Is College Worth It? - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/is-college-worth-it/ <comment><USER4> This kind of BS analyses are exactly the root of the current problems with the higher education system (insane tuition, CS majors who can't do fizbuzz etc.) - because they are _self-fulfilling prophecies_.

For comparison, let's imagine that some evil marketing genius decides to examine the corresponding statistical impacts of wearing a business suit. "Our data indicate that people who wear a business suit to work earn a career average of $1M extra over people who don't. Considering many quality suits cost under $2000, this results into a higher than 100:1 return on investment." Before long, tailor shops are doing a booming business, wearing a $400 suit becomes a _faux pas_ , and candidates get dismissed early from interviews because they showed up with an Armani at a Dolce&Gabbana shop. People no longer care whether a suit is useful or even comfortable in their line of work, and prices shoot through the roof for apparel that offers little beyond a famous label.

I don't know who started the trend of promoting flawed statistical studies [1] in this regard, but if they worked for higher education they must have been a very evil marketing genius indeed.

[1] Why are people who _couldn 't_ go to college lumped to bring down those who _wouldn 't_? Is "college" a monolithical category where e.g. differences between majors matter much less than four years's experience in specific industries?

<comment><USER5> You did not read the article all the way through, nor did the people who voted you up.

If you had, you would have encountered references to a variety of studies that attempt to control for going to college as opposed to other predictive factors using things like twin studies. They have found that the impact of college is less than simple analyses show, but the largest contribution to the difference between college graduates and non-graduates is college itself.

<comment><USER6> A lot of the people here are IMO rightfully criticizing that not more thought has been given to the possibility that being able to get into college and pay for college is simply a good indicator for a lifetime premium in earnings.

The only point I found in this article is the FSU study in which they try to control against factors by comparing students who barely made the cut. They came out with a 11% rate of return. (I looked up the study but couldn't find whether it refers to 11% return on the monthly salary or lifetime earnings)

It's left for us to decide whether this is a significant enough, especially given the option value of college and lack of alternatives to college.

P.S.: 75k (the cost of attending FSU) invested in a currently 3.7 treasury bond yields 118k after 30 years.

<comment><USER7> > P.S.: 75k (the cost of attending FSU)

Don't forget the additional $120K that the average high school graduate will earn during those years, assuming a four year program.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have a problem with this method:

"Payscale draws on its information about alumni salaries. It calculates the expected earnings of a newly minted graduate over a 30 year career by summing the median incomes of alumni from his or her school who graduated between one and 30 years ago."

Yes, I know that college was worth it 30 years ago, and even 15 years ago, and even 10 years ago. That is not the real question. The question is will this continue to be true in the future? Those who are challenging the value of a college degree are in essence arguing "We may be at an inflection point where the value of a college degree will, from this point forward, decrease."

You can not prove or disprove the point by pointing out that trend lines from the past, if projected into the future, show that college remains a great investment.

That line of reasoning is irrelevant if we are in fact at an inflection point. What is relevant is any argument for or against the idea that we are at an inflection point. Arguments based on trend lines from 30 years ago miss the heart of this subject.

The strongest argument to be drawn from this chart is one based on the 5 year trend line: if a college degree was worth a great deal during the Great Recession, then surely that proves the enduring value of a college degree? However, there is a counter argument: what is being measured here is the income premium beyond what someone with a high school degree makes, and the Great Recession wiped out millions of jobs in industries that hired large numbers of people who only had high school degrees (for instance, the construction industry).

Again, the question to be answered is are we at an inflection point? When the economy recovers, and jobs in the construction industry have returned, will a college degree still offer the large income premium that it offered in the past?

<comment><USER9> Another problem with a pure financial projection is that it does not fully consider opportunity cost. The cost/benefit is not simply the difference in earnings, minus tuition, interest, missed earnings and investment on earnings.

The real cost is that being in debt limits your options to pursue possibly more lucrative opportunities, or to enjoy your life outside the system. The better term would be liquidity cost. Every one of us will at some point come across a great investment opportunity. Every one of us can have an idea we would like to pursue. But an employee fully loaded with college debt, added with mortgage and kids, can't afford to do anything else but add to a 401k each paycheck.

Furthermore, every financial investment should have a healthy margin of error to compensate you for risk. This should be at even higher margins when the more leveraged you are. Things like college and a mortgage are a total leverage of your earnings potential as an employee. Thus the question isn't whether college is merely worth it. The question should be if college is totally a no-brainer as an investment.

And it looks like it's not anymore.

<comment><USER10> Interesting point. While college gives you a better chance of a regular salary, it pretty much disables you from taking advantage of BIG (albeit risky) opportunities and thus in a way limit your returns. But isn't that how all financial instruments work? You always have to sacrifice a portion of your potential returns to decrease risk.

(look up derivative market and hedging your position etc)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here's the other problem with this method of asking, "Is college worth it?": as far as I know, Alex Mayyasi doesn't collect data on dropouts.

Starting and finishing at a public school in four years is almost certainly worth it for most people. Starting and dropping out, especially when you're more than one semester in, is a disaster, and the dropout numbers for many schools are staggering. I was a grad student at the University of Arizona in English Lit and routinely saw that something like half of those who enrolled as 18-year-old freshmen matriculated within six years.

The rest? Some presumably had parents to pay, but many were stuck with loans that couldn't be effectively discharged through bankruptcy and other normal means. The U of A, and other universities, pay no price for this. They have no skin in the game.

I've written more about this here: [http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/the-problem-with- ju...](http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/the-problem-with-justifying- college-involves-cost/) and elsewhere.

<comment><USER12> The article does discuss dropouts (although the word "dropout" is not used). Emphasis mine.

"A recent Washington Post article covers some of the studies - <USER2> of the increased earnings of those who _attend college without graduating_ \- that suggest a college education itself leads to increased earnings."

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "To accurately measure the earnings bump graduates receive thanks to their bachelor's degree, Payscale takes this expected income of a college graduate over his or her career and subtracts the total income they would have made during that time if they did not attend college. To do so, Payscale subtracts the median wage of a high school graduate over those 30 years as well as over the four years a college graduate spent attending college instead of working."

"Accurately"? Rubbish. I don't see them controlling for a single confounding factor here.

I'd love to see a study comparing college attendees with those who were accepted into college and did not attend (e.g. for financial or personal reasons). At least then you are controlling somewhat for ability, ambition and circumstance. My suspicion is that being "good enough" to get into a good college is sufficient to wipe out the wage differential for many fields of study, independent of the fact of attendance.

Or, as Groucho might say, "I wouldn't go to a college that would have me as a student."

</comment><comment><USER14> _Payscale subtracts the median wage of a high school graduate..._

This is a common mistake, and one which completely invalidates the process. The median high school graduate is someone who wasn't able to get into college, and many of the factors associated with that -- starting with low high school grades -- are also associated with lower earnings. You might as well say that purring results in pets gaining legs, because pets which purr have on average more legs than pets which don't purr.

To get any accurate measure of the value of going to college, you need to compare students who are _similar in all ways except college attendance_. Of course, this is a difficult thing to do, since it involves looking at high school grades, SAT scores, parental income, parental education, and gender at a minimum -- all of these factors are known to correlate with both individual educational achievement and individual earnings.

<comment><USER12> The article actually deals with this. "One recent study compared the earnings of students who just made the academic cutoff to attend the Florida State University System with those of students who fell just below the cutoff (and mostly did not attend college as a result). We might expect college not to be worth it for these students on the margins of qualifying, yet they reaped returns of 11%."

While this does not look at high school grades, SAT scores, etc., I think comparing just above the cutoff and just below the cutoff is a valid methodology to counter the effect. What do you think?

<comment><USER7> When I was in high school, teachers were quite open about adjusting marks if it meant the difference between acceptance and rejection, but you had to put forth the effort to talk with them and make your case.

With that, some studies have suggested that soft-skills, like determination, are what determine future earnings. Someone with average to poor academic performance, but high determination, could ensure that the cutoff is met with a little pressure put on the teachers, while someone less determined would sit back and be accepting of the non-acceptance position.

It is nice to see some other methodologies tested, but I'm not sure this one really addresses the common concerns with the standard interpretation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The graph titled "Best and Worst Median Starting Salaries Ranked by College Major" is mislabelled.

Looking at the source material[1], the table it's based on is titled, "[TABLE] 12: TOP 10 MAJORS WITH THE HIGHEST MEDIAN EARNINGS" and is data on "Full-time, full-year workers with a terminal Bachelor's."

So it's not about starting salaries at all.

[1][http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitwor...](http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth- complete.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER16> Isn't a $98K _median_ starting salary for math and CS grads a bit high? Yes, the few lucky ones who get a job at Google or Facebook or an investment bank might make six figures right out of school, but it doesn't seem like there would be enough of those jobs to pull the median up that high. The average CS grad probably won't end up working for an internet company; there are probably many more programming jobs in corporate IT departments.

