Learn Raw React – No JSX, No Flux, No ES6, No Webpack - <AUTHOR> http://jamesknelson.com/learn-raw-react-no-jsx-flux-es6-webpack/ <comment><USER2> Reminds me of working on an old Windows UI almost two decades ago. All the tutorials were basically "you should type this", and all the project templates and UI editors in Visual Studio produced copious amounts of generated code. Nobody seemed to really understand that generated code. So I sat down and learned how to write a new MFC project from scratch, no templates or generated code. Once I understood what it was doing, I felt like I could use the rest of the ecosystem with confidence.

A useful, educational exercise!

<comment><USER3> >>Reminds me of working on an old Windows UI

Me too, in a different way. It provides a very clear view of how MVC moves from the back end to the front end. Coupled with other things that have moved more of the meat of the work to the browser, you end up in a funny circular place.

At a high level, it starts to look much more like the pre-web client/server model of "fat clients" written in MS/MFC, or C/X11/Motif/Qt/etc, and the backend relegated to mostly serving centralized data or events.

What's old is new again I suppose. The browser, in general, feels like a giant step forward. I wish, though, that some ecosystem had evolved where Javascript wasn't the sole supported client side language.

<comment><USER4> >What's old is new again I suppose. The browser, in general, feels like a giant step forward. I wish, though, that some ecosystem had evolved where Javascript wasn't the sole supported client side language.

Webassembly is coming!

<comment><USER3> That's somewhat encouraging, but if I understand it correctly, it would only be practical for static typed languages. Something like Lua, Python, etc, would be more desirable to me.

<comment><USER5> It's a byte code (in an ast form) so any language could run.

I think the step after can be around package management (like in linux distros) and full virtualisation in the browser.

We can even imagine the browser becoming useless so we could move to something new for AI, drones and robots where webdesign is not a priority (simpler UI like apps for mobiles).

<comment><USER3> Not anytime soon, as far as I can tell:

Brendan Eich: _" wasm is really starting out as a target for static languages like C++, it's gonna be a while before we get other future extensions to wasm like garbage collection and just-in-time compile to wasm, features we need for dynamic languages to perform well, that's gonna take a while to do, too"_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> First, kudos to the author for this approach. I avoided the hell out of react for the longest time because of the JavaScript build soup you seemingly needed to get anything to run. I would've loved a tut like this a year ago.

> At it's most basic, React is a tool for rendering HTML with JavaScript.

Not really; at its most basic, it's a tool that inextricably ties DOM state with JavaScript (a conceptual implementation of WebComponents). That's the power of React. Yes, a byproduct of that is that it renders HTML, but you use it so you don't have to use things like Sizzle to get into and manage the state of the DOM. Its a small difference but meaningful in that you wouldn't want to confuse its purpose with something like document.createElement().

<comment><USER7> > at its most basic, it's a tool that inextricably ties DOM state with > JavaScript

Thank you for this!

It seems like many people get the impression that React is a really fancy template engine, which sucks.

Part of what its capable of is rendering templates, but only as a byproduct of the task you described.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why not JSX? To me, JSX is part of React. If someone starting with React sees all that React.create element, they will run away.

<comment><USER9> Author here. My target audience here was really people who've already decided they're going to use React, and are keen on understanding what is going on under the hood. And while I do love JSX (and use it in my own projects), my feeling is that to really grok React, writing something without JSX is invaluable.

<comment><USER10> I'm part of that target audience, and you scored a bullseye with me. I always prefer to learn a new technology this way, by building very simple things from scratch and making minor modifications this way and that until I know what all the low-level parts do. Then, you can add some conveniences to the mix explaining what they do in terms of the underlying technology I just learned (and I can tell which parts are the base technology and which belong to this add-on), until I feel I could recreate these conveniences or build my own alternatives, if I chose to.

That way, I can decide for myself how to use the technology, break away from the typical stack of add-ons at any point I choose and take it from there in a direction that better suits my needs, dig in and figure out what's going on if I have a problem, and so on, rather than being helplessly dependent on a magical black box.

Thank you for starting off by teaching low-level React without any JSX, Flux, Redux, or whatever. I wish more tutorials did that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice work! I'm really happy to see this kind of restrained approach to introducing React. I wish it had been the first tutorial I encountered. I hope it inspires other teachers.

Tutorials should be about teaching others. But many tutorials today seem to be more about showing what the author knows.

</comment><comment><USER12> If you like doing this sort of thing, check out [http://mithril.js.org](http://mithril.js.org).

</comment><comment><USER13> Great stuff!

        var tag = React.createElement

Could make the code nicer to read...

<comment><USER14> or even h1 = React.createFactory('h1'), ... and so on for every that you use in the file, and then use h1({}, 'text') in the code.

<comment><USER15> What about h1 = React.DOM.h1;?

Personally, I moved from using DOM tag names as variable names ('a' being the worst) to saving 'var DOM = React.DOM' (or '{DOM} = React') and then calling DOM.a(props, children...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Was looking for something like this to get started with React. Many Kudos!

</comment><comment><USER17> I've found React itself pretty easy and fun. Finding the right libraries (I still don't know what I should use for promises) and connecting all the tooling with one of the build systems is the part I'm losing sleep over.

<comment><USER6> Any a+ spec library will do. I prefer bluebird.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I just can't be bothered with build tools. I just want to include a JS and use it. That's how I roll. How can I overcome this?

<comment><USER13> Just keep doing that. If you then start feeling some pains that a build tool could help with, install the build tool and move on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think _raw_ React is React as it's defined by the project maintainers. JSX always seems to be a part of this.

<comment><USER20> I think "raw" distinguishes something from the normal state in which it is consumed. For example, a raw Big Mac is not the thing that McDonald's want to give you, but it's an interesting thing to study if you want to understand how a Big Mac works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is great. Also see the React docs tutorial: [https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/tutorial.html](https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/tutorial.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> This sort of "deconstructed" approach was helpful for me.

I also found it easier to start learning first with a decent foundation of just "what is a virtual dom?"

This was useful: [https://github.com/Matt-Esch/virtual- dom](https://github.com/Matt-Esch/virtual-dom)

</comment><comment><USER22> Good work.

I did something like this too. But less prose, a bit shorter and it starts a bit low-level.

[https://github.com/kay-is/react-from-zero](https://github.com/kay-is/react- from-zero)

</comment><comment><USER23> Thanks. I actually don't like JSX. It seems it encourages logic and presentation mixup. Plain React.js seems good for Views as they advertise. I think React.js + ES6 + functional library, will make a good combo.

<comment><USER21> Not using JSX won't mean your React doesn't mix HTML & JS though. React's whole philosophy is to mix them. So it just means you will have to keep typing ".createElement('h1'...)" instead of typing "<h1>".

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Good article.

Also, for more discussion regarding using React without JSX, see [https://github.com/ustun/react-without-jsx](https://github.com/ustun/react- without-jsx)

</comment><comment><USER25> You're so close! just change it to "Learn Raw Javascript - No React - no jsx ..."

But since its pushing people in the right direction, I approve your message.

</comment><comment><USER26> This looks great, thanks!

</comment><comment><USER27> Now add RxJS !

<comment><USER28> I hope you meant add RxJS in possible future tutorials.

It is very clear that author's intention for this post was to avoid any unnecessary clutter - hence no Flux, no JSX etc. Adding RxJS and with it a whole train that is functional programming is definitely not something that would be helpful for people who just want to "get" React.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> ES6 is the variant of the language we will be using in the future (and many of us presently). It's not a fancy gewgaw that hipster devs use to look cool.

<comment><USER30> He's point was to make a gentler and more approachable introduction to react without any fancy transpiling tools. He isn't mocking any of these technologies. Awesome writer kudos to him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Why not Clojurescript with Reagent?

</comment><comment><USER32> The problem is, of course, that JSX, Flux, and Webpack came to be because of _problems_ that people ran into when using just raw react. JSX solves the problem of not being declarative enough and being too foreign to designers. Flux solves the problem of having to cascade data through dozens of children for mundane tasks. Then of course Webpack solves the problem of needing to transpile JSX and ES6 to plain JavaScript and minifying/uglifying/etc your assets. There is no such thing as "raw React" because building a web application is complicated no matter how you slice it. You either use a svelte library like React or Backbone and bolt on everything else you need yourself, or you just use a batteries-included framework like Ember, Angular, or Aurelia and let someone else provide a convention for you to follow.

Complexity, sadly, is impossible to avoid.

<comment><USER33> > Complexity, sadly, is impossible to avoid.

Complexity is impossible to avoid? Reading this just makes my heart sad. There is no reason you can't avoid complexity here.

Minifying and concatenating of assets is a very understood thing. It's really easy to do in fact. Whatever building solution you use (grunt, gulp, plain scripts), minifying and concatenating of resources should be a few lines of code if that.

Transpiling I don't get. Yeah I'd love to use the new hotness of ECMAScript 6 but ECMAScript 5 has awesome support everywhere and isn't so significantly different to 6 that productivity is horrible; why can't we just use ECMAScript 5 until 6 is more readily available? But I digress because if you have to transpile that's still an easy build step. If you want to do it with every file change then that sucks, stop doing that. That's only useful in edge cases like debugging older browsers.

