Can Art be Games? - <AUTHOR> http://www.sophiehoulden.com/can-art-be-games/ <comment><USER2> This has to be one of the worst straw man arguments I've read on this subject, and I'm in favor of seeing games as art. Yes, if you reduce art to prints, it does seem like games have a leg up. However, film and theatre and music have long since been considered to he art, and this is usually where the debate takes place.

The examples she cites aren't convincing either. For games to really be seen as a great art form, IMO, it can't be that they simply provide a vehicle for other art forms, such as music and film (I.e. cutscenes).

The key dimension that games add is interactivity...in that sense, the art of games is more along the lines of modern performance art in which the viewers actions amplifies the artistic meaning.

The first time I really felt that a game had hit me in a narrative way that was impossible in film/theater/literature was in Portal, in the scene in which Glados compels you to "kill" the Companion Cube. At the end of it, I felt this huge sense of comic relief because I half expected the box to start screaming, and then I laughed and marveled at how the gamewriters were able to create a sense of attachment to an inanimate box, merely by having you pick it up and move it to places. I haven't played portal 2 yet, but I can't think of any other game that elicited such a strong emotional reaction from me through the mechanism of interactivity.

<comment><USER3> This is satire, and is a direct response to how several art critics have dismissed "games" as capable of being considered fine art for reasons that are just as silly as this blog post, which is precisely why it's funny.

<comment><USER4> I believe it's most directly a response to this op-ed making the rounds recently: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/201...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/nov/30/moma- video-games-art)

The "[x] isn't art" op-ed seems to be that particular Guardian blogger's specialty. Last year, he caused a flurry of outraged discussion in a different set of communities for roughly similar reasons, when he wrote an op-ed on why neither cuisine nor high fashion are art: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/201...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/apr/21/food- fashion-art-cuisine-couture)

<comment><USER5> Jesus this Johnathan Jones piece is pure flame bait pure and simple. I don't even believe he believes it. Doesn't even need a response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _After Emily left I checked on the internet and it turns out she was right, > you really do just look at it, that's all!_

Well, that's one way of doing it, and it's what most people do, but you're not going to get the most out of it.

Rothko's Four Seasons murals are a good example - big slabs of colour, nothing too complicated. But then when you find out that he said ...

> _"I accepted this assignment with strictly malicious intentions," Rothko > said. "I hope to ruin the appetite of every son of a bitch who ever eats in > that room." He wanted his paintings to make them feel that they were trapped > in the room "where all the doors and windows are bricked up, so that all > they can do is butt their heads forever against the wall."_

... you get a better appreciation for them.

<comment><USER7> But if you have to explain your "art" like that then it's probably not very good to begin with.

<comment><USER8> That line of offence more applicable to jokes than to art. Not all art is meant to be consumed easily and without context. In fact, I'd argue that if a piece of art CAN be consumed easily by anyone of any background without any context, then that piece will usually be rather obvious and just not very interesting, insightful, or valuable.

Of course, take that with a grain of salt. There's a rather large area between 'obvious' and 'unintelligible', and plenty of authors have tried (and failed) to elevate the artistic value of their pieces by turning them into useless mazes of obscure data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is also an interesting argument between Roger Ebert and Kellee Santiago (the co-founder and former president of Thatgamecompany) on this topic [http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_neve...](http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html)

<comment><USER10> It's not really that interesting to me. Ebert's argument is based on the idea that art needs to be good to be art. There's plenty of bad art, but it's still art. Indeed, the bar as to what can be art is startlingly (and often maddeningly) low.

Video games are part entertainment, part engineering challenge, part craft. Just like all art forms.

I enjoy reading Ebert's film reviews, but I think with this debate he's just stirring up controversy for notoriety's sake.

<comment><USER11> I visited MoMA in NY and in different parts of the museum, and by different artists, I saw a plain sheet of white paper, a plain sheet of red, and a plain sheet of black. Someone had considered these to be 'art' enough to hang on a wall. I found the rest of the exhibits to be interesting in some way, but these three pieces represent the lowest I've seen the bar set.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> MoMA posted this a few days ago - they've acquired 14 games: [http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video- game...](http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-games-14-in- the-collection-for-starters)

tldr:

• Pac-Man (1980) • Tetris (1984) • Another World (1991) • Myst (1993) • SimCity 2000 (1994) • vib-ribbon (1999) • The Sims (2000) • Katamari Damacy (2004) • EVE Online (2003) • Dwarf Fortress (2006) • Portal (2007) • flOw (2006) • Passage (2008) • Canabalt (2009)

<comment><USER13> I am disappointed by a severe lack of Braid in that list.

After all, Jonathan Blow is most definitely one of those stirring the (most peculiar) discussion of games & art; see an article+interview about him, [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/the- most...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/the-most- dangerous-gamer/308928/) \- quite a decent (even if somewhat pretentious on several levels) read while on the topic, by the way!

<comment><USER14> Eh, they say they have a particular type of collection in mind:

>Are video games art? They sure are, but they are also design, and a design approach is what we chose for this new foray into this universe. The games are selected as outstanding examples of interaction design—a field that MoMA has already explored and collected extensively, and one of the most important and oft-discussed expressions of contemporary design creativity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't understand how games can't be art.

Creating images is art. 3D modeling is art (like sculpting). Writing stories is art, as well as creating interesting characters. Animation is art. I'm intentionally not mentioning things like programming or gameplay design, but some people might call these art too (not me, though).