<comment><USER17> Investment banks pay alot for both CS and Math grads... A programmer will make a lot more at a Wall Street firm than at Google or Facebook...

<comment><USER18> Fantastic -- that might pull the mean up, but it still wouldn't affect the median.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This data rewards schools that reject more applicants and/or fail more students (prevent them from graduating). Because that increases the average & median of their graduates. Charter schools and private schools do the same thing to increase test scores, but when controlling for other factors they are no better than public schools.

In order words, the data shows which schools do the best job of attracting and filtering out the top students. Many folks including some faculty think that IS their job - to set a high bar and see which few students can make it over, but from my point of view that is only half of the job - the other part, the hard part, is to actually educate students - to help more students get over that high bar.

</comment><comment><USER20> Wait, 98k starting salary for Math/Computer Science is _median_? In the US?

What?!?! This does not mesh with my experiences or the experiences of my peers _at all_. If you want to include the financial industry, you're talking about the top 1% of salaries, if that. Are they _so_ disparate that they drag the median up that much?

Edit: Looking at the source data[0], they've separated "Computer Science" and "Mathematics" from "Math and Computer Science". What is the purpose of this? Is "Math and Computer Science" a specific major?

[0] [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitwor...](http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth- complete.pdf)

<comment><USER21> That's incorrect data. That's the median for all salaries in the field, not starting salaries.

<comment><USER20> Okay, so the article is wrong! Whew, that makes _much_ more sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This article, like nearly all on the topic, ignores the distinction between correlation and causality. Of course those who attend college, particularly a prestigious one, earn more. How much of this is due to college as a symptom of their competence and/or privileged lot in life, and how much of this is due to college as a cause, is rarely discussed.

<comment><USER23> > This article, like nearly all on the topic, ignores the distinction between > correlation and causality

It's sort of interesting that if you look at race breakdowns in the United States, Asians have the highest median income and also highest likelihood in attending college. White Americans are second.

Then if you look at interracial marriage in the United States, the highest median household income combinations are Asian Male - White Female followed closely by White Male - Asian Female. Furthermore, a white marrying an Asian notably has a higher likelihood of possessing a college degree than a white marrying within or Black or Hispanic.

I'm only mentioning these because stats show correlation between income and education levels.

<comment><USER24> Where can one look at that data?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Looks to me like the distribution for the more expensive schools on the Y axis is nearly identical to that of the inexpensive state schools. So no, paying a lot for college is not worth it, when you could get the same result for $50k at a state school.

Unless, of course, you go to one of the top four or five private engineering schools in the country.

The question that really jumps out at me is "What the hell are you paying $150k extra for at a private school?"

Edit to add: If I wrote an article that said, "Buy US Savings Bonds - it's a great investment! You are guaranteed at least to get more money back than you put in!" I'd probably get criticized, because the interest rate of a savings bond is fairly low compared to most other investments. But apparently by the same logic I can feel great about saddling myself with $200k worth of student debt, because hey, eventually I'll make it back and then some.

</comment><comment><USER26> Given the costliness of most colleges in the US - why not consider getting your degree outside of the country? There are many great universities in Asia, for example, that have a much cheaper price tag. I have not seen very many (if any) US students consider this option. I guess prestige and name-brand recognition is still very important.

But really, I am on a semester abroad in Taiwan at the moment, and I have calculated tuition and airfare _combined_ at the school here is cheaper than just tuition at my school in the US (for 1 semester). Aggregate tuition and costs of living over 4 years and I am sure you could save a ton of money compared to staying in the US. You could then go on to do a master's degree in the States. Indeed, many Taiwanese here do just that - at places like Stanford, Caltech, etc...

<comment><USER27> This assumes the meaning of a degree is knowledge, or at least input filtering to only accept the worthy.

From experience, its credentialism, a title of nobility. Oh you are an experienced neurosurgeon? Oh from Russia you say? Well, here's a broom, good luck.

Good Luck practicing law, medicine, accounting, becoming a P.E., pretty much anything but IT/CS work with a foreign degree, and you don't even need any degree for IT work.

<comment><USER28> > _Oh you are an experienced neurosurgeon? Oh from Russia you say? Well, here > 's a broom, good luck._

Planet Money did a podcast on this exact topic at the start of the year. It is near impossible for a doctor to come to the US and start practicing - <USER3> those who are top of their field and working in countries with highly respected medical schools (Europe, Asia, etc). I can't find the link to the full episode, but here's a summary and excerpt from All Things Considered:

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/15/172108835/should-t...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/15/172108835/should- the-u-s-import-more-doctors)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> My student loan debt is completely oppressive. Educating myself was the stupidest thing I've ever done. Oh the horrible irony.

</comment><comment><USER30> My wife is an economist and one of her biggest pet peeves is that the idea that a child "must" get a college education has had a dramatic impact on how we perceive trade school or apprenticeship educations.

Not everybody needs college.

<comment><USER31> Certainly, and some people would be better served by not going to college. The point is that you can't just call it a life after high school and expect to earn a respectable (in a financial sense) income. Unskilled union mill work is no longer going to feed a family of 5 and pay for a nice mortgage.

<comment><USER32> Unskilled, no, but the trades pay reasonably well. By the time you graduate from college you could have been a licensed electrician, for example. And if you were willing to go into enough debt to pay for a four year degree you could start your own business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> College is a pretty damn good resource if you choose to utilize it. Personally, I haven't felt that higher education has actively blocked me from pursuing the knowledge I needed or making resources available to me. The problem is with the mindset of kids going into college thinking it's a mandatory hoop they have to jump through instead of a resource they have to actively utilize.

Ultimately, what you get out of higher education is what you choose put into it.

<comment><USER34> couldn't agree more

seeing responses like "the debt i got from college is killing me, totally not worth it" just previews their time in college - oh i'm sure they worked hard, but they probably didn't take advantage to all that was available (clubs, TAing, working with professors, etc). There are many opportunities available throughout just about every university to explore interests and 'make the degree worth it'

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> From the article kindly submitted here: "The data comes from an analysis by Payscale, a salary data and software company for individuals and businesses."

In other words, the data is correlational, and not based on random assignment to an experimental condition and control condition. So we have no idea what the causation is here. By my observation, the kind of young people who get into private engineering colleges are different already, at high school age, from the kind of young people who don't go to college at all, so it's by no means clear that attending college causes any part of their difference in earnings in adult life.

For someone going to college with someone else's money (whether the someone else is a parent, a government agency, or a fee waiver by the college), sure, go to as much college as you can eat. Being paid to be a student is a very happy condition of life. But for someone who is paying for college out of pocket, the economic calculations become different, because college has to be paid for with present dollars, but its claimed economic return comes in future dollars, if at all. Economists, of course, have finance calculations for figuring out the approximate present value of a future income stream, and quite a few economists think (if only we could resolve that issue of causation) that what colleges charge for tuition is a bargain compared to the economic value of gaining a college degree.

A young person of college-applying age will, according to research,[1] be very strongly dissuaded from applying to college if poor, even if also smart. But dumb high school students from rich families go to college in large numbers. Only some of the Ivy Plus research universities and liberal arts colleges make much of an effort at all to identify high-ability students from low-income families and recruit those. Right now college mostly advantages the economically advantaged.

[1] Partial list of links to commentary and research on low-income, high- ability students:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/business/economy/25leonhar...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/business/economy/25leonhardt.html)

[http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/18586.html](http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/18586.html)

[http://siepr.stanford.edu/publicationsprofile/2555](http://siepr.stanford.edu/publicationsprofile/2555)

[https://www.amherst.edu/aboutamherst/magazine/issues/2011sum...](https://www.amherst.edu/aboutamherst/magazine/issues/2011summer/nationalinterest)

[http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap....](http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap.pdf)

<comment><USER36> >In other words, the data is correlational, and not based on random assignment to an experimental condition and control condition.

If you would like to see studies that use random or quasi-random selection into education, there is a huge literature in labor economics on this topic. For various reasons such literature would never make it onto HN.

See a very brief summary here

[http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=1866](http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=1866)

<comment><USER12> Now I am curious. Why would such literature never make it onto HN? (And eh... didn't you just make it onto HN?!)

Thank you for the link anyway.

<comment><USER36> By "make it onto HN" I mean as a story - the comments tend to be much more varied.

Mainstream economic research covers very similar topics, and uses very similar methods, to stories that make it onto HN. However since it isn't sold as "using data in cool ways", it's not immediately apparent that it is HN material. For example, a very famous economics paper uses school district boundaries to measure some effect (can't remember exactly what they measure). The idea is that people on opposite sides of boundaries should on average be very similar _except_ for being in different districts. This hypothesis can be checked by looking for measurable jumps across boundaries.