For JSX just don't use it. HTML and JavaScript is kinda awkward to begin with; combining them together in some mixed format only to be separated seems like a way to just obfuscate the real way it works. I find it far, far better to understand how they work than trying to abstract them to some awkward degree that can't be used without transpiling.

Maybe I'm an old timer not using the new hotness that is JSX, Webpack, etc but I just don't understand why anyone would bother bringing in that extra complexity when it's unnecessary even from a productivity standpoint. But I digress, maybe I'll just get downvoted here I just don't get it.

<comment><USER34> Once you add a transpile step, your "transpile step" can give you a lot more confidence, with linting, and flow, and ecmascript 6.

Minifying, concatenating, and compiling only used code paths/files and assets is only a few lines of code ( _with webpack_ ).

JSX to me is the more natural way to use React. I don't understand what the benefit of moving away from <html> is. It's more verbose, and harder to read if you construct your views in pure-js. (imo)

To me, using webpack is avoiding complexity. It's a set and forget exercise, sure it's a bummer upfront. But once it's running, it's pretty smooth.

<comment><USER33> > Once you add a transpile step, your "transpile step" can give you a lot more > confidence, with linting, and flow, and ecmascript 6.

Linting is separate. Transpiling, for me, gives me less confidence because I write in one language, it has to run a transpiler to turn into another language giving me an extra point of failure (transpiler bugs suck; I ran into a few with CoffeeScript a few years back. Turned me off from ever using one again). Unless you have mappings debugging also has to be done in a separate language than what you write in which is really hard for me to get used to (I had to debug CoffeeScript back before it had chrome mappings).

> Minifying, concatenating, and compiling only used code paths/files and > assets is only a few lines of code (with webpack).

Also only takes a few lines without webpack. For example my open source project, msngr.js, uses grunt and it's only a few lines of code specifying input and output.

I also have a private project that does the step with a loop and a few additional lines of code (uses no grunt or gulp).

> JSX to me is the more natural way to use React. I don't understand what the > benefit of moving away from <html> is. It's more verbose, and harder to read > if you construct your views in pure-js. (imo)

JSX is probably a more natural way of working with React but it still abstracts away from the awkward JavaScript and HTML realities of the day. I've become jaded with frameworks that do that because I've run into far too many developers that don't understand how HTML and JavaScript really work and run into errors that are easily fixed if they understand how the underlying technology works.

HTML's relationship with CSS and JavaScript is still kinda awkward so I understand why there are seemingly dozens of frameworks that abstract away from the whole thing.

> To me, using webpack is avoiding complexity. It's a set and forget exercise, > sure it's a bummer upfront. But once it's running, it's pretty smooth.

I've used it and just didn't get the point of the thing. It helps that I avoid pretty much anything that gets transpiled (otherwise I could see it being more useful). If you don't do anything with transpiling I don't think it's very useful.

<comment><USER34> I think I mostly agree with you.

But with source mappings, trans-piling is pretty neat. With ECMAScript 6, Coffee, or Typescript. I remember the days of buggy Coffee and agree it was ridiculous when you hit a compile bug. But all the transpilers are much more mature now, and with source mappings you always know which line is wrong, and can even breakpoint and debug etc.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft Windows 10 Privacy Announcement - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2017/01/10/continuing-commitment-privacy-windows-10/ <comment><USER2> > _We want you to be informed about and in control of your data ..._

Yet they won't provide a "don't send any of it to Microsoft" option.

<comment><USER3> Pretty sure it lives at this address: [http://www.kubuntu.org/getkubuntu/](http://www.kubuntu.org/getkubuntu/) ;)</comment></comment>


Go Environment for a Pro - <AUTHOR> Hello there; I am seeking your wisdom on the topic of learning Go.
I am a long time C# (.NET, MVC, etc) web developer, and I am "at the top of my game" in this regards. I also have over a decade of PHP/Linux experience under my belt too..
Learning Go as a language shouldn't be too hard for me, but as no one I know actually has a clue about the language and everywhere I look is focused on the language rather than the environment, I am at a loss for the most "optimum" environment.
I have a new (untainted by dev tools) Windows 10 laptop, and a new Chromebook, to play around with.
I am looking to learn Go as a programming language for web development, specifically micro-services, so I am wondering:
If you as an already "pro go" developer were setting up a new laptop from scratch - what software stack would you use on a) Windows 10, and b) Chromebook.
I'm open to all suggestions except "switch to Mac or Linux"; as those are not options I can take with these two devices. I'd also rather avoid having to use Visual Studio Pro (VS Code is fine!) as the whole point of this exercise is to use what the industry uses, not necessarily what I am used to!
Many thanks in advance. <comment><USER2> Hey -- been dorking around with Go for a few months now. I started with VSC and the various Go plug-ins, and it got me about 50% of what I'd like to have in a development environment.

I've since then switched to JetBrains' GoLand IDE. It's _fantastic_... lots of good, useful help, very fast. One thing I'd recommend is to set up an "On Save" event to run "goimports". Then you get automagic import correction, and very nice pretty-printing (I think it runs "gofmt" under the hood).

Notably, all the tools such as "goimports" are already installed, and if you want a debugger, I believe that's built in as well (I gave up on debuggers a long time ago).

Enjoy -- it's a fun language, and there are a ton of useful open-source projects to learn from and leverage.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't use Go in industry, but the Go integration in VSCode is super easy to set up and has some pretty decent IDE-lite functionality (e.g. renaming variables, automatic error highlighting, running tests). Apart from that I don't think you need much except Go itself.</comment>


Blue-collar wages are surging. Can it last? - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21731332-weaker-dollar-and-energy-boom-are-pushing-up-pay-blue-collar-wages-are-surging-can-it <comment><USER3> Data Scientist at major company here that was pounding nails in construction circa 2005. This to me is no surprise. At the time I was early 20s and needed that job that would be sort of an apprenticeship. The problem was, these jobs just didn't exist. The young guys (me) got laid of every winter to keep on as many senior crew members as possible and every spring the jobs were less skilled and more labor (think demolition vs. the skills needed for finish work). Young workers need a solid 5-7 years to develop those skills, but from the years 2005 (yea, that early things started slowing down in construction) to 2015 we didn't really train anyone new. My story was a common one; unable to find work in the trades, I eventually gave up and looked for work elsewhere. So there is a gap in the training of skilled labor. How long will it take to recover? Easy, the same 5-10 years we took a break from training new labor.

<comment><USER4> Your career path (and its determinants) mirror mine to an uncanny degree. Nonetheless, I disagree that there's a long-term shortage of skilled labor in the US in general, or that any short-term shortage has its root cause in underdeveloped supply channels. I saw first hand how easy it was to procure non-union labor, even at the height of construction boom circa 2004 (when I left construction trades) or 2015 (when I left the construction industry as a licensed engineer). Like yourself, I couldn't compete (or refused to put up with) what's essentially become a migrant work force. While it does take about as long to become a skilled carpenter as it takes to become a software developer (and a strikingly similar mindset too), it's infinitely easier to employ migrant skilled workers, the workers are highly mobile, there's a ready supply of them anywhere there's active construction going on, and everyone in the construction business -- from employers to clients -- has de facto acquiesced in the status quo where work permits are not enforced. Union labor is indeed rather inelastic during the periods of boom and bust, but it's also chronically underemployed, historically shrinking and in the big scheme of things a tiny portion of the overall labor.

<comment><USER5> I was a land surveyor from 2000-2008, it's a subset of civil engineering. But unlike CE, there's a lot of field work and a small amount of office work. In my case I'd say it was anywhere from 80-90% field and 10-20% office. But even though surveying is hardly unskilled labour and usually requires a degree, it was still subject to the same effects the grandparent comment mentions: constant layoffs in winter, culminating in 2008 and the subprime mortgage crash (which, surprisingly to some, affected commercial property) when all 12 staff surveyors at the office where I worked were laid off on the same day for good, with no expectation of being called back ever again.

It will be no surprise to anyone reading this that land surveying is dead now, especially two/three-man team land surveying. Nobody was trained during those "gap" periods, and meanwhile the older generation of baby-boom surveyors (of which there were many) retired. Furthermore, LiDAR, scanning, survey-grade GPS, and robotic total stations meant that some engineering firms cut corners and took a chance by sending CEs out into the field solo to do the field work. That dynamic ensures no training of new surveyors in the field is possible.

EDIT: I'm a developer now.

<comment><USER6> So what are you saying? Surveyor pay is booming now, or no surveying is needed any more? ('Needed' as in, people are actually paying to get it done, not 'needed' as in 'people theorize that it would be useful')

<comment><USER5> The point I'm trying to make is in support of the grandparent comment in this thread: not many young people choose land surveying as a career because even though it's hugely needed and necessary to create the built environment, it's boom or bust. You can't be trained properly and stay in the job if you're getting laid off every winter. And since LS is protected by a guild (professional licensure), this drives prices up.

<comment><USER6> Yes I got that. My point was: as far as I know, surveyors aren't raking in $250k plus salaries (probably <$100? You probably know better than I do). And also as far as I know, not all building has stopped because of a lack of surveyors. So clearly, there are still enough surveyors, potentially using more productive work methods than they used to to make up for the reduction in labor supply. People in this thread (like GP) are spinning narratives of real 'choke points' in skill supply; for which there is simply no evidence on the ground. Sure, some project managers' lives are harder because they have to account for longer lead times and more uncertainty on resource availability; and costs go up here and there; but in the end, these are simple issues of supply and demand that don't even register over the medium (5-10 year) term.