So many artists are involved in these projects. And yet, when all of their art is fused together inside the game engine, to be presented to the player in all of its interactive glory, it somehow becomes NOT art? How can this be?

<comment><USER16> Because the fact that a game _contains_ art doesn't necessarily imply that it _is_ art. I can also take a gymnasium, commission art for the walls and music to be played as people exercise and so forth. I doubt that people would consequently consider the gymnasium to be itself art, despite the fact that art no doubt went into its creation.

A film could also feature excellent writing and beautiful visual art, but the _art_ of film comes not from those individual elements being present, but the artistry present in their use together. The thing that makes film an art is the combined whole of those individual elements, which is why you can have a film that is not good _as a film_ despite having, say, spectacular acting or sharp cinematography or a beautiful score.

So the question is, can the artistic elements of games be combined in such a way that the _whole result_ , not just the individual elements, is artistic?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The article might be a brilliant bit of satire but many young parents can actually relate to it. Children are exposed to interactive toys like tablets at such a young age that traditional toys like a Kaleidoscope barely holds their interest. It is sad to see one of your favourite childhood pastimes get a minute or two of their attention before it is thrown to the attic.

To be fair, even I do not find a Kaleidoscope fascinating anymore. It shows pretty images but so does a music visualiser.

<comment><USER18> A friend of mine has a lovely 5 year old daughter who's equally fascinated by crappy Zynga games as she is by a hand-cranked music box. ...and toy swords that say, "Thundercats!"

I've mostly put it down to a complete lack of taste, but it's a fairly large gamut of childhood toys there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I will never for the life of me understand why so many video game players are so insistent that video games must be art. Why does it matter?

For what it's worth, I don't think that video games can be art for reasons that are far too lengthy for the scope of a comment on here. But that doesn't mean video games can't be good things. I also like sport, newspaper articles, and good beer. Cultural artefacts don't have to be art to be good.

<comment><USER11> I don't understand either of the polar sides of the 'are video games art?'

'Art' is just a description, no more. No promise of quality, no conferred legitimacy. There is plenty of really crap art out there, that no-one will claim is not art. Every argument I've seen for the 'is not art' camp does some pretty torturous semantic weaving. And articles like this for the other camp that say 'art is shit, who wants that' are equally unenlightening.

I would say that creating video games in general is more of a craft than an art, but there is definitely art involved in getting to the final product.

edit: ugh, I didn't pick that the article was satire. shame on me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The fact that this is even an article is so ridiculous. OF COURSE GAMES ARE ART. Movies are art. Billboards are art. Comic books are art.

This is the kind of thing I'd have expected to see in 1998. If games weren't it would be strange news to the hundreds of thousands of artists working in the games industry for the last decade.

By far some of my most memorable experiences are from games.

Any concept of art as static prints of pretty pictures is so laughably out dated and so out of touch with the art world it is funny.

Judging whether or not something is art by if it's shown in museums kind of went out with dadaism in 1916.

</comment><comment><USER20> I get that the OP is likely satire, but it's an interesting question after all. Can a game be art like a film or a novel can be art? I think probably yes, but the user interacting with the art when it is a game isn't really any different than the user interacting with the art when it's a play or a film - you're still "just looking at it".

And that's where the satire breaks apart for me.

</comment><comment><USER21> Personally? Yeah I think games can be art.

However, while I've had some great experiences playing games, I don't think I have yet played a game which deeply changed my worldview in the same way as, say, some novels have.

</comment><comment><USER22> >I had always assumed that 'art' was something for a different generation.

As an art-loving millennial, I wonder if this a common sentiment among my generation.

</comment><comment><USER23> Games have exactly as much potential to be art, or to not be art, as any other medium. The only difference is how it is used.

</comment><comment><USER24> Now if only you could fork art and send a pull request...</comment>


Lockdown was supposed to be an introvert's paradise. For some it's not - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615437/virtual-happy-hour-introverts-lockdown-coronavirus/ <comment><USER2> There are several points with which I sympathize here.

>> Everything feels like a meeting

Yes. Even more now than ever. Especially talking to family and friends over Zoom/Slack/GH after spending all day talking to coworkers over Teams. Now that we're all work from home there's increased pressure to ensure we're online and available. We have persistent Team meetings set up that we'll drop in and out of as time permits. Sometimes I just like being alone with my thoughts. When everyone was allowed out and about I could sneak away as I wanted to. Not so much right now.</comment>


WWDC 2012 Keynote - <AUTHOR> http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/126pihbedvcoihbefvbhjkbvsefbg/event/index.html

<comment><USER2> To me, says "Available shortly". <http://i.imgur.com/CbjlY.png>

But thanks for the link.

EDIT: As other's have pointed out, you need to be using Safari. I can confirm I can watch it when I open it up there.

<comment><AUTHOR> make sure you're using Safari

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I can confirm this works on Mac Safari despite having given me the "unavailable" message in Chrome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sigh... Quicktime. As a Linux user, I can't use it. Just use HTML5 Video or make Quicktime cross-platform Apple...

<comment><USER5> It'll show up here too <http://www.youtube.com/user/Apple/videos>

That or give me 30-40 minutes to get it and convert it (its 2.18g O.O)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Side question: does anyone know why Apple uses edgesuite.net for these things? Is that an internal name, a third-party corp. managing their video distribution, or something else?