Another thing is that economics papers tend to use regression methods that look quite boring and don't involve interesting scatter plots. So to the untrained eye a blog post with scatter diagrams and maps can look like a novel use of data and technology, while in fact the methods are very standard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> As I always used to tell my students, your degree is just a piece of paper that helps you get your foot in the door. Its worth is equivalent to the effort and energy you put into it. Those that work hard and are passionate about their major, whether it be computer science or whether it be philosophy -- they'll end up doing well in their chosen fields -- or at the very least grow as people. If you're really into what you study, spend a lot of your extracurricular activities in related areas (e.g. being in debate club if you're a political science major), and are excited about working in a field pertaining to your major, you will do well. If you came just to party, socialize, and not major in something that you didn't care about or find challenging...you'll likely not get your return on the investment. I majored with plenty of people in computer science, some were even able to cheat their way to decent grades. However, we all know how well that works when you have to sit down for an interview at Google or wherever and you have a blank stare when you can't tell the difference between a binary tree and an apple tree. Your computer science degree in that case is almost worthless.

So it's worth it if you know what you're getting yourself into. Some people think it's just a rubber stamp to a job that pays a minimum of $50K a year somewhere in the city where they can continue partying. Not true unfortunately. I knew since I was a child what I wanted to study...for most the answer is not that easy. I always suggest that if you don't know what you want to do, don't go into debt by going to college without a plan. Do something else -- join peace corps, volunteer, get an apprenticeship...maybe join a community college first. Getting a college education is one of the most fantastic and redefining experiences a person can have -- you may only have one shot and should feel blessed you have that opportunity. Don't squander it.

</comment><comment><USER38> It's great to see some research that shows a college education is still worth it. And I certainly believe that, although I'm admittedly part of the academically trained elite.

That said, the work to "democratize post-secondary education" is still an exciting area that can co-exist with traditional higher ed. There's a whole segment of the population for whom higher ed is not appropriate (for a variety of reasons). See what the Gates foundation is doing: [http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/US- Program/Postsec...](http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/US- Program/Postsecondary-Success)

<comment><USER39> you should really consider that this is very clearly a "snapshot" in time. There is a broad gulf in first-five-year earning potential between someone who got their college degree 30 years ago, versus someone who got their college degree 5 years ago; so already those two cohorts are going to see dramatically different life outcomes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> The schools doing well didn't surprise me. $120K for a Petroleum Engineer - wow!

<comment><USER41> I was talking to the parent of a boy near college age recently, and he said he's trying to steer his boy off a CS degree, and into one of the lesser studied Engineering careers.

In my country, a relatively inexperienced Mechanical Engineer or Agronomist or Petroleum Engineer makes between 200% to 400% the salary of a CS graduate the same age, and they have no salary "glass ceiling" (CS graduates are not considered for management positions and are topped off as employees here).

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I make six figures with just an AA degree that has nothing to do with technology.

When I'm interviewed it is clear I know what I'm doing and have the experience and passion to back it up. Maybe I'm lucky, or maybe I don't think or act like the rest of the "real" college grads.

At some point you have to really be honest with yourself and with others about what it is you're looking for and are willing to work for in life. The rest will fall into place for you.

</comment><comment><USER31> College is probably worth it but that's not what this graph is really showing. It really should be entitled 'Is Private College Worth It?' because it appears that the only significant cost:wage value is to 'Private Engineering' and even then arguments could be made that state engineering is good enough.

<comment><USER43> Do you realize that the axes have different scales? Even a state school returns ~$400K with a cost of only ~$75K. I'd like to see the returns converted into net present value, but it still looks like a win.

<comment><USER31> I'm not sure what you're saying. Of course I see that the axes have different scales but both are linear. State schools (blue/purple/green) are at about $75k in cost but span the same '30 Year Wage Premium' as the private schools (yellow/orange/red) with the only significant difference being in the highest of high-end engineering schools (MIT, Cal Tech, Carnegie Melon).

I sincerely question the data however after looking at it more closely. My alma mater (Washington State) apparently costs more than University of Washington. From a purely tuition perspective this is not true since I've compared them many times. If you add in room and board this should be quite different due to UW being located in a major metropolitan city, and WSU being located in rural eastern Washington.

Who knew BYU was such a good deal? All my cousins I guess (had 4 who went there, with a child of one cousin (second cousin) now attending).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's not about whether or not college is worth it, but rather what you want to get out of it and your expectations... You can't expect every degree to optain you a good paying job, certainly not without some creativity and a little extra curricular effort anyway...

</comment><comment><USER44> [http://www.affordablecollegesonline.org/college-rankings- onl...](http://www.affordablecollegesonline.org/college-rankings- online/engineering-colleges-roi/)

</comment><comment><USER45> Off topic: How is it that such a rad concept never made it to P/M fit and is now a, albeit a highly analytical and well written, blog?

</comment><comment><USER46> Misses the part where University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, and others have no-loan financial policies and need-blind admissions.

</comment><comment><USER47> I really like the visualization component of this analysis. It's really neat, but I wish I could search by school.

</comment><comment><USER48> if you are talking about the knowledge and degree you got, the answer is no. but college also provie you human relationships, this seems very important for most common people, so the answer is yes

</comment><comment><USER49> Why aren't the UC schools mapped?

<comment><USER50> I found most of them there...any particular ones you're looking for?

<comment><USER49> UC Berkeley

UC Los Angeles

UC San Diego

UC Santa Barbara

Couldn't find a single one...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> If you go to an ivy league, the answer is yes

I went to Princeton, and the degree paid for itself in 2 years

<comment><USER52> Did you major in Doing Evil Things For Money?

<comment><USER53> aka finance?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> YES

</comment><comment><USER55> No.

<comment><USER56> All the statistical arguments are detracting from the actual issue. College is not worth it because it is expensive and time consuming but does not guarantee you'll be able to earn a living in the future. And unlike a skill or a business, you can't pass your degree to your children.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> NO</comment>


Chaos Communication Congress talks now downloadable - <AUTHOR> http://www.derchris.eu/CCC/27C3/

<comment><AUTHOR> Not all of the video is there yet it seems.

Of note: 'Reverse Engineering the MOS 6502 CPU' in the mp3 directory, which was mentioned here a few days ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2041014>

Mirrors on this page: [http://events.ccc.de/congress/2010/wiki/Conference_Recording...](http://events.ccc.de/congress/2010/wiki/Conference_Recordings)</comment>


Show HN: Schwifty – make a Spotify playlist - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/moe-szyslak/Schwifty <comment><USER2> You should adjust the README so it explains what this does. Even a single sentence would be nice.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your feedback

Added a link to the _original_ tweet that inspired the app

<comment><USER3> Thanks, I didn't understand until I read the tweet. Very cool! Nice job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Inspired by: [https://mobile.twitter.com/errikkxa/status/84934921200542105...](https://mobile.twitter.com/errikkxa/status/849349212005421056)

PS: it's a weekend hack; I'll optimize it for mobile soon

<comment><AUTHOR> It's now mobile ready</comment></comment>


Show HN: The 8 hour diet web app - <AUTHOR> http://the8hour.diet <comment><USER4> I'm fat again, but had awesome good results with the book: burn the fat, feed the muscle.

Biggest problem is, i get back into my old habbits.. It took 2 years to regain my weight that i lost in 6 months ( 25 kg = 55 pounds) -- way more muscle than i had before.

Short:

\- Eat every 3 hours

\- Muscle exercise ( male - see comment/reply below) - preferrable in the evening

\- Cardio in the morning, after a protein shake ( Tip: Rope Skipping). Try HITT ( interval training) when you can.

\- no alcohol

\- Min. 5 x / week, doing sports

\- Enough of sleep!

\- Muscle confusion --> Change your exercise routine regulary due to muscle memory

Now, i'm back again at coding late at night, barely enough sleep and no sports :(

<comment><USER5> > \- Muscle exercise ( male) - preferrable in the evening

Assuming you are implying that weight training is something that only men need do for this approach to work I would say that the health and fitness industry has done a huge disservice to women by suggesting that weight training is only for men.

My wife started lifting 3 years ago and loves it, she hated cardio and now rarely does any beyond weekend mountain biking but she lifts for an hour 5 - <USER2> times a week. The upshot of that change is that her back pain has gone, she can eat more calories than she used to (healthy food though), her posture is much better, she can lift heavy things without a problem and she carries less needless body fat. The benefit it had to her mountain biking was huge, she went from being last up the hills in out group to being the first up everyone with a decent amount of gap to second place.

There is no need for men and women to train differently.

<comment><USER4> I know what you mean. I'm not saying that weight training is not good for females.

But because of the hormone testostore, men create muscle faster and with that, loose weight faster because of the higher calorie requirements. I'm not saying it's impossible for women. I'm saying it's harder to have fast results with weight training.