'Labor shortage' is always 'I can't find people at the price I originally thought I'd have to pay', modulo some time lag dependent on the exact skill set (i.e., training time).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I had a long talk with a guy getting his general contractor's license yesterday. He told me that down in San Diego they are continually short on construction workers, so much that one of his friends said that there is 10 years worth of construction that needs to be done and no one to do it. Wages at ~$45/hr, and probably rising, some projects paying perdiems for commutes from Orange County.

Strange.

<comment><USER8> I always find it a bit strange when people talk about shortages of non-price- controlled goods and services. When you say that the industry is "short on construction workers", there's an implicit "who will work for what we used to pay them." It seems to me like it's someone who hires in that industry trying to entice more talent to come help lower the price again, rather than an accurate description of the state of the world.

To be sure, bona-fide shortages can occur transiently. For example when a natural disaster happens, it will take time for the local tradesmen to work through the backlog. But at a relatively steady state, it seems silly to talk about a shortage of construction workers. Pay a bit more than the next guy, and my guess is, your shortage will quickly disappear.

<comment><USER9> In my very limited personal experience, it's not _that_ hard to get a worker to come do a job on my house. It is EXTREMELY hard to get someone who actually does quality work and is reliable. You could argue that I'd get better and more reliable people if I paid them more, but the fact is, I pay them what they ask for. I have very low confidence that just offering to pay double would make a bad worker into a good one.

<comment><USER10> Consumer services aren't really the point being made upthread, it's employers looking for supervised labor who can tolerate some spread in skills.

But you can do this too: call up the elite contractors who you can't schedule because they're "too busy" and give them a big number upfront. "I need my carpets replaced, I figure this will be $30k, does that sound right?". They'll be there.

But you have to do the work to know what the right wages are. Employers already know this stuff, obviously.

<comment><USER11> If someone called me up and said, "I've got a software development contract opportunity for you in Country X, $1000/hr, job should be about 6 months." My ass would be on a plane that afternoon. So much for the shortage of software developers.

<comment><USER12> I would do that for $100/hr :) .

However, there's quite a lot of friction hiring unknown software developers (so I guess that's why I don't get those offers - I'm not actively hunting for them).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Another key factor is that a lot of baby boomers are reaching retirement age. With every kid being told college is the only path to become "successful," there's going to be a lack of talent in the trades at least in the near term that's going to continue driving wages higher.

<comment><USER14> And the all-too-common problem is that firms haven't prepared for the necessary knowledge transfer when those boomer workers do retire. If you've got a millwright who's been working in the same plant for forty years since it opened, he'll know every detail of how things work, where things don't match the schematics, what's been tried and how well that worked out. You can't just start that process when they turn in their two-weeks' notice; you've got to have somebody or somebodies working as assistants, and you've got to pay them adequately to keep them around. Nobody wants to do that.

<comment><USER15> They'll pay for it all right, just down the road when it's some other executive's problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> No it won't last, because as soon as the wages start coming up then the fed will say "inflation is heating up" and raise interest rates, causing businesses to spend more on debt service and less on employees.

<comment><USER17> Higher rates only affects new issuances of bonds, rolling over of existing debt, or bank loans (which are a small fraction of the total debt market in developed economies).

The average maturity of a corporate bond is now 15+ years, and most bonds pay a fixed interest rate that doesn't vary due to current rates [1].

That means that any change to rates will not have much of an immediate impact on the interest expense line item. On the other hand, it will actually _increase_ the interest income they receive on their cash balances.

[1] [https://www.ft.com/content/41213b02-b87e-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9...](https://www.ft.com/content/41213b02-b87e-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62)

<comment><USER18> You think rolling over of debt and new issuance is less important than interest income?

<comment><USER17> No, but the 15+ year plus maturity of existing debt stock means that on average, borrowers won't need to go back to the capital markets any time soon.

Slightly oversimplified way to think about it: every year companies need to refi only 1/T of their debt, where T is the average maturity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Illegal border crossings on the southern border are down 78% and blue collar wages are rising. Of course correlation does not equal causation, but when there are fewer available workers to hire/train and demand remains constant, wages tend to rise.

</comment><comment><USER20> The article says no, but are there any dissented view that sees a causation between Trump policies and the rise in blue collar wages?

Please, polite answers only. I'm just a foreigner that want to understand a little more.

<comment><USER21> One way that Trump helped is that the illegal migration rate dropped as soon as he came into office. He scared people out of even trying. You've also got his halt to the ever-expanding regulatory environment and his opposition to the TPP.

<comment><USER22> Did they actually drop? From what I remember, illegal migration has been dropping for years now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Since this article focuses on the U.S., how much of this is related to the slowdown in illegal immigration?

<comment><USER24> Probably none [edit: in manufacturing]. Most illegal immigrants don't work manufacturing. The three most common jobs for illegals around here are construction, yardcare, and building cleaning via nested subcontractors. Manufactures have hard assets they could loose. Sketchy subcontractors can just disappear and rename.

The growth is from the demand side - people are buying more right now.

<comment><USER25> Did you even read the article:

>In some industries the labour shortage seems acute. Now is not a good time for Americans to remodel their bathrooms: tile and terrazzo contractors earn 11% more per hour than a year ago (and fully one-third more than in 2014).

This is exactly the type of jobs that have been flooded by immigrants from Latin America - both illegal and legal - for decades. I speak Spanish and often talk with immigrants at bars or wherever, and they work in numerous industries.

The one thing that changed my view of the whole system was realizing that absolutely no company gives a shit about the laws. Guys who had been here a year or less, couldn't speak any English, were hired for government contracting jobs on roads and the metro paying tons of overtime at near-union wages.

Also, labor markets are fluid. If a citizen can make more in construction, he might quit his shitty manufacturing job.

But, hey, anything to continue with the absurd narrative that massive immigration hasn't been a very major part of wage destruction for both blue- collar and also white-collar jobs via H1Bs, OPT, L1, etc.

<comment><USER26> You are right but there are other factors too. We've been pushing mediocre students through colleges at an exorbitant price when 30 years ago a lot of these people would have gone into the trades. Supply and demand plays into it domestically too. I agree that immigrants are filling the gap right now. Nature abhors a vacuum.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I keep hearing how great blue collar josb are, but looking at glassdoor, most of them seem to be in the $30k - $50k range in my state

<comment><USER28> Heh. $50k isn't too bad, is it? Don't nurses start at that?

<comment><USER27> I mean, it depends on where you live I guess. Out here, you can probably live well on $50k

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Is anyone else finding a lot of these comments are overly exaggerated? It's like everyone's ego suddenly came out.

<comment><USER30> Anything wage-related seems reliably to do that. I suppose it triggers both survival instincts and status issues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Plumbers can't telecommute.

<comment><USER32> I imagine there's an opportunity for a startup that let's someone who wants to do a simple job themselves Facetime with a plumber to talk them through the work. No idea if there's any profit in it though.

<comment><USER33> DIY always breaks down when you need to purchase an expensive tool that you only use once.

<comment><USER34> Define expensive. 200$? That's the cost of the plumber's time, and now I've got that tool forever. That and I've gained knowledge and know how to fix or build something that I didn't before which is something I take pride in.

In my experience, there's been very few things where it makes more sense long term to just pay someone else to do it so long as you're willing to do a little bit of learning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I guess 3-4% is better than less /nothing, but seriously, this needs to be going on for 20-30 years.

</comment><comment><USER36> But, but, but... automation! Singularity! Boston Dynamics robot backflips!

<comment><USER37> If backflipping robots do the easier work, then what is left for humans is the more complex well paying work. When you remove the lower paying jobs from the average calculation, the average will rise. Indeed the article even states that _at 89%, male prime-age [labour market] participation remains close to a record low_. The article also has an opinion quote stating that _some of the recent wage gains are misleading, because they have occurred in industries, such as textile manufacturing, in which employment continues to fall_.

<comment><USER36> That's the point, it will take A LOT longer for the robots to replace these menial jobs. (And they are not all as low-paying.)

I remember articles from one or two decades ago about the attempts to automate a very dangerous and not even low-paying job of window washing in the high rise buildings. It is a real problem, it does not require HAL-9000 grade AI that can analyse Shakespeare, it is economically viable, and neither then nor now it is completely automated. I see that in Australia, window washing jobs are paid as high as low to midrange software development.

I am not even going to mention more complex tasks like a work of a plumber, a gardener, a janitor. Is the work of a janitor the more lucrative occupation?

It takes very long to get from the first demos to a prototype working most of the time, and even longer from the prototype to a system that can be relied upon in a mission critical environment (a category that most applications of robotics fall into). The Silicon Valley prophets got it all backwards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The gap is closing but it means amenities are getting more expensive and since the people in the middle aren't getting raises it just isn't attractive to work in a smarter role

<comment><USER39> Right, and as fewer people go into middle class jobs, demand for those workers will increase and will lead to increased wages.

This is what inflation is. It's all a function of supply and demand.

<comment><USER40> It'll be either an increase in wages, or increase in visas for that kind of labor from overseas.

<comment><USER38> Or worse the businesses decide to open shop abroad the jobs disappear from the local market

<comment><USER39> Hence the growing disdain for globalization. It's a race to the bottom to see what country will provide the lowest wages and quality of life for its workers.