<comment><USER7> It's part of Akamai AFAIK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anyone got the link to the HTTP live streaming URL? It's watchable in VLC but I don't have a Mac handy to circumvent the browser sniffing.. It's possible to get to the URL via the inspector I think.

EDIT: Assuming this keynote uses the same technology the previous keynotes have been using, of course.

<comment><USER9> [http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/jun/126pihbedvcoihbefvbhj...](http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/jun/126pihbedvcoihbefvbhjkbvsefbg/12oibwefsvihbsdfvpihbsd6_350_ref.mov) works in iTunes for Windows.

<comment><USER10> If you view source of the webpage, you will see links for the iPad and iPhone as well. Search for "_350".

Alas, getting actual links to video is not always so easy.

Thank you Adobe, Brightcove and others for making video such a PITA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone know why Apple doesn't offer their keynotes in Youtube anymore? I missed the days when I can view their keynotes in 720p.

</comment><comment><USER12> User Agent Switcher on Firefox works for me.</comment>


Show HN: Fast DOM manipulation with jQuery-like syntax - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/bndr/fasterDOM.js <comment><USER2> This is very cool, great work! Although I think you should make it clear in the read me that it only supports 2 basic jQuery-like selectors (by id '#id' and by class '.class'), ie: none of the following will work - 'div', '[name="test"]', '.class1.class2', '.class1 .class2', 'div.class .class2[data- test="thing"] > em#id:last-child' - I realise that last one should never be used in real life.

Some of these could be implemented with things like getElementsByTagName, getElementsByAttribute, and recursive calling when spaces are found. I may even do a pull request with these if I find time this weekend :)

Have you looked into using querySelectorAll? I'd be interested to know if it's slower and by how much.

<comment><AUTHOR> The reason why I left only the ID and Class selectors is because they are the fastest.

Here are some test cases: [http://jsperf.com/getelementsbyclassname-vs- queryselectorall...](http://jsperf.com/getelementsbyclassname-vs- queryselectorall/35)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> That's only half the puzzle though, does this solution work in most browsers?

At least as many as jQuery 2.X?

Up to as many as jQuery 1.9.Y?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi! Thanks for your comment! I will check and update the README with supported browsers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I looked at this the other day. While I think the effort is always good, a library like Sizzle already handles stuff like this and a lot, lot more. Its field tested and battle hardened. Its optimized for the 99% use cases, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> The idea behind this project, was to make it as small as possible and as fast as possible. Yes it does indeed lose many features that jQuery (or Sizzle) provide, but if you need something simple and fast, then I don't see why you should include another 50KB file.

I really like jQuery, but sometimes its feature-rich architecture is just slow.

<comment><USER5> how's the comparison to e.g. zepto.js core ?

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually did not test it against zepto.js. I will add some more tests in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nitpick: line 57 has a typo in 'undefined'. I will have a deeper look at the code tomorrow. A 30% increase is definitely interesting.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tip! Fixed it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Would definitely like to use this -- could you please provide a license file?

<comment><AUTHOR> Added the license file

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> problem is when u start adding features, u may again end-up with equal performances...Jquery community also takes care of performance but before that compatibility is first preference..

</comment><comment><USER9> It looks cool! Adding a `remove` method would make it even better.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi! I added remove.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Cool. What's the use case?</comment>


Silicon Valley's Youth Problem - <AUTHOR> http://nytimes.com/2014/03/16/magazine/silicon-valleys-youth-problem.html <comment><USER2> I'm old, Valley-based, and I code. I have a very sketchy resume, filled with inexplicable voids and failed startups, plus one very caveat-filled partial success. I find it almost trivial to find well-paying work coding, and I seem to be able to develop great relationships with engineers half my age. The challenge in my case is to find work that is interesting, challenging, and has potential impact on the world at large, things which I care about more and more as I get older.

My sense is that there are quite a few people, both young and old, who find it hard to break into the 'valley scene'. I've felt that too at times, in spite of my (roughly speaking) successful career. The culture is insular and judgmental in a way that can be very intimidating. However, it should be noted that this is equally true in other areas, especially in what might be called "glamour" fields, such as film, music, fashion, writing, art, etc. In every one of these arenas, there is a clique mentality, where judgement can be swift and capricious, and being "in" is almost a binary value, based on a seemingly subconscious pattern-matching process that can at times feel like the result of a hive mind.

I guess the news flash here is that SV startup life is now officially glamorous. Pretty soon we'll have a raft of reality TV shows dogging our every move, and providing income to those of us who have fallen from the grace of the techno A-list.

<comment><USER3> > Pretty soon we'll have a raft of reality TV shows dogging our every move, > and providing income to those of us who have fallen from the grace of the > techno A-list.

It's already started.

[http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/04/reality-tv-gets-startup- obs...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/04/reality-tv-gets-startup-obsessed- with-bravos-silicon-valley-and-huh-working-titles/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Link to previous discussion (11 days old):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7384818](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7384818)

</comment><comment><USER5> "Older engineers are not smart in the way that start-ups want them to be..."

Sigh.

<comment><USER6> I understand this as in that younger ones have more wild ideas than pragmatic engineering solutions, unlike older ones tend to skew towards the engineering solutions rather than the ideas.

In a way I see it as ideas vs. implementations. A gross generalization and oversimplification, perhaps doesn't reflect to reality at all, but maybe the thought prevails among certain groups of people in SV.