For women, cardio is normally a faster way to get lean fast. I suggest to read the book: Burn the fat, feed the muscle which has really learned me a lot about "the body", metabolism and losing weight

<comment><USER5> Cardio is not a faster way to lose weight for women (or men). The only way to lose weight is to eat fewer calories that you burn in your total daily energy expenditure. If one of the ways you achieve that deficit is with exercise (you can still lose weight by doing nothing and sitting on the sofa so long as you eat few enough calories) then you may as well lift weights rather than do cardio ( a nice mix of both would be better).

The main reason for this is that maximal strength is related to the number of muscle fibers pulling together, so when lifting on a calorific deficit your body will try to not burn muscle for energy as every muscle fiber is being employed to move weights, so instead will focus on fat.

If you lose weight on a cardio dominant exercise program the body will burn fat and muscle for energy as the fast twitch fibers primarily employed for lifting are not being used when running and so are as much a dead weight as the excess fat that is trying to be lost. This is why many cardio only people end up dissatisfied with their "goal weight" physiques because they lost as fat and muscle and still look quite soft - this can lead to excessive dieting and other such body image/eating issues.

Fundamentally (and barring any hormonal issues related to things such as the thyroid) losing weight is a calories in vs calories expended calculation. The type of weight you lose (muscle vs fat) is determined by the exercise that you do. Some studies have shown women who have low levels of fat and engage in a strength training protocol lose more fat than muscle compared to those who just stick to cardio.

The fact that women have low levels of testosterone compared to men is a big help as they literally can't get bulky and have very low amounts of visceral fat which is great for long-term health.

I don't think we are fundamentally disagreeing but I just want to highlight that women should lift just as much as men do.

<comment><USER4> Yeah indeed. I saw my comment is away ( probably from editing in "not so recent" tab, where i mentioned that 70% is eating right and 30% is exercise).

All in all, i don't think we disagree. But tend to push another perspective. Which ain't bad after all

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I strongly prefer closed loop weight control [1], I've already lost about 4kg in 20 days. Yep, sometimes I'm hungry after eating too much on weekends, but this diet typicaly starts slowly so you have time to adapt. I've even made a simple webpage for phone to simplify calculations. I've used 200g daily weight loss as reference slope.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13413725](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13413725)

<comment><USER7> Thank you for posting this. This makes a lot of sense compared to something like the Hacker's Diet. (Quick summary of hacker's diet: weigh yourself each morning, use app/spreadsheet to calculate moving average, count calories and adjust amount based on current vs desired trend.) Also it makes a lot more sense than a thought I had: plot a trend line similar to the one in the article but only compare the daily weight to that trend and don't eat on a day that is above the trend (terrible idea).

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but:

Do you use a very accurate body weight scale or does it not matter as much over time? Mine can show pretty large fluctuations by weighing twice when there should be no change (weighed twice in 1 minute without eating or excreting). On the other hand, maybe it doesn't matter too much since the noise might be smaller than the difference between starting and ending weight for the day.

How do you measure the food and drink throughout the day? I have a good digital food scale but I'm picturing I'd have to probably carry it with me at first. Trying to picture how to do that at a restaurant. I suppose you would eventually know what works for lunch without a scale and then weigh yourself before dinner to see where things stand. I eat out at lunch a lot so I'm thinking about how to make this work.

<comment><USER6> Mine weight scale has resolution of 0.1 and accuracy of about 0.2-0.3. It doesn't matter that much because if your input is noisy your output will be noisy but if you use it intelligently you don't have to eat -0.2kg ;). I've seen that typically I need to eat about 0.7-1.5kg daily and if some day I get result lower than 0.2kg I just eat 0.2kg, no less. It may mean that I eat very little for about two days and then it's back to normal amount. Your mileage may vary, but if you use this diet you WILL lose weight. After going to target weight my calculator maintains constant weight reference so that I can control my weight and don't have yoyo effect.

Measuring food - I just weigh myself after morning piss and calculate amount of food to eat that day. 1/4 for breakfast, 1/4 for lunch and leave 1/2 for dinner, but before dinner I make last measurement and eat accordingly. Before that diet I've only eaten 2 toasts for breakfast, but now I'm feeling fuller through day. For food weighing I have small pocket scale which can measure up to 0.5kg (res 0.1g) but I could use a scale which has a resolution of 0.01kg. I don't measure drinks, this is a small source of noise but not really important. After several days of measuring various foods you have pretty good mental scale. I don't eat lunch with friends/coworkers, so premaking measured food portions was best case for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think it's called Intermittent fasting with an 8hour food window. You can find lots of links, but the idea is to restrict the calories a bit within the 8h window if you want to lose weight. If you eat much more than your calory intake, you will gain weight. Intermittent fasting is believed to burn the fat within the 16hour fasting window, as the body would enter a ketosis stage. There are various forms of this intermittent fasting, but this daily one seems the most popular.

<comment><USER9> I have had good results with the Fast-5 diet, which is the same but in a 5-hour window.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Regularity is one of the most important reasons about why Italians are - <USER3> general - pretty slim.

\- Coffee or milk in the morning (or both) and cookie (optional).

\- Morning: nothing.

\- Lunch (1pm to 2pm): Most important meal of the day. Eat carbs AND proteins. And perhaps a dessert.

\- Afternoon: nothing. If you are a kid: something sweet (4pm).

\- Dinner (8pm to 9pm): something light, bread, cheese, vegetables, fruits. No need for complicated stuff.

And here you go. You will stay slim, I promise. This site use the same idea: regularity helps a lot.

<comment><USER11> Don't forget an active lifestyle. In my experience the average Italian does plenty of walking. Caffeine and a constant slow burn make for a high metabolism and happy body.

But yes I think many of the Mediterranean cultures have it figured out. The espresso-high fat (croissant) breakfast and one huge meal work great with my intermittent fasting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Has anyone here who's _not_ trying to lose weight try any of these diets? I'm thinking of trying the every other day diet because it supposedly helps your immune system and boost focus (I don't know the validity of this part). I have no intention of losing weight though and have actually been trying to gain weight.

<comment><USER5> If you want to gain weight while training I would recommend the If It Fits Your Macros diet ([http://iifym.com](http://iifym.com)) and eating about 500 cals above you total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) coupled with a decent, tried and tested weight training program that incorporates progressive overload. Take a look at the FAQ on [http://reddit.com/r/fitness](http://reddit.com/r/fitness)

<comment><USER12> Thanks I'll look into this. For 3+ months I tried my best to eat well over my daily energy expenditure by drinking lots of juices and eating tons of pasta. I would just end up feeling bloated (I'm a guy) and have to cut down on actual food intake after a few days and my weight goes back to before. I know muscle gain is the best way to gain weight but I actually want a little more meat (I'm 5'8 and 135lb [~173cm/59kg])

<comment><USER5> If you want to put on muscle then follow a decent program and eat 1 g per pound of body weight of protein, 0.5 g per lb of body weight of fat and then set your carbs to give you a 300 to 500 calorie surplus. Don't drink your calories (well protein shakes are fine but chicken/tuna would be better), eat them. This might be of some help: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/4d6fg2/m_28_175_lb...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/4d6fg2/m_28_175_lbs_189_lbs_3_months_jim_stoppanis/)

Oh, and use MyFitnessPal

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> After reading an article[1] from the National Academy of Sciences, I decided, with the blessing of my doctor, to try the intermittent fasting stuff.

Over the years my bloodwork has continually gotten worse, regardless of body weight (+/\- 50 lbs) or exercise level (varied from a couple hours a week to jui jitsu training). I am facing diabetes and cholesterol issues, and looking at the trend it looked like my next appointment was going to have me on medication for both.

So I tried the intermittent diet. I gained 15 lbs and had the worst blood work to day.

Then, I tried (1) adding a few beans to my diet regularly, and (2) eating vegetarian (pescatarian I think- milk eggs fish are allowed) two days a week (and regular carnivore stuff the rest of the week). I also started eating a _lot_ of curries and strong spices (I sailed Thailand) if that matters. I had always eaten that food, but now I'm eating it more because my kids are older and will eat it too plus I have my pescatarian days to myself (I cook different food for the rest of the fam) so I use those seasonings then.

Best blood work in decades.

So we are probably very individual machines- or at least it's not a "one rule for everybody to obey" situation- when it comes to nutrition.

[1][http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16647.full?sid=0f3f0b04-4...](http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16647.full?sid=0f3f0b04-46c2-42ed-92f4-aa03644145a6)

</comment><comment><USER14> Last summer I tried intermittent fasting as an experiment attempting to lose some body weight to become a more efficient runner. I figured it would work for me because generally I would not get hungry in the morning until I actually ate something. I regularly work out twice a day, so to accomodate I took some protein / BCAA's around the workout that fell outside the eating window. Within the window my diet was high in healthy fats, plants and protein - basically all the stuff recommended for this kind of diet.