<comment><USER38> Interesting way of looking at it, and capitalism in general

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'm unclear from this article whether wages are going up or _costs_. Wages are take-home earnings of workers. That is something different than costs to employers. I need clarification as to whether insurance/tax costs are part of this math.

Ideally, in such articles I want to see actual numbers. I want to see "the average wage for a carpenters in 2015 was X, and today is is X+10%". I'm not so sure that those numbers are changing all that much.

</comment><comment><USER42> Maybe this is simple fact of exhausting of 'Chinese advantage' of lower wages in developing countries, that used to drive jobs abroad? Even about 2007, there were forecasts that Chinese wages will rise to the level which no longer drives American jobs away - to ~20% of American level, rest is compensated by lower productivity - by about 2015. It was long ago expected to be a turnaround year. So why are everyone surprised?

</comment><comment><USER43> It is interesting that wages spiked and yet hourly rate is being considered the only relevant factor by many. Most of these jobs require behaving in a servile manner toward some assholes who have zero respect or commitment and start the process with a drug test in order to make the fundamental lack of trust explicit. The way corporate America treats candidates and employees is unacceptable at any price for many people.

<comment><USER44> Have you ever worked a construction or labor job? I don't recall ever having to act in a servile way.

Service jobs on the other hand were the most humiliating experiences of my life. We were expected to take harsh abuse from customers while issuing apologies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> It's a labor shortage more than anything else they listed. It's not an energy boom, weak dollar, Trump etc.

The question should be "why is this a surprise?"

Does our culture esteem people that work with their hands? Do parents encourage their children to aspire to learn trade skills? Does our educational system encourage students to learn trade skills and explore the trades as highly viable alternatives to going to college?

We've looked down at the trades and blue-collar work for decades. The evidence is everywhere. Of course there is a shortage, students have been listening to the adults in their lives, their peers, media outside of Mike Rowe etc and have heard the message loud and clear.

Solutions; I see two things that need to happen.

First, we need to reach and communicate to students and adults across the country that trade skills are valuable and a career in the trades is an outstanding option.

Create a more efficient, affordable and accessible resources for people to learn trade skills, no matter their location, age, income, nationality etc. We need to make it 10x easier for people to learn the skills that are in demand.

I'm working on both those solutions at Tradeskills.io Definitely a lot to figure out!

</comment><comment><USER46> it's just a repeat...something goes up and everyone jumps not realizing that the boiling water has already started to simmer...I am referring to the general lack of economic growth per country...the longer that goes on..the worse the boiling water will feel at the end..will we be boiled or will we finally understand our grave future economic peril

</comment><comment><USER47> ITT a bunch of white collar software engineers discuss subjects about which most have zero familiarity.

<comment><USER48> When blue collar wages rise it is due to flawed economic policies!

When white collar tech wages rise it is because they are creating an incredible amount of economic value and deserve all of it! It is absolutely all because of their own genius!

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I worked with small / medium manufacturers in the prosperous part of the Southeast. Hiring is brutal currently.

Last week one company setup interviews with 20 possible new workers. One showed up for his interview, and one wandered in the next day. 18 nonshows.

Another local company is seeing 50% of new hires failing their first drug test.

Anecdotaly, about 20% of new hires under 30 don't understand the concept of showing up on time (or at all) even after that's explained as a part of orientation.

Sub $160,000 houses (3-4 bedrooms, land, average schools, 15-30 minute commute) are now selling in 1-3 days, compared with 3-6 months five years ago. There's definitely a boom getting started here.

<comment><USER49> I hate the drug testing bs. How is that relevant? If the worker is present, is sober, and not hungover what business is it of the employers what the employee does on their own time? The drugs that are readily detectable are mostly the ones that don't matter too, while the ones that are more concerning (to me anyway) are either not tested for or are not detectable fairly fast. And alcohol is ok to abuse. Why?

It would be interesting to test white collar workers.

<comment><USER50> stealth intelligence test. For a variety of interesting historical reasons, the government hates intelligence tests as a hiring criteria and this is the blue collar stealth/workaround IQ test. Its the blue collar equivalent of fizzbuzz or a gitlab repo.

Look, you got one task, one task only, it's not even hard to figure out, do not, repeat, do not, get high the week or two before your pee test. That simple. There are human bipeds burning valuable oxygen right now, who can't follow a test that elaborate and complicated. They are literally the kind of people where if you told them not to lick a circuit breaker, would turn around and an hour later electrocute themselves and probably a coworker or two by licking a circuit breaker on the jobsite. Whats the minimum IQ and discipline level necessary to pass a pee test? Not much, but there are failures out there walking around...

Its interesting that as far as I know this is the first strictly chemistry based IQ test. AFAIK there is no "pee in a bottle to determine if you can fizzbuzz" test for code monkey work. No chemical marker that can identify if you know the modulus operator... not yet...

<comment><USER51> > who can't follow a test that elaborate and complicated.

There's also the possibility that giving up an addiction is not an intellectual activity (if you think about it a little!)

<comment><USER52> Maybe ...

But the process of getting addicted certainly involves making some choices poorly.

<comment><USER49> My addiction to coffee involved no poor choices, I don't regret it and it makes me a better person. Lack of it makes my performance much worse, I get a migraine with vertigo and vomiting.

<comment><USER52> You seem to be confusing physical dependence with addiction. By your definition, you'd be addicted to food, as I'm sure you'd have adverse consequences, including worse performance, in its absence.

Addiction is continued use in the face of adverse consequences. [1] You may have a physical dependence on coffee, but it doesn't sound like you're experiencing negative consequences in your life from its use.

[1] [https://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/2216/1/Addiction- Do-Y...](https://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/2216/1/Addiction-Do-You-Need- Help/Page1.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> This comment (not by me; the poster name isn't even visible anymore):

> Illegal border crossings on the southern border are down 78% and blue collar > wages are rising. Of course correlation does not equal causation, but when > there are fewer available workers to hire/train and demand remains constant, > wages tend to rise.

was marked dead. Why? Is the illegal crossing number wrong/fake news?

<comment><USER54> illegals dont have SSNs. EMployers have to run ssn verification before they hire you. These checks are instant and this will popup immediately. Can they still hire you - well maybe for janitorial -> manufacturing jobs I'd say highly unlikely.

<comment><USER17> This is definitely not the case. E-Verify has existed for a long time, but is still not mandatory [1].

Employers are supposed to have employees fill out an I-9 form that verifies employment eligibility, but the penalties for noncompliance are at most $1,100 per form -- basically slap on the wrist territory [2].

The irony here is that the anti-immigration wing of the Republican party is now in open conflict with the business wing of the party, which benefits heavily from hiring ineligible workers for low wages.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Verify#Operations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Verify#Operations)

[2] [https://www.thebalance.com/i-9-form-employment- eligibility-v...](https://www.thebalance.com/i-9-form-employment-eligibility- verification-form-1918902)

<comment><USER55> I've never used E-verify. I just use people's I-9. Everyone I've ever hired was born in the US so I never thought about this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Does every paragraph needs to rephrase that it isn't thanks to Trump? Maybe I'm wrong but lately it seems every US media outlet needs to mention him this way or another in every topic possible (positive or negative light)

<comment><USER57> I think you may be underestimating the importance of this article to US politics. One of the biggest issues in the 2016 election was stagnating blue- collar wages - it was one of Trump's main platforms, and one of the main factors that made him President. If the economy continues to do well across all income levels, regardless of why, and regardless of how unpopular Trump remains, there is a good chance we will see a second Trump term. As much as I dislike him, Scott Adams made this exact argument recently: [http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/10/14/low-public-approval-of- pr...](http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/10/14/low-public-approval-of-president- trump-yet-unusually-high-consumer-confidence-hmmm/)

As Bill Clinton said, "it's the economy, stupid".

<comment><USER53> Did you begin disliking Scott Adams when he became a Trump booster, or...?

<comment><USER58> No. When he let it out that 1\. He supports the NRA even after the recent gun violence 2\. When he supported Trumps statements during Charlottesville 3\. When he keeps saying on Twitter how the alt-right is so correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I work at a medium-sized software company. We've had similar problems with younger employees. Guys literally posting in company-wide Slack channels that they're "feeling a little sleepy this morning, gonna be in later."

Can you even imagine somebody saying that to their boss in some black-and- white movie from the 1940s? "Hey, how about instead of coming in later you hit the bricks and never come back?"

The culture has _definitely_ changed. It's wild.

<comment><USER60> >> "feeling a little sleepy this morning, gonna be in later."

Most clients don't want to deal with that kind of behavior.

"It's been 3 hours, why is the site still down?"

"The developer isn't in yet to fix it."

Being reliable and showing up to work on time is a job skill as much as good communication, being a hard worker, etc

I realize that you should be flexible with workers' hours but people also need to realize coverage is needed.

<comment><USER61> There certainly was an element of punctuality that has been lost, but it goes both ways. Clients don't want to deal with this either: "Sorry it's 5:01pm. The dev will be back tomorrow morning. Enjoy being down for the next 16hrs."

I'm all-in for the _kids these days sheesh_ comments, but if you think 'back in the day' workers had the constant availability expectation that we have in the modern era with cell phones, that's just factually incorrect. It wasn't only employees that reliably adhered to the schedule, it was also management. If that changes, both sides should accept the trade offs, otherwise you are expecting the employee to treat the schedule as sacred, while the employer treats the schedule as something which is changed on a whim.