<comment><USER7> What a bunch of nonsense.

The reality is simply that young, inexperienced people are cheap and are willing to cut corners because they don't understand the dangers. And then a year or 2 later the next MtGox programming blunder story appears.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This link was submitted a week ago. Funny enough, I only found the time to read it yesterday (it is very long, an hour to read according to Readability). Most of the original discussion focused on how it failed to consider one aspect or the other, but the truth is, I felt it was a fairly considerate, all-encompassing testimony. Reading it at the same time as clips on Google centered Hiring cartels made the whole HR situation in the Valley… interesting, and far from obvious. Reading it with Brynjolfsson & McAfee's theory on massive obsolescence gives shivers, because it draws a portrait of a small elite, selected at almost random, or according to unclear practices (in addition to the link, PG did mention that Y Combinator needed to take _more_ risk), that is the only one to collect either skills or signals to stay in the market. Then there is the drone-fueled utopia, where I'm not sure which part will be AI operated, which part will be human Uber-operators, although I am sure that even Uber won't be able to tell because some unsavory characters will hook AI to human-entries…

My nightmare as a twenty-something with a fanstastic diploma and no job prospects (needs experience to get a job, don't have references because unearthed a fraud during internship, fraud that almost ruined my family) is getting more detailed and deeper. It's the systemic, sustainable, sensical version of 'Entry job; needs two year experience'.

I still think that a large group is not mentioned in most of those reference, certainly OP, are the surprisingly large hordes of people who can't seem to find jobs in San Francisco. Including coders, including very talented ones. No idea what's at stake: the list of claimed discriminated groups are long, and constitute a pavement of all candidates (as pointed in the article).

Here is a problem in need of a solution, but I can't seem to make sense of what either are.

<comment><USER9> I'm very sympathetic to your plight - I too am infuriated by how crappy the system has gotten when it comes to developing candidates with no experience. This is a situation that's broken across the country though, not just San Francisco - my frustrating experience was in the Washington, DC area, a supposedly excellent job market.

I was once in your situation as well - MS math degree from a top level program (4 year PhD student before leaving in an unexpected manner) who also had problems finding a job & applied to any entry level career track job I could (PR, programming, data scientist, statistician, business analyst, intelligence analyst, HR, secretary, sales, etc.). I got fed up after 2 years of searching (minus 7 months spent in initial active duty training in the military before becoming a drilling reservist) and taught myself how to program. I hit up the local meetup events pretty hard simultaneously, and a recruiter helped me get an entry level position - it was entry level pay, but I quickly proved myself from there and with only 16 months of experience, am about to start making $100k+ doing web development.

Hang in there, it gets better - I've experienced some pretty terrible things as well, and I made it out ok.

<comment><USER10> I suppose every company is different. As a counter-example, we have two different programs -- one for CS grads and one for other non-CS science grads (e.g. physics, math, ee, biology, etc.). Both programs are about 3 months in length and are meant to either teach or refresh practical skills needed on the job. This includes both outside knowledge (e.g. C++) as well as internal tools/processes. More importantly, the group "graduates" as a class and everyone starts their job knowing a decent size group of people in various places throughout the company. A job isn't entry-level if it requires experience outside of school. I just wanted to give an example to show that programs like these do exist. In fact, some of the best programmers I know were math or physics grads with no CS experience outside of a few classes.

<comment><USER9> I don't doubt that programs like your company's exist - the problem is systemic, as opposed to rare, is my point.

<comment><USER10> It would be interesting to see data on this. My gut says most companies with a large number of employees have some kind of program, so it may just be something that is acquired over time and only systemic in smaller companies. They maybe don't need to spend the resources on it because there is enough competition for the small number of positions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As a mature student all I ever hear about is that no one will hire a student with no experience? So you get students doing unpaid internships, part time jobs and basically anything to show on their CV.

I've come to the solution that it's all a load of rubbish. Build a network, become a face within your little niche and make sure your knowledge / experience is always moving upwards.

Too many youngsters think that getting a 1st == instant £60,000+ a year job. Too many older people think working 20 years doing the same thing again and again == instant £60,000+ a year job.

Neither is true, a career takes time to build, pruning your network and stacking the cards in your favour.

</comment><comment><USER12> Should the whole Valley be considered as producing only WhatsApp ? Today's revolution are running on Twitter and Facebook, those dummy, useless, whateveryouwant services are enablers to people.

We are talking about the Valley that is the birth place of Tesla and AirBnB, I wouldn't rate those ones as useless, or solving problems that doesn't matter.

</comment><comment><USER13> All I read is two different ways of being an ignorant douche problem. Basically the opening illustration accurately summarizes the entire article.

The solution, surprisingly, is to just don't.