It worked great for about a month or so, and I lost a couple of kg. Then the cravings started, mostly for sugar. Could no longer focus at work, was irritable, exercise performance declined. I ended up gaining all the weight back + about 1kg or so before I decided to cut it off. Right now I'm on a predominantly plant-based diet for about half a year now, feeling great, faster and lighter than ever.

My point: if you're a (semi-)serious athlete with the same goals I had, by all means try it out, but don't expect a silver bullet. The overwhelming majority of athletes follow a normal diet schedule and eat significant amounts of carbohydrates. I encourage everyone to experiment with their body to see what works for them - it's the one thing that's all yours, after all. Just don't assume you're the exception.

<comment><USER15> Just wanted to add my experience with intermittent fasting. I'm 38 yrs old now. I started in May 2016. My rules are:

1) from 8pm until noon next day - eat nothing, drink lots of water and 1 cup of coffee when I get up. On training days BCAA during the training and whey shake afterwards.

2) from noon until 4pm - eat 2 meals of proteins, fresh veggies and fats. Important here is _no carbs_!

3) from 4pm until 8pm - eat everything, and lots of it :)

Results are great! I am close to max strength now, my concentration is better than ever, sugar cravings are next to none. I lost 5kg of mostly fats. Subjectively I look better than ever.

To conclude, the best is to try - maybe it'll fit you, maybe it won't. You have nothing to lose :)

EDIT: formatting

<comment><USER14> Haha I'd like to add one disclaimer: don't try during race season ;).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I lost an average of 400-500g a day (went from 100kg to 90kg) by eating only once a day (dinner - usually fish or chicken with vegetables) and no regular change to my activities. I did usually have 1 or 2 "cheat" days though, usually over a weekend when we had family dinner and/or when I went out drinking. Sometimes I had an apple for lunch.

I suspect that my body was just "normalising" and after a certain threshold it would probably have become harder to start losing weight without exercising. After I traveled for work my diet got totally screwed up and I went back to 100kg. I'm now on day 3 of the same diet and am currently at 98.5kg. As for my mood, well-being etc, nothing's really changed except for the mild hunger pangs (which I got used to quickly) and that I seem to get drunk quicker when I drink.

This is just a personal anecdote. Don't take it as medical advice of any sort.

<comment><USER17> I was doing something similar, two meals a day instead of your one, and then GERD occurred and fucked me really good for six months. My doctor told me that consuming all food in one or two sittings is the worst thing you can do long term because you end-up overfilling your stomach with food and given enough time acid will start escaping upwards. Of course everyone's organism is unique, I'm just expressing my concerns from my experience with similar dietary habits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is there any research proving that the 8 hour diet actually aids in weight loss? Curious.

<comment><USER19> Yes. It has been scientifically proven that if you eat all your foods in an 8 + \epsilon hr window that you will gain 5lbs whereas if you eat them in an 8 hr window you will not gain any weight.

<comment><USER20> It almost sounds like you are not being serious, but, do you have a source?

<comment><USER19> If you can't tell whether I'm serious then I have some bad news for you. If it wasn't clear, obviously I omitted the "\s" sign.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What works for me is eating in the evening (from 6pm to when I go to bed), mostly low-carb, and then not eating until the next evening. I do drink coffee over the day, which contains some fat (if not filter coffee).

I often do running in the morning, in that case I have some protein-heavy stuff afterwards to ensure that my body doesn't burn muscle tissue instead of fat.

This works well to reduce body fat at a rate of about 1-1.5kg per week.

Low-carb and in particular low sugar is really key for not being hungry over the day. Sugar is basically the recipe for getting hungry very soon again for me.

I think that "works for me" is really important though here.

<comment><USER22> Genuinely curious : what type of coffee has fat in it ?

<comment><USER21> Sorry, the milk in my coffee obviously. I take it for granted and forgot to mention ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Here are a couple of posts that I wrote about my fitness routine and diet. Hope it helps even though I am not a great writer. Happy to answer any more questions too :)

[https://medium.com/@manibatra23/2016-a-reflection-e80378393f...](https://medium.com/@manibatra23/2016-a-reflection-e80378393f3b)

[https://medium.com/@manibatra23/2016-a-reflection- diet-30c15...](https://medium.com/@manibatra23/2016-a-reflection- diet-30c15970e7f7)

</comment><comment><USER19> Having tried multiple diets (keto, 8 hour window, 4 hour window, alternate day fasting) I have come to the conclusion that everyone has a different body and YMMV.

What works for me is skipping breakfast, just drinking some coffee and eating regularly throughout the day (lunch, dinner) while trying to generally eating some protein rich foods. This works for me, but my girlfriend for example cant skip breakfast because she'll faint. Again, YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER24> This diet will work of course, as it is just a variant of the "eat less" diet. My own heuristic is to not eat after dinner, which typically lowers the window of eating to maybe 10 hours a day for me. I eat as much as I can (tending towards vegetables and maybe 40% of calories from the fat in healthy oils), but I don't consume any sweetened drinks or much packaged food.

</comment><comment><USER25> Combine this with the keto diet and it is awesome ;)

<comment><USER26> I agree. I follow a stricter eating window of 23/1 where I eat all my calories in about 1 hour. The benefit of keto is you do not have sugar crashes, and if you are careful with caffeine you can eliminate those crashes as well. A constant supply of energy is wonderful. I also lift weight at the end of the fasting window, before I eat, and have not experienced any issues. I have been keto for a few years though, so I'm very keto adapted. My carb intake is less than 5g per day (I don't eat plants).

<comment><USER27> The 23/1 window seemed a bit extreme to me, until i realized that, on some days, i manage to eat just one meal…

Do you happen to have any useful sources/links on this? I've found something, but it seems to be pseudoscientific nonsense for the most part…

Thanks!

<comment><USER25> I put them in the link to that post above, but:

Best websites for Dietary Information:

[http://AuthorityNutrition.com](http://AuthorityNutrition.com)

[http://Ruled.me](http://Ruled.me)

[http://Nowloss.com](http://Nowloss.com)

[http://Ketogenic-Diet-Resource.com](http://Ketogenic-Diet-Resource.com)

[http://KetoDietApp.com](http://KetoDietApp.com)

[http://HealthfulPursuit.com](http://HealthfulPursuit.com)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/](https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I can talk to 10 lean muscly people at the gym and get 10 different sets of dietary advice.

At the end of the day, the majority of diets are just tricks to help you lose weight, like how mnemonics are a trick to help you remember, they don't actually physically improve your memory.

</comment><comment><USER29> This is just intermittent fasting. You can read more about it at [http://www.leangains.com/](http://www.leangains.com/) or watch Fasting Twins videos on YouTube.

</comment><comment><USER30> Wake me up when we have a pill to fix body weight that really works. Not being able to eat whatever I want makes me surly.

<comment><USER31> It does exist, your neighbourhood Amphetamine variety will do just that. You will be able to eat whatever you want, you just won't want to eat anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I know a lot of people who do a 6 hour diet. How about:

theNhour.diet/?N=8 theNhour.diet/?N=6

</comment><comment><USER33> Web app is nice, but a phone app that reminds you would be nicer for creating the habit.

</comment><comment><USER34> What a great simple concept!

</comment><comment><USER35> This is very heavily Leangains-influenced, no? Would be nice to credit that as a source, if so.

<comment><USER36> Kinda. That page left out the part about macro cycling that leangains advocates for.</comment></comment>


Hacker News Popularity Algorithm in One Line of Code for Rails/Postgres - <AUTHOR> http://rfriedman123.tumblr.com/post/51194284106/hacker-news-popularity-algorithm-in-1-line-of-code-for

<comment><USER2> I was actually very curious about how hacker news ranked its stories. Thanks!</comment>


Why Not to Try to Learn Everything - <AUTHOR> http://mikecavaliere.com/why-not-to-learn-everything/

<comment><USER2> Can confirm. In the last 8 years I specialized in 2 major things: all source analysis and specific tool engineering. This greatly simplified my life.</comment>


Firefox 3 launching tomorrow, but does it beat Internet Explorer, Safari and Opera? - <AUTHOR> http://techdigest.tv/2008/06/firefox_3_launc.html

<comment><USER2> Safari beats FF on a Mac (speed, UI, multi-touch, nicer rendering) while Opera simply destroys it on Linux. But on Windows FF is really sweet: it doesn't feel so terribly slow as it does on Linux and its less-than-perfect look matches Windows perfectly

P.S. In case anybody knows how to make FF scroll faster on a machine with 800Mz CPU with Compiz, please share! I need "800Mz scrolling" for laptops in power-saving mode under conservative scaling governor. It may be GTK+ issue, though. Qt-based Opera scrolls fine, pretty much instantly, mostly using GPU, just like it should.