Lazy unreliable people certainly exist, but they don't usually last that long in any role. Poisonous management practices that set people up for failure have a much longer shelf life and do more damage.

<comment><USER60> >> "Sorry it's 5:01pm. The dev will be back tomorrow morning. Enjoy being down for the next 16hrs."

For better or for worse, it's not expected to receive service after hours.

But first thing in morning...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I could have sworn this same article was one the front of HN a few days ago...

</comment><comment><USER63> >> "Anecdotaly, about 20% of new hires under 30 don't understand the concept of showing up on time (or at all)"

Don't kid yourself. Those new hires are at other jobs making more money. I am booked for a roofer in feb 2018 (fingers crossed - friend of a friend). Blue skills are in extremely high demand. And those guys are working extremely hard making really high incomes (400k+). These guys are highly paid and are not messing around -- most saw 2008. They drive nice trucks, own their company, have rude secretaries and wont look at your email until feb 18 (fingers crossed). Look at a blue collar guys' current circumstance: no competition (know anyone learning HVAC?), a HUGE housing boom in cali, pass through low tax income, 2k homes burned (wtf), no outsourcing (try outsourcing a plumber) -- as my mentor said: "Harvest time".

<comment><USER64> Where can one go to learn these "blue collar" skills? As a recent home owner I'm learning first hand how valuable these skills are by way of my wallet. Seems like most people I meet who do these kinds of jobs were "born into it", and learned by helping a family member who was already in the industry. Are there IIT type schools which teach these kinds of things on a part time basis?

<comment><USER65> For a great many, youtube is surprisingly awesome. My normal approach to home DIY now is to watch as many youtube videos of the process I want to try as possible, then make a determination if it is something I still want professional help with or can try to do myself.

<comment><USER66> YouTube is awesome for DIY, I moved to older house two years ago and with youtube helps I've added crown moldings, repainted all rooms, replaced baseboard, built patio, deck - lots of fun, I think without youtube I wouldn't done any of it, zero experience before. Funny, my dad did a lot of renovations, and a lot of times I'd get more details/better tips on youtube than asking him :) But youtube is great for common DIY projects - how to add crown molding - tens of really good detailed videos. But if project is less commonly done by DIY folks, not that much info - I've needed to replace exterior window trim - not that much, people usually hire for that.

DIY subreddit is also a good place to search and ask questions.

<comment><USER67> Would you say, for example, your painting is good as a professionals (e.g., paint lines are straight with respect to adjacent walls / ceiling, etc)? As someone who anticipates being a homeowner in a few years, I wonder if it's possible the first time you learn how to do something (without having the best technique for the skill) to get the best outcome.

I wouldn't want my home improvement projects to look half-assed just because I wasn't experienced or knew the "best practices" for the given home improvement task.

<comment><USER68> I think you'll find that it varies by the job and your own personal level of "halfassed".

I can do most home maintenance stuff - electrical, most plumbing, fixtures, appliance repair, etc. I pay someone to do drywall work or painting - <USER2> I'm pretty picky and I can always see where my work falls short.

I think you'll find for finishing work practice makes perfect and is where professionals shine. You can certainly do professional quality work, but expect a learning curve and to be re-doing sections of projects that don't turn out too well. I know several homeowners who have re-done bathrooms themselves, and only one would I say turned out professional looking in quality. That guy is simply a perfectionist who spent an inordinate amount of time on the project.

<comment><USER67> Yeah, I'd imagine as a homeowner, I'd want projects (at least those where the outcome matters visually), to have that professionalism.

I kind of would want to be a bit further up the learning curve, but if you only have 1 or 2 bedrooms, you don't have much by way to learn, so it seems like having a professional is probably worth the premium vs. your own labor (if you're like me and highly value the aesthetic end result).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> I keep reading that AI is going to eliminate all the jobs. Yet unemployment is at record lows and wages are rising across the board.

Could it be possible that AI will instead free people to work on new jobs in new industries? Amazing! It's almost like this time is not any different from any other time.

<comment><USER70> Overwhelming number of jobs created in the last decade are very low quality gig economy jobs. People work, but they're severely underemployed.

<comment><USER71> > ...very low quality gig economy jobs...

Gig jobs are fine if people can provide their own emergency fund and pay out of pocket for their own benefits. That is, the difference between "gig job" and a "successful sole proprietorship" is how much money one makes.</comment></comment></comment>


California man spent $1M playing Game of War - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/california-man-spent-1-million-playing-game-of-war/ <comment><USER4> One problems I've found with these style of apps are the elderly community.

My wife works at "In-Home healthcare" for the elderly community, specializing in hospice care. Because of this, she sees a lot of family members who get their parents tablets. It can be an iPad, or Android tablet. And it's used to facilitate cheap/free communication. (Don't worry, anything with app stores + in app payments are at fault, not $your_ecosystem.)

The dark side, is when they start venturing around looking for "games". Now, think of what a game was 20 and 30 years ago. We're talking arcade, Nintendo, Atari.. That sort of thing. The psychological skinner-box wasn't really created as of yet (it was, but only in arcades, and even the bad ones people stayed away from).

And then you have the "Freemium Apps". AKA money-bilking skinner boxes. Now, what makes these insidious, is the fact they ask for your credit card once, and keep it on file. Now, buying "virtual trash" is as easy as click click done. And conveniently drains your card.

And it's done so well that you think you're doing with fake play money - <USER2> it's really your real account.

My wife's already had a few clients got bit by this. It was a few thousand dollars, but enough to cause serious problems with someone who is on a fixed budget. Fortunately, the bank reversed much of it as fraudulent billing. Some of it was outside of dispute period, and was lost.

<comment><USER5> I have an elderly family member with this exact problem. Even with constant reminding, it is an uphill battle. I suspect it is a combination of addiction but also "dark patterns" that essentially trick folks into spending money.

One thing that helped is switching the family member to a True Link card: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Link)

While not perfect, it does root out the obvious scammers and does make it much easier to push back and cancel those reccuring subscriptions that "some how" keep getting activated.

I have no affiliation with True Link, but posting it in hopes it can help someone with a similar problem.

Edit: Just now realized True Link has a YC affiliation, so maybe this is more on topic than I thought.

<comment><USER6> Why not just remove the payment card from their account? You don't need to have a card on file to install free apps and if you have no intention of buying anything, there's no reason to have one on file at all.

<comment><USER7> I believe this is the situation on android but that on ios you need a card either way to download from the app store?

Or at least this used to be the situation.

<comment><USER6> > I believe this is the situation on android but that on ios you need a card > either way to download from the app store?

> Or at least this used to be the situation.

Nope and I've never had one attached so it's definitely not a new thing either.

They do have a bit of a dark pattern to trick you into adding one when you first set up an Apple ID. IIRC, when you pick your credit card type (AmEx, VISA, etc) you can pick "No Credit Card" to skip it.

<comment><USER4> Yeah. I work in tech, and this has tripped me up many a time.

Apple is extremely negligent about demanding a credit card, when I only want "free applications". Worse yet, with their app-storification of OSX, it's absolutely horrendous. And of course, only "richies" use OSX and Apple (enter here various websites that charge more for Mac users based upon browser ident strings).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> # Free startup idea: HN style site that combines karma based gamification with in-app purchases!

Imagine if you could "buy" your way to the top post, thus ensuring you get more eyeballs, and hopefully more upvotes!

Worried about downvotes against your pointless comment? Buy a "Downvote Shield (TM)" ( _Note: the shield only lasts for 45 minutes so you 'll have to buy another one if the post stays popular!_).

What about going on offense you say? Well downvotes are a limited resource (one free per day, max reserve of 3, takes 24-hours to recharge your downvote) but no worries, but you can buy a 10-pack of fresh downvotes for only 20 karma crystals[1]!

[1]: _Karma crystals are the in game currency. You can buy them in blocks of prime numbers for whole numbers of actual currency._

<comment><USER8> > [1]: Karma crystals are the in game currency. You can buy them in blocks of > prime numbers for whole numbers of actual currency.

This made me actively cringe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is not a game for kids, it is for gambling addicts. And now those addicts no longer need to physically go to the casino to feed that addiction.

These companies are predators.

<comment><USER10> Slightly off topic, but it was only recently that I found out that the video game roulette and black-jack etc. machines (known as fixed odds betting terminals) are the reason there are so many bloody betting shops in the UK.

The government restricted these machines to only 4 per shop. Apparently they print enough money that a betting shop will have 2 or 3 branches within walking distance to get around the limit.

This is along with all the other chains doing exactly the same thing. It's madness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Most of the core revenue making mechanics are imported from Japanese games, that had a game boom earlier than the west due to abundance of feature phones that were very close to modern smartphones... as well as people bored in trains.

One of the core elements is the concept of "gacha" or probabilistic purchase, where instead of selling an item for a price, they sell a low probability of getting what you actually want for a lower price... but in the end people try over and over again and easily lose track of their purchases and end up spending more.

Some forms of gacha are no longer legal (e.g: kompu gacha), due to their exceptional ability to make people spend... last time I checked the thing was "box gacha".

Another way of making revenue is through "events", which are competitions, but their outcome is heavily influenced by how much you spend. They're basically auctions.