</comment><comment><USER14> Why does the NYT post 2 week old NYT stories on HN?</comment>


Fairytale about performance in web application - <AUTHOR> https://itnext.io/fairytale-about-performance-in-web-application-ed2bf12627fc?source=linkShare-d603b362727e-1534225727 <comment><USER2> Great cautionary tale of JS bloat in the age of mobile</comment>


What we can learn from a decade of dead Google projects - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/12/21012505/google-decade-failed-projects-discontinued-wave-glass-daydream-vr <comment><USER2> The lesson I learned is "avoid depending on Google for _anything_ ," and as soon as the PinePhone is a viable option I'm ditching my Android phone so I can nuke my Google account and finally be free of these union-busting scumbags.</comment>


Starving to Health: Fasting-Mimicking Diet - <AUTHOR> https://artlapinsch.com/2020/06/23/starving-to-health-fasting-mimicking-diet/ <comment><USER2> I'm ashamed to say that I've tried every diet under the sun, including the 16-8 IF and I was failing miserably at it. It's by no means healthy but turns out I've always been an all-or-nothing type (complete lack of discipline) so I've been trying the 5-2 diet for the past couple months and I'm finally seeing results. It allows you to eat up to 125% of your daily calories on eating days and up to 25% on the 2 non-eating days. You can ramp it up by eating absolutely nothing on non-eating days an even alternating between eating and non-eating every other day which I've had some luck with. For me personally the advantage was simplicity and the ability to eat the things I tend to eat (within reason) without having to put too much effort into it. On non-eating days I just keep myself occupied with work, activities, etc and after a few times it's surprisingly easy not to eat.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've reduced my average weight from 75 kg to 65 kg by daily intermittent fasting: I eat the same things as always, and I consume the same amount kcal, but I restrict my intake to a window of 6-8 hours instead of eating throughout the full 16 hours I'm awake. I don't eat until lunch, and I make sure I have had my last meal for the day no later than 8 in the evening.

<comment><USER4> I am highly skeptical of claims that people have lost significant weight by changing _when_ they eat and not what or how much they eat. Most people significantly underestimate how much they consume and often eat little snacks at various times without even consciously remembering it. If someone had followed you around before you started intermittent fasting and recorded everything you put in your mouth I suspect you would find that you were eating more than you thought.

<comment><USER5> There is a lot of research supporting how much the _when_ of intermittent fasting matters even when the _what_ and _how much_ are held constant. How the food is distributed over time matters for insulin which affects weight gain / loss.

There is widespread misunderstanding that obesity is caused by caloric imbalance while it is actually caused by hormonal imbalance.

Dr. Jason Fung has written extensively (research, blog posts, books) covering how IF impacts insulin and insulin sensitivity, and how that downstream leads to obesity [and how IF helps reverse obesity]. I highly recommend his books such as _The Obesity Code_.

[https://www.dietdoctor.com/my-single-best-weight-loss- tip](https://www.dietdoctor.com/my-single-best-weight-loss-tip)

<comment><USER6> Yeah I have been doing this for decades. I only eat from 5-6 PM daily. I'll have water in the day time, but I don't think it would be ideal to stop drinking water.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> IF is great. Y'ain't getting me to give up my coffee, though. It's got zero calories, anyway!

</comment><comment><USER8> over the past 7 months I've lost 12kgs.

All I did was to make some lifestyle changes: "IF" between 8pm and 12 pm (basically calorie reduction). I dont add sugar to any drink and I dont drink sugary drinks, this includes fruit juice, 100% or no. I gave myself permission to suck at exercise. As long as I got out at least 5 days a week (preferably in the morning before work) then I would class this as mission accomplished. What ended up happening was it became a habit, so i didn't have to really think about it or argue with myself about it. I also got a lot better at it. so instead of a 20 min bike ride I was going for an hour or more. I didn't feel like I had to do better I just ended up doing better.

The outcome so far has been great, also I find that if bad weather keeps me from going out and getting exercise I start getting cranky.. i now _need_ it to be happy its a sort of self re-enforcing feedback habit.

Habits are hard to break, so I actively developed _good_ habits... I think this is basically the crux of it. no special and difficult to maintain rules or eating patterns. just eat less in general and do it in a way that is easy to maintain (no eating after dinner, dont eat breakfast, train my palette to prefer non-sweet drinks).

</comment><comment><USER9> I've had good luck with the Hackers Diet (calorie counting) in the past: [https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/](https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/)

When counting calories and exercising, my weight loss was linear in the number of calories I (didn't) eat, regardless of what they were.

I'm trying intermittent fasting because calorie counting is a pain, and the less mental energy required the better. Hopefully it'll work out.

</comment><comment><USER10> I lost without too much problems 16kg by reading only between noln and 8pm.

And by not eating processed sugar (industrial cakes)

Not sure which one was more important for the loss :)</comment>


Almost 40% of Americans Would Struggle to Cover a $400 Emergency - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/almost-40-of-americans-would-struggle-to-cover-a-400-emergency <comment><USER2> Headline strongly debunked here:

[https://twitter.com/p_millerd/status/1118071142311288838](https://twitter.com/p_millerd/status/1118071142311288838)

Highlights:

"After some digging I found the 2016 appendix (again, 2017 not to be found). Only 12% of people couldn't actually pay the expense"

"Another survey question not highlighted actually gives some direct clarity on this question. It turns out only about 15% of people would not be able to cover a $400 expense [without impacting their ability to pay other bills]."

Note that "12% couldn't actually pay" is about equal to the 2017 official poverty rate of 12.3%. I don't find it surprising that people counted as "in poverty" would have problems covering a $400 immediate cash expense.

<comment><USER3> > _Headline strongly debunked here:_

Actually not debunked at all.

Headline says "would struggle to cover a $400 emergency" and is perfectly accurate.

The guy doing the "debunking" (sic) looked at the table quoted in the study, isolated the percentage that could not pay the $400 at all (as opposed to the larger set that would struggle to pay it), and then "triumphantly" declared that the headline is moot because those are only ~ 12%.