<comment><USER3> I don't have scrolling issues at all, and I'm currently running Gentoo Linux on a laptop that is throttled at 800 MHz. I'm not sure what exactly I can tell you, though...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Conclusions from that test:

\- Safari is really fast at rendering CSS and slow to start up. \- Firefox 3 uses the least memory (though this isn't based on a "soak" test. \- Opera 9.5 is generally quick but is beaten on CSS and uses a fair bit of RAM. \- IE 7 isn't really good at anything except maybe loading time. No surprise on the loading time, but it uses the most RAM for open tabs!

JavaScript performance appears to vary less than some browser developers like to emphasize, IE is less than 3x slower than the fastest browsers in the JS test. (Opera + Safari)

I can anecdotally confirm the Safari start-up times on Windows, although it's a very different story on OS X. It does have to load its own GUI toolkit, although Firefox (XUL) and Opera (some in-house thing so it runs cross- platform and on phones?) also don't use native Win32 widgets.

<comment><USER5> On OS X I find safari starts in less than a second, though it doesn't have a full library of addons like firefox.

Although FF3 has had a great boost in its performance and load times for web pages, the WebKit nightlies kick its ass IMO.

And again, the mac theme isn't quite right with non-native menus etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Blog spam? [http://lifehacker.com/396048/speed-testing-the-latest-web- br...](http://lifehacker.com/396048/speed-testing-the-latest-web-browsers)

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't think it beats IE, Safari and Opera. But hey, they've improved some memory leaks.

Better something than nothing.</comment>


Ice Cream Sandwich has visual voicemail API, no built-in app - <AUTHOR> http://www.slashgear.com/ice-cream-sandwich-visual-voicemail-missing-in-action-google-responds-18196586/

<comment><USER2> My guess would be that's a hole that's been left for the carriers to insert their own branded app (and customized to the unique aspects of their particular voicemail platform).

Remember the 'base' Ice Cream Sandwich you see on the Google Nexus phones will be combined with carrier specific apps before Sprint, Verizon et al role out a build to their phones.

</comment><comment><USER3> I expect that the Google Voice app will support this soon. What I really don't understand is why they didn't implement something similar for SMS. Google Voice SMS is nice, but the separate app for it is problematic.</comment>


Tracking your iOS app performance - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@databox/tracking-your-ios-app-performance-4aca19d35d00#.2za89hkww <comment><USER2> Something every mobile developer should read.

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! If you have any additional questions let me know.

<comment><USER4> Could I track my Android app the same way?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, as mentioned in the article Databox also has a Google Play developer console integration from where we pull similar data. Go ahead and try it out =)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Give back original stock certificate? - <AUTHOR>

Hey all,<p>A startup that I used to work for recently contacted me and asked that I send back my official stock certificate b/c they needed to re-order the numbering (per advice from their lawyer). I have no reason not to trust them - is there any reason why I should not do this? thanks! <comment><USER2> Well, take a copy of your original, their letter and send it in. There are lots of oddities like this.</comment>


'Blitzscaling' Is Choking Innovation–and Wasting Money - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/blitzscaling-is-choking-innovation <comment><USER2> Is it choking innovation though? Its wasting money sure, but I don't see why this precludes truly innovative firms from achieving success</comment>


Tesla seeks to raise $1.5B to fund Model 3 production - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-offering-idUSKBN1AN13I <comment><USER2> Meanwhile, Toyota and Mazda quietly announced a tie-up specifically for all electric vehicles. I know it's not as much fun as rooting for Tesla, but the odds are on the German and Japanese incumbents in the long run. It's very Japan Inc to wait until consumer interest proves itself, and then start the long game in extreme earnest with cross-brand cooperatives and government backing.

<comment><USER3> Let's see. I hope they will become competitive. They know how to produce quality combustion engine cars at scale, that's for sure.

But that the world's largest car manufacturer has to team up with another of the large manufacturers just to get a viable EV competitor on the market doesn't bode well. Right now they really don't have any decent EV on the market, any of them.

Toyota hopes to introduce a solid state battery type at some point in the early 2020s. Check it out here, where you can also see their latest EV concept car for ride sharing: prototype:[https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/25/toyota- future-ev-battery...](https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/25/toyota-future-ev- battery-tech-longer-trips/)

At that time, Tesla's Model 3 will have been on the market some 3-7 years. Will they be able to catch up? I am not sure - To me it seems like the usual traditional car company in denial thinking it needs to make weird cars for weird EV fans. This is Mazda's much better looking concept: [http://www.stuartsgarages.com/web/mazda-electric-car- planned...](http://www.stuartsgarages.com/web/mazda-electric-car-planned- for-2019/) No vital specs such as range has been provided, though.

Both the Asian, European and American competitors will not only be 3-4 or even 5-6-7 years behind. They will be hundreds of millions of miles behind in terms of autonomy, and thousands of charging stations behind. And so far, they are still stuck with the old structure of dealerships when accessing the markets; dealers that in many of the markets used to make a good chunk of their income on repairs and spare parts, both which is likely to be less important with EVs. And a large part of their manufacturing infrastructure and employees can only be used for combustion engine cars.

For each of them, if they flunk their first serious attempt at launching a competitive EV, you can add another 3 years or whatever the developing to production cycle is for vehicles. Right now, I have seen no-one - not a single one of them - with specs and design for even as much as a concept car that compares to the long range Model 3 now in production.

My bet is that those of the traditional combustion engine manufacturers that flunk their first attempt (and right now they all look as if they try to fail), will suffer huge losses from 2020- 2025 and that some of them may never recover.

<comment><USER4> > Right now they really don't have any decent EV on the market, any of them.

Toyota has the Prius, which is the car model that basically equaled "electric car" before Tesla even though it's "just" a hybrid. I wouldn't put Toyota out of the game yet.

> Both the Asian, European and American competitors will not only be 3-4 or > even 5-6-7 years behind.

Where they will be in front of Tesla, however, and that for at least a decade: scaling and support. Once a car manufacturer figures out how to build a decent electric vehicle, it's easy to retool the factories. BMW with its i3/i8 series has experience with electric cars and with scaling while maintaining quality. Also, the big manufacturers have huge networks of dealers and service centers, which means that customers who value reliability and/or stress-free repairs are more likely to buy a BigCo car instead of a Tesla.

> They will be hundreds of millions of miles behind in terms of autonomy, and > thousands of charging stations behind.

In Europe, charging station connectors should be standardized so there won't be a major advantage there. And autonomy... I would be surprised if big truck/bus vendors like MAN, Scania, Volvo and others don't have their newest fleet models send telemetry data back to home like Tesla does. Especially buses can deliver mountains of data about city travel back home.

tl; dr: I would not count on BigCar going belly-up, Tesla will imho just be a powerful competition but nothing like BigCar in scale.

<comment><USER3> I love the Prius but it's a hybrid, not a full EV. Now when we've seen that full EVs can have long range why would we bother with internal combustion engines at all?

<comment><USER5> "Long range" is a marketing term. Right now I couldn't take a "long range" Tesla into rural North Carolina to see my relatives without serious range anxiety and/or careful routing.

Charging station coverage in the US is about where digital cellular coverage was in the mid-2000s. It exists in most places and in major population centers, but there are clear holes. Gas stations meanwhile are still ubiquitous.

The outlook may be different in 5-10 years, but right now in the US a plug-in hybrid is the best of both worlds IMO. Assuming your round-trip daily commute is within the electric range it's a de-facto pure EV, with the gasoline only kicking in for occasional longer trips.

<comment><USER6> _Charging station coverage in the US is about where digital cellular coverage was in the mid-2000s_

Even this may be optimistic. I can name the 5 closest gas stations to my house (even though the closest is about 8 miles away), but I couldn't name a single charging station. Not one. I see Teslas on the road, so they must exist, but I haven't a clue where they are.

<comment><USER5> Check this map out, you might be surprised: [https://www.plugshare.com/](https://www.plugshare.com/)

And Tesla's supercharger map: [https://www.tesla.com/supercharger](https://www.tesla.com/supercharger)

I've found they tend to be out of the way or attached to shopping centers/big box stores/other places you wouldn't expect. It's rare to find a charging station with gas-station-like visibility, the numbers just aren't there yet I guess.

<comment><USER6> The closest Supercharger is about 40 miles away, but that other map shows a 120V charger about 12km away at a golf course. I wonder if it's specifically for car charging, though. Even this far south in Minnesota, some places do have plug-ins for engine heaters in winter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can someone explain the best method to purchase some of these bonds? I want to purchase a small amount that I am willing to lose ($3K - $10k).

<comment><USER8> Typically though your broker. Curious as to why you'd specifically want these bonds? Unlike stocks they have a fixed upside (5ish percent) and yet can still go to 0.

<comment><USER9> Why would anybody buy them?

<comment><USER10> Bonds are a healthy part of a diversified portfolio. There of course is risk to bonds. The bond market is less volatile than the stock market, which is what draws most investors to them. In poor market years bonds can yield more than equity.

Bonds have a higher liquidation preference than equity, so if a company is going under you have a better chance of recouping some money. Bonds also pay their coupons on an annual or semi-annual basis and become income. Bonds can also be traded on the secondary market just like stock.