The thing is... in the end people don't really win. To win an event in a top grossing game you might need probably a thousand dollars. It's not worth it.

<comment><USER12> This is interesting, do you have any sources or links so I can find out more?

<comment><USER13> Not sure how much detail you want. As a quick summary:

* "Gacha" is basically a mystery prize. Pay 1 token, get 1 random thing from a pool of options. Generally no published odds.

* "Kompu Gacha" is a system where you have to collect a set of specific prizes from the pool, which you can then turn in to obtain a very desirable item. Again, odds not published. And as you might expect, 1-2 of the items will be extremely rare, meaning that most people end up with an almost complete set, and a strong compulsion to open just one more prize to see if it'll complete it, but with no guarantee you'll ever complete it.

* "Box gacha" has a fixed, depleting pool of prizes with a known distribution; they come out in a nominally random order, but you can buy every prize in the pool and guarantee that you'll get the reward.

Once you start to look around, you'll see the mechanic and variations on it everywhere. McDonald's runs a popular Monopoly game that's a pretty classic kompu gacha. Tons of modern computer/console games have some form of loot crate which works like that. One I've been seeing a lot is multiple currency tiers, where an easy/free currency can purchase draws from a low value prize pool, and a harder/cash currency can purchase draws from a high value prize pool. Another trick is to have an armour set that works really well together, where most pieces can be obtained (with effort) for free, but one piece can basically only be obtained as a rare prize that costs cash per draw. You grind out getting most of the armour, then realise it's mostly useless without the helm of power (or whatever), and so you buy just one prize draw to see if you get lucky and complete the set so all your work wasn't for nothing. And then one more draw. Good way of drawing in "gamers" who might resist a cruder form.

Even Overwatch has it: During their periodic holidays, there's a new loot crate which you can earn via playing games (very slowly) or purchase for cash. The new loot crates have a chance of containing new cosmetic items (costumes, emotes) that are only available during the holiday. And that's the only way to get the items, and the holiday only comes up once a year. So if you really, really want the new Mercy costume, you'll end up buying packs of crates and opening them in the hope that this batch will have the costume. Or this one. Or the next one. Anecdotally, most people end up paying way more for the items they want than they would have if they were just listed in a store for dollars. (There's zero play to win in Overwatch; it's just cosmetic. But it's still a bit sleezy.)

As for links, maybe:

[http://www.serkantoto.com/2012/11/01/kompu-gacha-package- box...](http://www.serkantoto.com/2012/11/01/kompu-gacha-package-box-gacha/)

[http://www.serkantoto.com/2016/03/14/gacha-monetization- japa...](http://www.serkantoto.com/2016/03/14/gacha-monetization-japan/)

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

<comment><USER14> Would trading card games work under a similar type of logic? Because games like Magic the Gathering, Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh tend to work on a system where the player buys a random pack of cards, with the better ones being extremely rare/hard to find and the weaker ones being more common.

And they often come with people spending hundreds of dollars on rare cards or buying whole boxes on the assumption there's at least one ultra rare one per box.

<comment><USER13> There's certainly a lot of overlap with the general gacha concept, but I think at least in the case of Magic the very robust secondary market leads to very different dynamics than kompu gacha systems.

For me, at least, back when I played Magic, I never ever opened a pack in the hope of getting a card; what I _would_ do is open a pack in the hopes of getting stuff to trade _for_ the card.

In addition, the distribution of value from a pack of Magic cards was pretty even. If you opened 3-4 packs, you would be very unlikely to get the rare card you wanted, but you'd be quite likely to get cards you could trade. There's also published data on rarity and distributions.

Ultimately, I think the kompu gacha systems work by exploiting the sunk cost fallacy. You've already spent $X on prizes, but it's worthless because you don't have the one ultra-rare one you need. But if you spend another $Y, you have a chance of making the earlier investment valuable.

With Magic, typically, after you spend $X on cards you have less than $X worth of cards, but not a _lot_ less. If you don't get the one ultra-rare one, you still have, worst case, a bunch of junk rares and some decent uncommons you could trade or, worst case, sell to a dealer. And, crucially, the previous investment doesn't become more valuable if you finally do get the ultra-rare.

...that being said, a huge, huge part of the money the companies behind them earn is because of the random nature of the packs. So...I guess I'd grade it as mildly exploitive, perhaps, but only mildly. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm a huge proponent of platform owners getting out of the way when it comes to restrictions (at odds with my use of iOS, but it's a balance of priorities).

When will regulations catch up with this sort of thing? Do Apple/Google have a moral responsibility here? Apple expressly forbids gambling apps, but this is essentially a slot machine with a different mechanic. Apple (not as familiar with Google) have done a great job on iOS giving parents the options to restrict their children making unauthorised purchases, but the settings aren't hugely discoverable.

In this day and age, do we need to consider a digital restraining order that allows a spouse or close family member to block or limit digital addicts? Do Apple or Google have a duty of care here or does it rest with law makers? The concerning part is that these purchases are invisible. If I buy a $1 million boat, others will see that and can intervene. But digital purchases can rack up silently and cause massive damage without anyone realising.

I'm really not sure where I stand on the issue. One side of me says that "it's his money, he can do what he wants" whereas the other side says that society should protect it's weakest, and this man clearly has a gambling problem.

<comment><USER16> Actually, gambling apps are allowed in stores for territories where gambling is legal.

In the UK every bookmaker will have an app, and there are plenty of real-money casino and bingo apps available.

Of course, the difference here, is that the UK's gambling companies operate in a highly regulated environment. You can put in place deposit limits instantly that then take a week or more to lift, you can self-exclude (ban yourself from the bookmaker), and these are the measures the firms have put in themselves, the regulator is there to basically make sure they're following consistent rules and treating players fairly.

Money laundering regulations, appropriate licensing, etc. also all add up. The general view is that people should be free to gamble, but also have a regulatory framework to remove criminal elements and ensure players are treated fairly. It helps that the government gets to tax proceeds as well - <USER3> issue causing real headaches as they've become as addicted to the in-store FOBTs income as much as bookmaker shareholders have.

I've thought for a while that there was going to come a time when spending caps were likely going to be needed for in-game assets. But then, where do you draw the line? You could easily argue that webcam sites are potentially as addictive, exploitative and potentially have the same game behaviour that is so dangerous here.

<comment><USER15> TIL about the gambling restriction being region-specific.

I guess my question boils down to this: betting on horses and playing a casino slot machine are recognised as gambling and regulated as such. How, when and should apps like Game of War be considered in the same category?

<comment><USER17> I guess a (somewhat perverse) argument could be made that the defining characteristic of gambling is that you might (just maybe) get back more money than you put in. In Game of War you are absolutely 100% guaranteed to get back exactly 0% of your money every single time, and thus there is no gambling involved.

<comment><USER18> And to me it's a slippery slope because what separates stuff like Game of War and Farmville from your average AAA game with purchases for packs of things like skins.

Usually people don't group those because you're paying money for the former up front, but the mechanics are the same.

<comment><USER19> There's no slippery slope. The difference is easy to distinguish.

Is real money a substitute for skill at whatever decisions the game asks you to make? If so, you're being scammed.

Content expansions in AAA games are obviously not substitutes for skill.

Nor are cosmetic customization options like skins or accessories.

Cards in virtual card games like Hearthstone get a bit more interesting to analyze. There are better and worse decks, and it takes the right cards to build better decks. Spending money is a much faster way to get the right cards than doing daily quests. But there are two factors that keep Hearthstone out of scam territory. First, someone can get any card they want without spending money, and if they're really good in drafts, they can even do it relatively quickly. So, the more skill you have, the less spending money helps you. Second, there's a maximum that spending money can help you. Once you have the decks you want, whether you win or not comes down to skill (and some luck) in the exact same way as everyone else. You get no advantages over someone who built the deck they want without spending money.

So yeah, there's a simple framework to apply to make these decisions. Where's the slippery slope?

<comment><USER18> I wasn't referring to Content expansions, I was referring to games like Halo or Fifa where you can buy (or earn) a "pack" of "cards" that unlock (non- cosmetic) items that are in the base game that you use in actual gameplay.

In these mobile IAP-fests you can unlock anything with "enough play" and beat most challenges with "enough skill" but the idea is "enough play" is supposed to be so much that if you committed to it, you'd have better luck working a job to just pay for the items you unlock. And there's no difference between items earned and bought, just a difference in expected quantity one has access to. So those games pass both tests you mention.

You end up needing to add more and more constraints to have a framework that works on multiple genres and eventually you'll find you're making exclusions that aren't really fair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> China is set to introduce a law that will force these sort of games to reveal their drop rates. It will be interesting to see if it will have any effect but my gut is telling their wont be any significant changes.

Thinking about it I wonder how they expect games to report this information when it is most likely have 2 or 3 different data sets in the wild with different drop rates. A company could mis-lead customers by displaying the percentages for one data set with favourable odds when in reality they are in a bucket with much worse odds.

Source : [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-12-09-china- force...](http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-12-09-china-forces-devs- to-reveal-loot-box-drop-rates-in-game)

<comment><USER11> This would be great.

Sometimes the game UX presents probabilities in a misleading way... such showing the card being taken from a deck. However if it was probabilistically accurate, the deck shown in the UX would have probably 10000 cards in it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> My girlfriend works as data analyst for a mobile gaming company and she found a user that spends between 4000 to 6000 USD every month on items. Who are these people?