But the headline was never about how many couldn't pay $400 at all at all. It was about how would _struggle_ to pay it.

The funny thing is he himself quotes the full breakdown, that along with the 12% that won't be able to pay at all, includes people who would need to "borrow from a friend" to pay it (another 12%), "sell something" (8%), using a payday loan (2%) and so on.

<comment><USER4> I think a big part of the problem is the structure of the survey that these stories (and the "debunking" are based on) - I don't think you can fully support either conclusion based on it, for a few reasons:

1) At least a few of the possible responses don't really map to any conclusion. Take for example, "Put it on my credit card and pay it off in full at the next statement". Does this mean someone is struggling to pay the expense? Or just a normal way to pay for things? I mentioned in another comment - I keep a fairly large emergency fund and $400 would be trivial to cover, but I'd still pay for it on a card and then pay it off when it was due, so I'd select this option. I think it makes it hard to infer much from this.

2) The responses are multiple choice, so you can't really say "40% of people would struggle". In fact, the percentages sum to 140%, so I don't know what you really can conclude, other than it probably isn't as high as 40% or as low as 12%?

<comment><USER3> >* suresk 1 hour ago [-]

I think a big part of the problem is the structure of the survey that these stories (and the "debunking" are based on) - I don't think you can fully support either conclusion based on it, for a few reasons: 1) At least a few of the possible responses don't really map to any conclusion. Take for example, "Put it on my credit card and pay it off in full at the next statement". Does this mean someone is struggling to pay the expense? Or just a normal way to pay for things? I mentioned in another comment - I keep a fairly large emergency fund and $400 would be trivial to cover, but I'd still pay for it on a card and then pay it off when it was due, so I'd select this option. I think it makes it hard to infer much from this.*

I don't think that's the case with this answer. It's more, I'll need credit cause I don't have either cash or deposits to pay for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is scary stuff as I don't think I can make a visit to a doctor for a non checkup type situation (injury) without the bill being more than $400.*

And I have "good" insurance.

*Granted that largely depends on how much I've paid YTD, so it could be more than $400, or less, but hell who knows as the plan changes every year.

To be clear I can foot the bill just fine, but it demonstrates how on the edge and out of control you are when $400 breaks the bank.

<comment><USER6> > It is scary stuff as I don't think I can make a visit to a doctor for a non > checkup type situation (injury) without the bill being more than $400.*

> And I have "good" insurance.

Well, not really, because even a crappy HMO gives you better guarantees than that.

You have a "good" insurance plan probably in the sense that providing the illusion of choice while heavily exposing you to cost for "covered" services is widely sold as "better" than a slight reduction in mostly illusory choice with far performance on the risk protection function that is the whole reason to buy insurance.

<comment><USER5> Plans are way more complex to say what a $400 bill is in relation to the quality of the plan.

Example:

1\. My plan could cover squat of the first $400 for the year... but cover EVERYTHING after $400 of out of pocket costs for the year. If you've got a family, that's a hell of a plan.

2\. My plan could cover squat of the first $10k ... that would suck.

A single $400 bill doesn't tell you much as far as what a good plan in the US is or isn't.... and we haven't even gotten into what the premiums are per month.

Of course this also goes to show how much of a pain health insurance in the US is ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> While a surprising statistic, this number has actually improved in the last five years. "This is an improvement from half of adults in 2013 being ill- prepared for such an expense [$400]" \- Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017 [0]

[0][https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2017-repor...](https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2017-report- economic-well-being-us-households-201805.pdf)

<comment><USER8> Here's the actual Federal Reserve Board news release from which Bloomberg made their report:

[https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/othe...](https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/other20190523b.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I always wonder what proportion of that group is due to insufficient income, and what proportion is due to terrible financial literacy.

<comment><USER10> I don't think these things are necessarily mutually exclusive. A fair bit of financial literacy should enable someone to save at least _some_ income even at minimum wage (barring catastrophes and good old fashioned bad luck). The lifestyle you'd need to save on a minimum wage is pretty unsavory, though, and not many would enjoy living that way forever.

<comment><USER11> I feel like this might be coming from a position far above minimum wage, because in practice the poor aren't that stupid. You get trapped in cycles of incredible housing expenses keeping you in constant short term debt and the lack of income leading you to constantly seek new revenue sources, but being in that condition is inherently expensive and money in is always trying to fill up a bucket with a hole in it.

<comment><USER12> Back in my college days I was able to live on minimum wage, including paying tuition. I knew several other people doing the same thing and even supporting a family on their income. Their housing expenses where a lot lower than you would believe possible: they lived in a tiny apartment in the bad part of time: they had a warm place (hot in summer: no AC), a dry roof, a kitchen and bathroom. We all had a cheap car, with enough money set aside to fix it as required.

Of course we were the minority. Most people live exactly at their means (including whatever they can borrow). I understand, I like more space as well: I like my toys as much as everybody. I just believed my future was better if I didn't get myself into debt now.

<comment><USER13> But this was temporary pain for future gain.

Imagine doing that for your whole life.

<comment><USER10> This is where a little knowledge can go a long way. Assuming a ~10% interest rate (just to make the math easy, and is approximately what you'd expect in the stock market), it takes ~6.5 years of constant savings before your saved money earns more than the amount saved each year.

