping. The main issue was lost key covers instead of actual defects. I imagine if we hadn't lost a few bits we'd still have the first one. Mine still works perfectly.

[1][https://www.logitech.com/en-us/product/illuminated- keyboard-...](https://www.logitech.com/en-us/product/illuminated- keyboard-k740)

<comment><AUTHOR> SO CLOSE... I got really excited, but that insert key. Dang. :/ Otherwise it looks like such a good option.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't despise, but it does get annoying in the workplace when someone next to you is smacking MX Blues all day. I have had many mechanical boards, some ergonomic and some regular layout, but I keep going back to chiclet style. I feel like I can type much faster with chiclet style boards.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think mechanical and low-travel, which is what you like, are not mutually exclusive.

For example, MX Cherry Low has been recently developed and it's pretty similar to what you are depicting. And probably a lot more sturdy.

But you do make a good point. Some very low travel keyboards get me a few extra key-presses per minute too.

<comment><AUTHOR> MX Cherry Low might have me try a mechanical. It looks good in videos. Was hard to find typing videos/examples, but thank you! I have a lead!

<comment><USER5> Yes, I think it's a pretty good option. Mechanical is usually associated with high-travel, high-force and relatively noisy switches. But there's so many options, you can have basically anything.

The only common denominator is, I'd say, better reliability. My MBA scissor keyboard is pretty good. But after several years of intense use most switches are literally falling apart.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Does anyone else despise mechanical keyboards?

Some likely do, some don't.

In my case, I don't. I'm typing this right now on a Northgate OmniKey Ultra [1] that was bought circa. 1991 (sometime late 1991). I've got a second identical to it at work as well, but the second one was purchased circa. 1995. Myself, if there is anything I despise it is the low throw, chick-let style keyboards, so I'd be almost opposite you there.

The reality is, to each his own. Different people will have different opinions on mechanical vs. non-mechanical keyboards.

[1] This model here: [http://www.northgate-keyboard- repair.com/ultra.jpg](http://www.northgate-keyboard-repair.com/ultra.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER7> It seems like you're looking for a Low Profile keyboard - have you looked at Logitech/Lenovo/etc on Amazon?

</comment><comment><USER8> I've had times when I had both a mechanical keyboard and a low profile keyboard for use during calls when my mechanical keyboard was too loud.

</comment><comment><USER9> I do prefer mechanical - but I have an hybrid one (that reduce the sound) and have smaller key height. I feel i kinda have best of both world.

</comment><comment><USER10> would this be better, or worse ?

[https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-holographic- keyboard.htm](https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-holographic-keyboard.htm)</comment>