<comment><USER22> They are victims.

Ask your girlfriend where, if at all, she draws the moral line.

I'm not a saint but I wouldn't be able to justify that to myself.

<comment><USER23> Hmm, I would draw the line at adults spending their own money however they legally pleased.

It's not moral to dictate how another's earnings should be spent. That's the opposite of moral.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exploiting psychological flaws in humans might be legal but is horrifyingly immoral and unethical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's just downright crazy gambling is regulated yet ingame purchases with infinitely well crafted adiction mechanisms data driven and personalized is not.

</comment><comment><USER25> I've seen comments here on HN before from game developers who claimed that had player who they characterized (unclear how correctly) as "Saudi Oil rich-kids" who'd spend tens of thousands on in-game costumes to out-peacock their friends.

This is a whole other level though.

<comment><USER26> "As I understand it, "whales" tend to be less "poor gullible fools maxing out their credit cards" and more "extraordinarily wealthy people that enjoy wasting amounts that seem ridiculous to us but are truly nothing but a drop in the bucket to them." The term "oil prince" is trotted out sometimes, and people like that really do exist: I don't remember his name, but there is a very real "oil prince" who likes to go on twitch.tv and shower random (mostly female) streamers with thousands of dollars."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7164862](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7164862)

<comment><USER27> It would be interesting to know to which extent it is true, because this sounds exactly like the ideal line of defense for a casino-like industry.

<comment><USER26> Yeah. I know there are lots of problems in the UK with fixed odd betting machines ([http://www.itv.com/news/2016-12-13/what-are-fixed-odds- betti...](http://www.itv.com/news/2016-12-13/what-are-fixed-odds-betting- terminals/))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> When I worked at Expression College I use to talk and interact quite a bit with Gabe the founder.Suffice to say if you heard the way he spoke in private about "these people" (the game audience world) it would make you cringe even more. This was before he "made it", but was still in the game industry. Regardless, he's very smart in the most Machiavellian sense of the word. Some of his online talks are actually really enlightening.

I'm grateful I'm not in that world. It reminds me of Donald Trump. Relentless hypocrisy, no shame, and the entire thing coupled with the grand illusion of success.

And stop calling these "games" they're not! They're real-money auctions to have your name at the top of some silly todo list.

lol

</comment><comment><USER29> Well, I guess we now know who TheLegend27 is.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'd be interested to see some journalism around IAPs in apps aimed at Children.

 _Talking Tom 's Gold Run_ is a fun little endless runner. It's well made. My kid enjoys it. There's an IAP to turn off most ads, and because we play the app a lot I bought that, and some other bits and bobs. But I was looking at the IAPs and I have no idea how much I'd have to spend if I wanted to unlock everything - all the courses, all the characters, everything. The most expensive IAP is £79, and that wouldn't come close to unlocking everything.

I don't think you have to buy anything, I think you could just grind the game to complete it with play not pay.

</comment><comment><USER31> To some degree, every game has addictive mechanics. This type of mobile game clearly crosses an ethical line... but where's the line?

<comment><USER32> I think they cross the line by not limiting how much people can spend in the game.

<comment><USER31> But is there a limit on how much people can spend on games that are not considered as belonging to the same category as Game of War, such as Hearthstone or Magic: The Gathering? Granted, the addictive mechanics are not as overt, but potentially you could spend a lot there as well.

<comment><USER33> In Magic at least it's not pay to win - the better you are, the less you need to spend.

<comment><USER27> afaik pro players either borrow their cards from stores, or are running stores in order to have access to the cards.

Almost none of them would be able to play the game at their level while also paying for their working tools. But, somehow, they are shown as examples to players without these connections...

If I can give an advice to anyone willing to play somewhat competitive magic without mortgaging their house, play block pauper magic.

<comment><USER34> The difference is in GoW battles between armies destroy the armies. Nobody would play M:TG if every time you lost a land it went into a shredder. Now imagine your Power 7 are set on fire before you eyes when you lose instead. GoW is designed to consume resources which can only be replaced by unrealistic wait times (days, weeks) or purchased for cash.

At least for the ycombinator crowd, the lesson learned should be how to design such a game assuming your morals allow it. I briefly considered writing a parody that openly abused you for spending money in game. BROADCAST: "Hey everyone, this idiot just spent $10 on some bits on a server in California!" But yeah I would feel bad even making money from that game, and it seemed like a lot of work for something that would probably net $35.

<comment><USER17> _Nobody would play M:TG if every time you lost a land it went into a shredder._

I haven't played M:TG in over decade, but at least then it was standard 'ante up' a card before each game that you would lose if you lost.

<comment><USER35> Much more than a decade, I'd wager! Ante stopped being standard quite a long time ago. Personally I stopped playing in 1997 and ante had already ceased to be a common practice in my area several years before that, from what I remember.

Just googled it and the last card to even have an ante-impacting ability was printed in 1996. Seems it stuck around as an optional rule but wasn't common in my experience, probably because tournaments always skipped it.

<comment><USER17> ...you're right. Fuck, I'm getting old.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> They spent $40 million in advertising, gotta earn it back somehow.

</comment><comment><USER37> >Machine Zone

Good day in Smolensk. Try playing in Russian unwinable casino

</comment><comment><USER38> Following this news among others, I tried to start an Ask HN thread on recommended readings regarding freemium mobile games' strategies, but it didn't draw any attention so far. Here is the link if you would like to contribute: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13157836](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13157836)

</comment><comment><USER39> [http://www.duq.edu/about/centers-and-institutes/center- for-t...](http://www.duq.edu/about/centers-and-institutes/center-for-teaching- excellence/teaching-and-learning/tips-for-student-online-success)

</comment><comment><USER40> This is sad. Can't help but think about a speech in the recent Westworld finale:

> Since I was a child, I've always loved a good story.

> I believed that stories helped us to ennoble ourselves,

> to fix what was broken in us and to help us become the

> people we dreamed of being. Lies that told a deeper truth.

> I always thought I could play some small part in that

> grand tradition.

It's funny how people from the same background, class and culture are capable of both creating a beautiful, if slightly pessimistic, story and a ruthless exploitation machine. In both cases they do it for money, both are profitable, and yet the effect is very different.

</comment><comment><USER41> slightly NSFW</comment>


The Impact Of Priority Inbox - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/10/the-impact-of-priority-inbox.html

<comment><USER2> Priority Inbox treats a symptom, instead of the problem:

Why do you have people sending you so much junk email that you can't read it all?

Is ignoring those people really better than telling them not to send so much junk?

</comment><comment><USER3> I generally love priority inbox, but it doesn't do a good job of catching certain classes of mail that I need to read. (Mostly this is work-related email from some previously unknown sender with poor English skills--a regular hazard, for a grad student.)

I've solved this somewhat by changing the second panel from "Starred" to "Unread in Inbox". This way I can still choose to address only really important mail (top panel), but all non-spam mail makes it at least to the second panel, at least once.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't really need priority inbox, because I can make unwanted e-mail go away with filters and reporting them spam.</comment>


Scaleway Global Expansion Starts in Amsterdam - <AUTHOR> https://blog.online.net/2016/10/27/scaleway-global-expansion-starts-in-amsterdam/ <comment><USER2> If they would start to use ECC memory, it would be interesting for a lot of reasons. But without it, it's too much of a gamble for critical things.</comment>


Self-Hosted Dropbox Alternatives - <AUTHOR> https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/3-self-hosted-dropbox-alternatives-tested/ <comment><USER2> Syncthing is fantastic, and is mostly private. With a little effort, you can make it completely private by setting up your own discovery and relay server (though the docs on how to do that could really be improved).

</comment><comment><USER3> If you want to try nextcloud use the nextcloudpi project. It takes care of everything you need to set it up.

</comment><comment><USER4> I use seafile. The docs are so so, the support is not great but the product did not failed once for two years (with my server being on linux (docker) , clients on linux, windows and android)

</comment><comment><USER5> If you are looking for a commercial (not opensource) self-hosted dropbox alternative, FileCloud ([https://www.getfilecloud.com](https://www.getfilecloud.com)) is great. It comes with great support and has clients for windows, mac and linux.

Full Disclosure: I work here.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have been a very happy user of Syncthing over Wireguard (connecting all my devices back home). Adding to that a VM of "OpenMediaVault" for NAS/Backup, PiHole to catch what Ublock misses, and music streaming via FunkWhale, I have managed to host a good majority of my own data.

</comment><comment><USER7> Is there anything that has a client for Linux, Mac, and iOS? Not just a website, but a dedicated app.

<comment><USER8> NextCloud has desktop clients and mobile apps: [https://nextcloud.com/install/#install- clients](https://nextcloud.com/install/#install-clients) . ownCloud has them too: [https://owncloud.com/download/#desktop- clients](https://owncloud.com/download/#desktop-clients)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A Synology NAS + Synology Drive has replaced Dropbox for me. Drive isn't quite as polished, but I have effectively unlimited space, and it's more private.

<comment><USER10> This also turned out to be a good alternative for me, although I kept Dropbox and had my Synology backing up everything to it so clients use Drive to sync to NAS then NAS to Dropbox.