In other words, you can give future you (6.5 years in the future) a raise over 100% of your current income by beginning to save some percentage of it (e.g. 10%). At 6.5 years, the 90% you can spend will be greater than your 100% from 6.5 years prior, and you get to continue to save 10%, further increasing both your income and your nest egg.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I see these kind of statistics but then you see phones in the range of $400-$1500. An average car costs $25-$35k according to data online. And you see pictures of people with grandiose homes if you have ever seen any of those home shows. Or people going out for grand meals or pricey drinks. Somehow those expensive things continue getting sold yet 40% struggle to cover a $400 emergency.

<comment><USER15> I run a website that focuses on math driven, low cost living.

The longer I run this website, the less sympathic I've become.

I see so much waste, I see so many excuses.

I think this paycheck to paycheck lifestyle is chosen by the person (or their biology). There are plenty of opportunities to save money or make more, but people choose not to.

<comment><USER16> Definitely. The only reason many software developers don't live paycheck to paycheck is because it is actually a hassle to spend that amount of money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I see articles like this from time to time, and from my own experience, can't help but wonder how much of said inability to cover a $400 emergency isn't self-inflicted.

My personal anectdatum:

I was not smart with my money in my younger years. I spent my money freely on whatever I wanted at that moment, and then was always wondering why I was so broke all the time. Savings? Why would I do that when that means I can't have money right now to get the thing I want right now? It took the clue-by-four that was the 2008-2009 recession to get me to realize that living beyond my means with no savings and a growing pile of debt was in fact a Bad Idea. During that time, and in the first few years following as I educated myself about finance and slowly cleaned up the mess I made, I also would have had a hard time covering a $400 emergency. But, that was my own damn fault now, wasn't it?

In the time since, as my financial situation has improved, both because of the economy picking back up and my financial education helping me to be smarter with my money, I've been increasing my savings, reducing my debt, and getting less stupid with my purchases. And doing this, I am now able to cover a $400 emergency without stress. I did exactly that just last week.

Yes, having a higher income now than I did then has certainly helped with that. But as I've reviewed my spending habits from my $20k/yr days, I've become a little embarrassed by them. A modicum of savings discipline would have let me ride out the 2008-2009 crisis more smoothly, and I'd be in even better shape today.

</comment><comment><USER18> The article's claim is almost entirely bullshit. The reasons why are nicely outlined here: [https://twitter.com/p_millerd/status/1118071142311288838](https://twitter.com/p_millerd/status/1118071142311288838)

This "can't cover a $400 expense" makes for a nice narrative, and we can all insert our perspectives about the world into this narrative, and walk away feeling good about it.

Quotes from the above twitter thread:

> I was curious about this because it seemed low. After some digging I found > the 2016 appendix (again, 2017 not to be found). Only 12% of people couldn't > actually pay the expense and a smaller amount would have to borrow money > (keep in mind this could be double counted)

Another survey question not highlighted actually gives some direct clarity on this question. It turns out only about 15% of people would not be able to cover a $400 expense.

update: clarify uses of "this" and "it".

<comment> why-el For me, having to put it on a credit card is effectively not being able to cover it, so the numbers do check out, from this perspective. Again, we are talking an emergency, not a mortgage.

<comment><USER19> > For me, having to put it on a credit card is effectively not being able to > cover it,

That may be your personal opinion but that contrasts with both the facts and pushes a narrative that doesn't fit reality. For example, I routinely charge unexpected expenses on a credit card although I am more than capable of easily covering them with my savings. I'm sure thay the sheer convenience of charging expenses on a CC drives the decisions of regular CC users, specially as some CC plans charge 0% interests under some conditions.

<comment><USER20> Per my other comment [1], that's why such surveys (and, I'll add, their reporting), should _sidestep_ these judgments calls and just find out _in what precise sense_ someone can or can't cover the expense.

In your example, where you are putting something on the CC _while already having the cash to cover it_ , that would count as my category 1, and you don't have to resolve the (irrelevant) question of whether using a credit card "is [inherently] debt".

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19994836](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19994836)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> In the Bay Area at least, this is pretty understandable. 40th-percentile income in the Bay Area is $66k [1]. An income-tax estimator puts after-tax pay for a family of 4 on that salary in California at $55k [2].

I live in the Bay Area, and my family of 4 lives fairly frugally by choice. Even so, we spent more than $55k last year and squeezing even our modest lifestyle into that budget wouldn't have been easy.

[1]: [https://statisticalatlas.com/metro-area/California/San- Franc...](https://statisticalatlas.com/metro-area/California/San- Francisco/Household-Income)

[2]: I put a household income of $65k with a family of 4 (married filing joint) into the tax estimator at [https://smartasset.com/taxes/income- taxes#WF5trlFESC](https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#WF5trlFESC)

<comment><USER22> Congrats on managing to live frugally with a family of 4! Certainly an accomplishment.

Out of curiosity, how much of that $64k is housing?

<comment><USER21> We spent $33k on rent and utilities! And that's a deal, compared to what many of our neighbors are paying. We live near SF to keep my commute into the city manageable, and there simply isn't cheap housing to be had in the area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Throwing my own anecdote into the barrel:

Somehow, our HR provider company fucked up, and signed me up for the shittier of the two healthcare plans my employer provides, despite me signing up for the better version. All the paperwork shows that we had the good plan last year, but Aetna says we were on the shitty plan, with no out-of-pocket limit. To that end, our doctor's office is now billing us for $20k for a procedure my wife had to undergo.