Just like equity there's a ton of downsides to bonds as well, like interest rate risk, prepayment risk, credit/default risk.

Bonds are rated by credit agencies, equity is not. In _theory_ (though we've seen credit agencies fail time and time again), bond risk is better-understood and communicated than stock risk. Highly-rated corporate and government bonds are a good, stable place to store capital to protect against market volatility and inflation depreciation.

For instance, when the global market took a hit last year, a ton of demand for US Treasury bonds was created. Investors bought US bonds at a loss (both on primary and secondary markets) because the loss was a well-understood, small amount (something like 1-2% over 10 years), rather than the totally unknown loss that the stock market would suffer.

Junk bonds like this one are higher risk in exchange for higher yield. Junk bonds usually are issued either by companies on the way down (low confidence) or companies on the way up (no credit). If you're long on Tesla and believe they're in the "on the way up", adding these bonds to the portfolio could be a decent source of low volatility income.

This isn't advice. Just explaining why people buy bonds!

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you clarify what you mean by a loss here?

> Investors bought US bonds at a loss

US Treasuries did not have negative yields last year which is the the closest thing I would consider a loss but would depend on the context.

<comment><USER10> I looked at the prices again, you're right that yields on the primary were positive.

Yield on the secondary however was -1.7% in April 2016, for instance.

I'll update my post above to specify losses were for the secondary market.

Edit: can't edit the OP anymore, so hopefully this comment serves.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you link what you're looking at? It sounds like you're conflating yields with returns.

<comment><USER10> I don't think I am, but I could be wrong (as always). Specifically I'm talking about yield to maturity which is one kind of return calculation (just like mean is one type of average calculation).

Total return can only be calculated after the fact once capital gains are factored in. Since this is a forward-looking calculation we can't do that. I'm using the term "yield", more specifically "yield to maturity" because I'm assuming bonds were held until maturity. In that situation yield to maturity should be the same as total return; ie, total return is equal to yield to maturity in the special case that there are no capital gains or losses and the bond is held to maturity. So in this case I'm not conflating them, they are the same thing.

Yield to maturity is based on par value, coupon rate, term, and purchase price. The yield to maturity formula is:

YTM = (C + ((F-P) / n)) / ((F+P) / 2)

Where C = coupon, F = Face/par, P = price, n = years to maturity.

Looking up historical data for Apr 2016 you get P = $137 (secondary) and C = 1.7%. Plug it all in and you get a yield to maturity / rate of return of -1.7%.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you link what you're looking at or provide the bond CUSIP?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> TLDR Cash burn, expected to top $2 billion this year, against $3b in cash means Tesla are raising $1.5b in junk bonds to help cash flow as they ramp up production and scale.

<comment><USER12> " _High-yield junk bonds_ " is such an unflattering way of putting things.

It always seemed strange to me that banks/bonds/lending seems to have such a small role in financing risky ventures. Is it just that capital is a better deal? How does risk work here, are bondholders effectively de-risked compared to stockholders?

<comment><USER13> Debt holders (bonds) have a higher liquidity preference than equity (stocks) in the case of financial trouble. An oversimplified example being if Tesla was liquidated with $3B in assets, and $2B in debt, the debt holders would be paid $2B first and equity holders would split whatever was remaining.

<comment><USER14> But debts to suppliers and bank loans still get paid first right?

It seems unlikely with someone like Musk at the helm that the company would be wound up before assets (and loans guaranteed on them) didn't pay the salaries. Hence, in the case of liquidation, I can't see bondholders getting any more than shareholders - ie. NILL.

Am I mistaken?

<comment><USER13> Correct, suppliers etc are higher on the liquidity preference than debt. If something were to go wrong, its most likely that Tesla would get a soft landing (e.g acquisition by Toyota) that would pay debtors significantly more than equity holders, but doubtful it would be 100% of what is owed in that scenario.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Shares of Tesla, which have risen 67 percent this year, were down 9 cents at > $356.82.

That's 0.025%. Why was it even mentioned?

<comment><USER16> It's standard procedure to quote the ticker price when a news article discusses a public company.

<comment><USER14> Seems like free advertising for the services of the NASDAQ stock exchange...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Tesla's biggest threat is itself. Overstretching or a major technical error could kill the company.

The next biggest threat is sabotage, legal attack, etc. from the old car manufacturers. Good old fashioned capitalism.

If the competition remains free and open, ain't no way in hell a big Goliath that produces controlled explosion vehicles is going to compete with a company that knows software. The future of cars is software with hardware attached.

<comment><USER18> _The future of cars is software with hardware attached._

IMO this is wrong, yeah there will be software, but combustion cars have computers too.

I wouldn't buy a car that is connected 24/7 with closed source software monitoring me and my environment and sending data back to god knows where constantly as Tesla does.

I often feel like Tesla would be better off just selling cars that run on electric motors before worrying about the "hi-tech" parts so much, which to be honest make the cars seem gimmicky and will date very quickly.

This is probably the start of affordable "dumb" electric cars, which excites me more as person who cares for privacy and doesn't care for commuting long distances in a self-driving auto-carriage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I see Ford offering up a Tesla drivetrain compatible body. The big boys just want to keep the lines pumping at current margins.

</comment><comment><USER20> Look at AB 1184 in California. They are looking for more government money to offset their prices. Current stipends from Obama will reduce by half once they sell 200,000 cars. These reduced stipends will get cut in half after two quarters. They will go away after an additional two quarters. A majority of Model 3 preorders are actually for a $42,500 car instead of $35,000. They have to get that price back down.

<comment><USER21> The price is $35,000 before tax incentives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Hell, at this point, why not an ICO? Would probably be the most reputable company to have one if they did…

<comment><USER23> 1\. Because you cannot dump 1.5 billion US-Dollar worth of any cryptocurrency on the market without crashing its price to zero.

2\. No publicly traded company will step into the minefield of unregulated market that is cryptocurrency.

<comment><USER22> With regards to 1), does anyone know the extent they all USD $1.5B right away (outside of their sec filings)?

Probably right on 2) to some (most?) degree, but big institutional players are making moves in cryptocurrency markets who might have pull over tesla and the ear of those at FINCEN/SEC, to get someone to give the rubber stamp green light on their "security"?

Then again with gov bonds being oversubscribed in general, people are looking for more in the private market and Tesla is a realistic option?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It the fundraising really necessary or just a way to sort of overproduce in anticipation of high demand? As it is, they pretty much have that $1.5B in preorder money alone right? Unless, he's just somehow pouring extra money into SpaceX instead.</comment>


Without Free Speech, All Speech Becomes Government Speech - <AUTHOR> https://fee.org/articles/without-free-speech-all-speech-becomes-government-speech/ <comment><USER2> Yeah, but what about deplatforming speech _I_ don't like?

These last few weeks I've had some really astounding conversations on Reddit. People are literally demanding censorship, doubling down on the "political correctness" enforcement aka "the fight against toxicity".

Yet at the same time, there's massive outrage over companies actually complying with that, as it happened with ActiBlizz, only then to backfire in a shitstorm along the lines of "Not _that_ political incorrectness, that's the good kind, you are not supposed to censor that!".

Turns out that the same speech can be very politically incorrect in one place, while being considered the epitome of political correctness in another.

For companies that work on an international scale, this means there really is not much wiggling room, so they will end up rather over moderating than under moderating.

<comment><USER3> What they _really_ want is for them to have the right to certify what speech is acceptable - by "they", I refer to the cancel culture crowd. Objective standards would work again their baises, so while they turn up the rhetoric on "hate speech", sometimes, they'll be making arguments _for_ it, if it suits their political narrative. It's the classic "rules for thee, not for me" case.

Blizzard/China is particularly confusing, as they hate the grassroots organic support that Hong Kong has for capitalism, but don't particularly like China despite it being a socialist Mecca

<comment><USER4> Wouldn't the socialist meccas be places like the Nordic countries?

Strong social safety nets and workers rights, freedom of expression and religion, etc?

I don't think the people who identify as woke are in favor of top down party rule which stamps out dissent and free speech and puts Muslims in organ harvesting concentration camps.

I think they're against unfettered capitalism where wealth accrues at the top while workers rights, infrastructure, and education crumble or are taken over by private enterprises which skyrocket costs for essentials at the expense of the citizens.

Although, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of black/white thinking out there in these cloisters and communities where anything capitalist is equivalent to bad, but people who can't acknowledge that the world's a particularly messy place full of ambiguities, well, they generally don't make good leaders as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER3> Nordic countries aren't socialist, they are regular market economies with high taxes. Those high taxes go towards healthcare for all, and a larger safety net.

Quoting Denmark's PM [1]: > I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.

[1]: [https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark- is-...](https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not- socialist)

<comment><USER4> Certainly, but I think that Nordic model is sort of the aim.