Then my NAS died very prematurely, rather than buy another proprietary piece of hardware from Synology I muddled through setting up DSM in VirtualBox on a more powerful machine with xpenology. Using their operating system in a virtual machine lets you use their mobile apps too, about the only thing you can't do is use their QuickConnect service but there are other dynamic-dns services you can use in its place.

[https://xpenology.com/forum/topic/13834-virtualbox- dsm-62-ds...](https://xpenology.com/forum/topic/13834-virtualbox- dsm-62-ds3615xs-config/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What about not fully Dropbox alternatives, but simple solutions to have a backup of files online and sync those files with different computers?

<comment><USER11> Unison works well. [https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/](https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/)

rsync is incredible efficient and reliable. I use Nextcloud for some things. But it is just too slow for large data (Gigabytes and tens of thousands of files). Especially it they change frequently. HTTP and webdav is slow and the clients are not reliable. Last week I tried to transfer 20000 photos (for Mapillary) from a phone using Nextcloud. It took forever and the Nextcloud app crashed after a few hundred photos. Rsync (syncopoli on the phone) worked like a charm and did the job in no time.

Plus it is just so convenient using SSH because you can easily make tunnels and still have end-to-end encryption.

<comment> o-__-o Large sized files are not a problem with Nextcloud. Large amounts of files in a single directory are. A .git dir in nextcloud will trash performance.... but my photo library is perfectly performant :shrug:

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For those of us that have the same aversion to setting up an entire web server for a simple browser-based access to their files as I have, I recommend also having a look at [https://filebrowser.xyz](https://filebrowser.xyz)

I have an instance running at home (reachable only via VPN) that simultaneously syncs the files via Syncthing, and the combination of the two is surprisingly effective.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Adding to this this project currently in beta, a simple self-hosted private Dropbox with E2EE: [https://www.duple.io/en/](https://www.duple.io/en/)</comment>


Does Sugar Help You Focus? - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/does-sugar-help-you-focus/ <comment><USER2> How could they know for sure the artificial sweetener did not adversely affect focus somehow?

<comment><USER3> Yes this is an interesting thought. Something like Aspartame, at least in a subset of the population, induces headaches. So it's interacting with something related to the brain in some people at least.

Doing some digging there are some case reports, not studies, of people suffering migraines from Sucralose (Splenda was used in the study).[0] The product safety people at McNeil Nutritionals (manufacturers of Splenda) in reply to these cases pointed out, rightfully in my opinion, that a couple of cases in millions of exposures is hardly concerning.[1]

However that's just saying it doesn't cause migraines, or on the off-chance it does nobody has proven it with a proper controlled study. But migraines are not performance on a Stroop task from the study. There could still be some interaction between Sucralose, or perhaps artificial sweeteners more generally, and Stroop task performance.

A more complex study design could nail it down I guess.

[0] [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00543_1.x/full) [1] [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00983.x/full)

<comment><USER4> > Something like Aspartame, at least in a subset of the population, induces > headaches.

Possibly, probably not:

> Headaches are the most common symptom reported by consumers.[8] While one > small review noted aspartame is likely one of many dietary triggers of > migraines, in a list that includes "cheese, chocolate, citrus fruits, hot > dogs, monosodium glutamate, aspartame, fatty foods, ice cream, caffeine > withdrawal, and alcoholic drinks, especially red wine and beer,"[66] other > reviews have noted conflicting studies about headaches[8][67] and still more > reviews lack any evidence and references to support this claim.[38][41][65]

(Don't make me copy and paste all of the citations. You know I'll do it.)

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

<comment><USER3> You are right to call me out on that it seems. I just looked into it further and this study[0] seems like pretty good evidence - double blind randomized crossover study with 48 "sensitive" and 48 control subjects - that there isn't any significant Aspartame effect.

[0] [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116212)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The only reason we lose focus --

\-- I know what you're gonna say and I totally agree --

\-- Wait... Shh! The only reason we lose focus is because we accept it as an inevitability!

</comment><comment><USER6> after extensive self-experimentation, I whole heartedly agree with the findings of this research and highly recommend atomic fireballs prior to any important programming session</comment>


Ask HN: Can we please ban Dunning–Kruger and related comments from HN? - <AUTHOR> I'm getting sick of clicking on an HN thread only to see someone writing off the OP's post and/or observations as a mental effect. The only effect that posts like the Dunning–Kruger effect serve is to subtly insult the original poster and inflate the ego of whoever is writing the comment (in a "you have to be at least as smart and accomplished as me to even understand that I'm insulting you" kind of way).
Seriously people, it's gotten so bad in recent months that the HN community is now using it as an inside joke. If someone from elsewhere, let's say a Google search, saw such a post, it makes us all look like a toxic mess. I find it absolutely infuriating that we, as a community, openly tolerate such behavior. Especially since we supposedly have the blessing of YCombinator and several prominent tech outlets. Is this really the standard that we want to set?
Anyways, ranting aside, how can we improve the dialogue here? Do the mods have any input on this? We can do so much better. <comment><USER2> Could you give some or a lot of examples of that? (I don't remember seeing that on here; maybe we read different things.) Have people said it to you more than once? Your language ('absolutely infuriating') is puzzlingly strong. You want to _ban_ the mere mention of the thing?! Downvoting isn't enough? Or people just aren't downvoting mentions of D-K enough for your taste?

<comment><AUTHOR> > Downvoting isn't enough?

Sorry for coming off strong. But yeah, I've been seeing it at least 2-3 times a week in top comments. It's become frequent enough that it, along with similar subtle insult links to Wikipedia, can change the flow of the thread too easily.

The ban is harsh. However, I do not think a downvote is enough here. The downvote merely hides the bad behavior. It ultimately doesn't stop it, though. What I feel needs to happen is to create a penalty for being a subtle snob in threads. My idea is snobby in itself, I admit that. But we owe it to ourselves and outsiders to reign in our conversations so we can have free and constructive debates without users resorting to name calling and dog whistles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I agree that most D-K references are tedious and self-aggrandizing, and contribute nothing to the conversation. The best way to handle them (or any dismissive, unsubstantive comment) is to downvote, and never take the bait and respond.

<comment><AUTHOR> Downvoting just hides it, though. It doesn't change the behavior. What I am seeing is that, given the correct thread at the correct time, such a post can be placed more prominently regardless of a downvote. New visitors will see that and immediately be turned away from the community.

We need to send a message that this sort of "sophisticated insulting" will not be tolerated. It adds nothing of value and can throw off entire conversations.

<comment><USER4> Behavior change of that order is beyond our or the community's capacity. What you're describing is the reflex reaction that happens when pre-existing associations meet well-established brain mechanisms. It happens with this theme and many others.

The most we can hope for is, as tlb said, to downweight such boring reflexive comments and not feed them. If they end up with negative scores, that may be the best training mechanism we have. Telling people to do better doesn't achieve much; most people won't see the message, most of those who do won't hear it, and most of those won't think it applies to them.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which books do you read in free time? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> poem books from my country "Mathnawi", and some theosophy book.</comment>


Processing has been the Canvas of Choice for Artistic Programming: Introducing Ruby-Processing. - <AUTHOR> http://www.the-shoebox.org/apps/44

<comment><USER2> After looking at that page, I have no idea what that's supposed to do. Will someone enlighten me?

<comment><USER3> _"... After looking at that page, I have no idea what that's supposed to do. Will someone enlighten me? ..."_

Processing [0] is a graphical open source tool-kit to visualise data. Created by some ex-MIT Multimedia labs. It is designed to get _non-programmers_ to program visually yet let programmers visualise large volumes of data w/o having to the need to take "Death Graphics" (COS 426) or re-code low level graphics routines from scratch.

This link looks like it describes a ruby binding to processing. If you have the $$$'s you could probably buy Mathematica which does similiar things. But processing is open and free.

[0] Processing ~ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processing_>(programming_language)

[1] COS 426 or Death Graphics is a demanding course at Princeton CS dept ~ <http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spring08/cos426/>

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Works on Mac, Windows and Linux. Using interactive Ruby (via-jirb), you can do Live Coding, redefining your methods and classes as you go.</comment>


Why "Write Tests. Not Too Many. Mostly Integration" Is Bad Advice - <AUTHOR> https://www.codewithjason.com/write-tests-not-too-many/ <comment><USER2> This author didn't really refute the quote. He didn't support his contention that we should write lots of fine grained tests.

Having a lot of tests can lead to undesirable outcomes, for example bad tests (tests that test the wrong things, that test the correct things wrongly, that aren't actually testing the code but something else, like library code or compiler output) and code that is structured poorly to accommodate testing rather than to accomplish a thing.</comment>


Chevrolet Bolt EV Sales Tank 41 Percent in Q3 2018 - <AUTHOR> http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/12/chevrolet-bolt-ev-sales-numbers-figures-results-third-quarter-2018 <comment><USER2> Classic innovator's dilemma at play here.

Bolt was a decent, but not that great, EV that was being sold at a significant loss in order to stop the Tesla Model 3 hype. However, GM obviously didn't intend to sell hundreds of thousands or millions of them, because that would've meant billions in losses.

The second issue is the same as always that EV makers other than Tesla will continue to experience - dealers have no interest in trying too hard to sell EVs (or at all, for that matter). GM and other carmakers continue to underestimate this problem at their own peril. Their "customers" here are actually the dealerships, and these customers have little interest in EVs.</comment>