We're lucky; we have $20k in savings. We can cover this without the bill going to collections and dinging our credit, while we deal with the god-awful chain of HR->provider->insurer, until we get paid back. I wonder how many of my coworkers couldn't.

<comment> john-radio Don't pay it! You negotiate with healthcare providers! Don't tell them you have the money.

<comment><USER24> This is the right approach. A healthcare provider would prefer $10k (<\- arbitrary number) now over the _potential_ to get $20k while also having to deal with debt collectors.

<comment><USER23> What happens if I negotiate down, and three months later Aetna finally unfucks my asshole and agrees to pay the $20k?

I guess this is a question for a lawyer, and not a stranger on the internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> With super-low unemployment, and rising wages, this is truly of concern.

If the headline is true, it really underscores the need for basic financial education. If people can't help themselves in this economy, there is little hope for them without some big change. (To the struggling people. Not to the economy.)

</comment><comment><USER26> I wonder how much the American economy is propped up by rampant debt spending and financial illiteracy. If everyone in the US saved 20% of their income, and didn't over leverage for that new truck, would we see a noticeable economic impact?

<comment><USER27> People not saving for pension is a ticking economic bomb. The economy might be prompt now but I am afraid to think about what happens when the current working generation retires.

<comment><USER12> You will so the current generation at WalMart in a few years pushing carts and other such tasks when they are forced to realize their retirement savings doesn't cover their needs.

Actually it isn't that bad, a fair number of people don't plan to retire while they can work. A job provides a social experience and meaning in life. If you retire you need to replace that (if you don't you will die quickly - this is known medically), if the job isn't that bad why not keep working? For such people retirement means a nursing home, and if they don't have any money the government will cover that. It isn't for me, I have my own projects I want to do, but maybe it is for you: so long as it is a real decision I don't have a problem with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What a dishonest title/article. Taken directly from the report itself:

"The findings show many signs of growth and improvement along with remaining pockets of distress and fragility. They also reveal new insights into how households approach their financial lives and decisions.

In many ways, the latest findings underscore the overall economic recovery and expansion over the five years of the survey."

</comment><comment><USER29> Can someone explain to me how this is possible? America is among richest nations in the world. Plus its citizens have access to all amenities of life. How come they don't have enough for emergency expenses? Is it because of wealth inequality? Or is it that its a mature capitalist society, so most things are priced such that people have very little disposable income?

<comment><USER30> I would say it's because of their consumerist culture and financial illiteracy, not because of extremely low wages.

I wonder how many of these 40% have a high end smartphone and a big LCD TV in their living room.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > _Almost 40% of Americans Would Struggle to Cover a $400 Emergency_

Let that soak in for those in the US (and on HN) who insist that the economy is great, unemployment is low (and measured properly), the middle class has no problem, etc...

<comment><USER31> > Let that soak in for those in the US (and on HN) who insist that the economy > is great, unemployment is low (and measured properly), the middle class has > no problem, etc...

Everyone in the country could be making $100k a year, if their savings rate is 0% they'll still struggle with a surprise $400. IMO it's a problem with spending frivolously...

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I am bit surprised by the fact that with unemployment rate that is all time low, people should eventually see that savings amount go up overall. This is almost saving like $8 per week which is close to hourly minimum wage. Personally I think either people spend way too much money or they don't follow strict discipline of saving small (%) of their income.

<comment> mAEStro-paNDa Perhaps instead the employment rate doesn't tell the whole story?

<comment><USER33> The people working in the sharing economy because they don't have other options for income get counted in employment statistics. The PhD working at starbucks gets counted in the employment statistics. People who are not actively seeking employment don't. The unemployment rate might be low, but the labor participation rate has been hovering around 63% since 2016. It was above 66% for most of the 90s through the early 2000s, until the financial crisis. Employment statistics are, at best, useful for comparing last year to this year, or last quarter to this quarter. They say little about the overall structure of the economy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> "Among the remaining 4 in 10 adults who would have more difficulty covering such an expense, the most common approaches include carrying a balance on credit cards and borrowing from friends or family"

Having to carry a credit card balance isn't much of a struggle. This article needs to do more work to make a better headline so it's not actually "40% of Americans would be inconvenienced..."

<comment><USER35> > Having to carry a credit card balance isn't much of a struggle.

Let's say you put $400 on a CC that has 18% interest rate. By paying only the minimum payment each month you end up paying a total of $598 after 4 years and 11 months. This means that for the next 4 years, a credit card is no longer a safe escape for you.

A better example would be an emergency Root Canal at $1,600. This would take you 12 years and 7 months to pay off.

<comment><USER36> >> Let's say you put $400 on a CC that has 18% interest rate

Wow, that's a hell of interest rate. In Poland there's regulatory law that caps interest rates for credit cards (and all types of consumer credits, really) at 11%, or 4x base interest rate set by Polish central bank. Applying the same logic to US would give you what, 9% interest rate? But I guess Americans would see that as messing with free markets :)

<comment><USER37> Lenders in Poland still need to make a profit, so are they more restrictive in issuing cards, or is it harder to default on a loan? Or does the government subsidize them?

<comment><USER36> At 11% interest rate you can still make a lot of profit. I don't think banks are restrictive on issuing them, basically anyone who is gainfully employed can get one.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>