It provides socialism for essentials and capitalism for the rest with a relatively libertarian approach to personal beliefs.

I know it's my preferred model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A couple of weeks back we had a thread where some people were arguing that speech can be a form of violence. That sort of lunacy is one of the assumptions that lead to the consequences described here.

<comment><USER6> I am getting emails telling me I need to get a car serviced, which I no longer own, and it's from a dealer I did not buy the car from. It is claimed they got my information from the manufacturer. And there is no unsubscribe link, presumably because I have a "business relationship" with someone.

So yeah, I think that is a form of violence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Just as you can't be half-pregnant, there is no such thing as government > regulated free speech

How is that reconcilable with the limitations on and restrictions of free speech that already exist in the US [0]?

I've seen this type of all-or-nothing argument quite a few times and it just does not make sense to me -- surely you need to distinguish between different kinds of restrictions of free speech?

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Types_of_speech_restrictions)

<comment><USER8> The "restrictions" are absurdly narrow, and especially when it comes to content. Technically, there's the "obscenity" exception, though I can't speak for how commonly it's applied (oftentimes it doesn't seem to stick, and doesn't appear to be heavily used). Generally, we don't have a discussion as a society over what speech the government allows* , in terms of content; everything goes. It's just that there are a few exceptions for inciting illegal acts, obsenity, fighting words, ect. The proposed change would require us to get together and decide what people are allowed to say, so nobody gets offended. That's a big departure from tradition in the USA.

* PS I know there have been high profile challenges to offensive speech (eg. Frank Zappa, Lenny Bruce, 2LiveCrew, Video Games, ect.), but certainly appears that in the long run free speech has won out in the USA.</comment></comment>


Scientists with reasons to be cheerful - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/15/scientists-with-reasons-to-be-cheerful <comment><USER2> Thought this quote is well worth considering - "Things that happen in an instant are mostly bad, it's this earthquake or that horrible murder..... But once you turn to statistics it gets much harder to have a pessimistic story."</comment>


A Royal Marine who learned coding on a warship without internet - Pete-Codes https://www.nocsdegree.com/this-commando-devplearned-to-code-on-a-warship-without-internet/ <comment><AUTHOR> Interviewee here. AMA, particularly if you're a veteran who wants to get into tech.

I'd love to hear from my betheren over the pond what the signalling and transition process is like for guys and gals leaving the US forces.

<comment> Pete-Codes As with most things military, there is a lot more support in the US. There is the @vetswhocode group on Twitter which is a charity set up to get vets back into work. America in general does this a lot better than we do!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, unfortunately you're right that they do the whole signposting and support better than we do.

There are bodies in the UK who are providing more support for example [https://techvets.co/](https://techvets.co/) and many of the large financial institutions in London have veterans programs these days, but we've got a long way to go in comparison!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Some of us started coding before the internet was available. We learned syntax from books, and copied programs from magazines and dissected them to work in different ways while learning what all the different parts did. We also learned how to reverse-engineer working programs to see how they ticked.

It wasn't 'better' or 'worse', just a different way of learning.

</comment><comment> Pete-Codes Any vets who have gone into coding here? Ben Ford learned on a ship on his way to Iraq. Not the standard way to learn Python!</comment>


Early results boost hopes for historic gene editing attempt - <AUTHOR> https://www.apnews.com/2543a04b925c443b9ad3987f4209e68e/Early-results-boost-hopes-for-historic-gene-editing-attempt <comment><USER2> On the other hand, their stock price just took a solid hit.

Derek Lowe goes into why: [http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2018/09/05/san...](http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2018/09/05/sangamos- gene-therapy-results)

 _There are only two patients that we're talking about here. But both of them showed significant declines in the heparan sulfate and dermatan sulfate in their urine, which is good news. However, and this is where the arguing really revs up, they could not find any IDS enzyme in the blood of these patients. You'd have kinda thought that you'd see it there (they sure saw it in the animal studies), and a lot of observers /investors sort of lost it at that news, sending SGMO down pretty briskly in the early trading today. The company responded by saying that there had to be new active enzyme in there for the urine numbers to go the way that they did, that their detection method isn't incredibly sensitive to start with, that there's another cohort in the trial that's getting a larger dose of the gene therapy, etc.

Of course, they also said that urinary levels of GAG were an approvable biomarker and that's how the enzyme replacement therapy was approved, and that appears not to be true. The enzyme (Elaprase, from Shire) showed effects in the amount the treated patients could walk and the trials looked at lung function as well. In the end, you're going to want to see functional improvements in these patients anyway, but everyone's looking for an earlier read. The selloff in Sangamo's shares continues as of this writing, and other gene-editing stocks are dropping as well (and since these are all companies using different gene-editing technologies, that seems a bit like panic if you ask me). But this can't have been the way that Sangamo wanted this to go. When that next cohort reports, maybe we'll have a better idea of what's going on – either that, or the shouting will get even louder. . ._

</comment><comment><USER3> This is gene editing on a large scale, but they suggest that they're "permanently changing someone's DNA", which is true, and it's false. It's pretty inaccurate.

The issue with Hunter's syndrome is that the body refuses to produce a set of enzymes that break down certain sugars, resulting in a buildup, resulting in complications, resulting in death.

In order to fix it, they're going to use a virus that inserts a new gene that produces the breakdown enzymes in a large number of cells, up to hundreds of thousands. Large numbers however only in absolute terms. If compared with how much cells they have we're talking one in a million or even less cells of their body.

Because this will cause those cells to produce those breakdown enzymes, which will then spread through the body and do the work, this should work to treat the disease. But there's a lot of caveats:

They're introducing a new gene indiscriminately. They're not fixing the existing gene.

Also they're only "converting" a relatively tiny amount of cells. Enough so the treatment sticks (ie. it needs to infect stem cells), but certainly not all. Even so, it is expected the effects of the treatment will grind down over time, maybe requiring regular treatments, at an unknown rate.

Procreation cells, in both men and women, are protected against viruses through special mechanisms. The virus will not be effective on them, and therefore their children will at least be carriers of the disease and potentially need treatment themselves.

The sad thing is what these treatments will lead to over the long term. If we treat many people for metabolic diseases, genetic diseases will "spread". The diseases are currently limited from spreading because they are at an evolutionary disadvantage: infected people die before having kids. If that's fixed, there will be increased rates of genetic defects in children.

Eventually this may lead to very few human babies being born without metabolic disease and nearly everyone being dependent for their life on treatments like these.

Of course, that's a long term potential consequence. It would not be moral to not treat these people. And of course, in the future it may be possible to target procreation cells as well, and we probably should.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm assuming it won't take more than a couple decades for someone to invent a way to fix the specific gene and do that in reproductive cells. With IVF and embryo selection, the undesired trait can be selected against. In Brazil (I lived there) you are allowed to search for genetic traits in embryos and select the ones for implantation based on that. The only trait doctors are forbidden to disclose is sex.</comment></comment>


The promise and threat of facial recognition technologies - <AUTHOR> http://datagovernance.org/video/the-promise-and-threat-of-facial-recognition-technologies <comment><USER2> Facial and other forms of "recognition" have been in use since the ages... technology just allows this to be at scale and potentially pervasive... especially in settings like airports or cities like London...

We used to have wanted ads in the post office. Now it is at the disposal of every camera.</comment>


The only React.js test you'll ever need - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/thevangelist/e2002bc6b9834def92d46e4d92f15874 <comment><USER2> In a similar vein, I use Storybook to build my presentational components, and run each story in a try/catch to check for "explosions".

If you add some dependency injection to look for `console.warn` or `console.error` calls, you can catch failed PropTypes or similar.

Today you can even combine all of these with Jest's new "Tree Snapshot Testing" to compare the actual output of `render` with an expected/approved output.

Finally, you can use your stories in combination with a service like Browserstack or SauceLabs to run these tests across platforms, and even take screenshots of each story and compare them to test for styling regressions and cross-platform differences.

Sources:

Storybook - [https://github.com/kadirahq/react- storybook](https://github.com/kadirahq/react-storybook)

Jest's "Tree Snapshot" testing - [https://facebook.github.io/jest/blog/2016/07/27/jest-14.html](https://facebook.github.io/jest/blog/2016/07/27/jest-14.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Hmmm... this is good but presumably react components are actually going to do things. But I suppose you're saying that the code that actually does things should be separated from the react code and should be tested separately from the react components.</comment>


Was Microsoft in the 1990s better than Apple in the 2020s? - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/was-microsoft-in-the-1990s-really-better-than-apple-in-the-2020s/ <comment><USER2> It's disinformation and tarnishing campaign against Apple. Right or wrong, the complaint against MS was it was excluding the choice of the browser by making the IE not installable.

What Apple might be doing here is refusing to list a product on a non- monopoly, non-exclusive private market place. How are the two even comparable? Appstore is not the only way to sell an app?</comment>