What MongoDB got right - <AUTHOR> https://blog.nelhage.com/2015/11/what-mongodb-got-right/ <comment><USER2> > Let's start with the simplest one. Making the developer interface to the > database a structured format instead of a textual query language was a clear > win.

I think this is the most significant factor, by far. With Mongo it's turtles (or at least Maps/Hashes) all the way down, without a strange pseudo-english layer near the bottom that forces you to translate back and forth. For some devs that's a big deal.

For the last while I've been experimenting with bringing the same feature to PostgreSQL ([http://bedquiltdb.github.io](http://bedquiltdb.github.io)), turns out it's very do-able, but I don't have enough time to make it as featureful as it needs to be.

<comment><USER3> SQL is still one of the most readable languages in my opinion. Its the one language where I find it easier to read queries than write them.

<comment><USER4> SQL's fine on its own. The problem arises when you try to manipulate it. A query to get messages that were sent between now and a week ago, joining in the user table for both the sender and the receiver to get their full names, is sensible enough when written out as SQL. I can quibble about some of the affordances of SQL, but it's good enough for most queries. The problem is if you try to create some sort of data that represents "get the message body", "messages sent since last week", "get the sender's name", "get the receiver's name", and somehow programmatically assemble a query out of the pieces. (Slight quibble, this isn't actually about OO, this is about "anything that isn't SQL". A Haskell library will have the exact same problem.) An AST-based approach doesn't guarantee that this will be easy, but it's still a step above trying to assemble an SQL query from those pieces.

It's totally possible. There's a ton of libraries that do it in various ways. It's just not even remotely _easy_ , like it should be. If you look into the inside of those libraries you'll find a C'thulian monstronsity of special cases interacting with special cases until the whole thing just explodes into a brain-consuming mess, because SQL was very, very clearly not written for this use case.

In another 10 or 20 years I look forward to data-based analysis that tries to determine how much of the "NoSQL" movement was because the relational data model doesn't work for all use cases, and how much of it was the entirely accidental (in the Brooks sense) problems with A: SQL, the language itself, not its capabilities and B: schema migrations with no _essential_ reason to be as painful as they are. (And something something column stores, but I'm not sure where they fit into this story exactly.) And to be clear on tone, I really am interested. I'm pretty sure the answer won't be either extreme but I'm pretty uncertain about where in the middle we'll fall.

<comment><USER5> > and somehow programmatically assemble a query out of the pieces.

You can do this today, in various statically typed languages[1] (perhaps dynamic languages as well, though the composition will likely be more ad hoc).

Agreed re: under the hood complexity, but that's more in supporting multiple database engines (and related corner cases) than the transformation of Query > AST > SQL.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525040](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525040)

<comment><USER4> Having written some of this code myself, I have to disagree; transforming SQL fragments is legitimately frustratingly challenging. I have to admit I don't know how to show a small example that captures the problem, though, because this is one of those cases where the small examples always look easy. It isn't until you're trying to support all of them at once that it is a problem. Combining two fragments that each specify tables, joins, where clause filters, and potentially subqueries with each of those recursively is nontrivial when you get down to it.

It also _really_ doesn't help that "SQL is declarative" is basically a lie, and it very frequently _totally matters_ which "synonymous" query you actually throw at the database, thus eliminating a lot of the obvious clean answers in any practically-useful library.

<comment><USER5> Definitely not an easy task but the degree of difficulty depends on the language.

Both Haskell and Scala, for example, have sufficiently powerful type systems to allow for building up a typed query expression of arbitrary complexity, which can then be deconstructed via pattern matching to assemble the sql statement. Easy? Not at all, but very much doable, and incredibly elegant...until you need to support various database engines and their limitations/extended features; then the implementation hacks begin :\

Personally I think the work of Stephan Zeiger on the Slick library in Scala is ground breaking. Also, Wadler et al's recent-ish paper on a composable query DSL in F# is worth checking out[1]

[1] [http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/yow/dsl- long.pdf](http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/yow/dsl-long.pdf)

<comment><USER4> You seem to persist in believing the problem is on the _input_ side. It's not; it's on the _output_ side. My entire point is that the resulting SQL generation code is what ends up quite hairy, because the way we have found to separate concerns in 2015 and SQL are very, very different.

Let me put it this way... it is _precisely because_ a fluent, Haskell-native SQL querying interface little resembles SQL in either syntax or usage that there is the problem. It is precisely that there have to be these library _at all_ that is the problem. If it were easy, these library wouldn't even exist, or would be little more than drivers, but they're not just drivers... they do a _lot_ of real work.

If SQL didn't stink by the standards of modern separation of concerns, we wouldn't _need_ "ground breaking" work!

Or, to put it another another way:

        $ git clone email@example.com:slick/slick.git
        $ cd slick
        $ cloc .
        </comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---
        Language   files  blank  comment  code
        </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---
        Scala      261    3589   3844     23129

Cut down to just the Scala. 23kilolines of Scala is a lot of Scala! This is not an "easy" task. "Easy" would be something that just wrapped up the existing syntax in a slightly more native form and would clock in somewhere in the several hundred range.

<comment><USER5> No, I'm saying input is easy, type system does virtually all the work. Output is where the effort is spent (i.e. pattern match on query expression to assemble the statement).

Why these libraries exist is because of string-ly typed programming; in the case of sql: 1) it doesn't compose; 2) is not safe (sql injection attacks); 3) difficult to refactor; 4) untyped, therefore whole class of bugs arise.

And yes, these libraries do a ton of work, well beyond just generating sql statements, which, in the case of Slick pushes the LOC count way higher (non- blocking IO, supports basically every database engine, native function support, jdbc modeled in scala, etc., etc., it's a huge engineering effort, somehow by one person).

Anyway, I'd like to see a much smaller composable query dsl with fewer features and opt-in database support. Compile that to javascript and run in the browser against local database would be very interesting. I think this can be done, but would probably be pretty restrictive in terms of features supported.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "So while MongoDB today may not be a great database, I think there's a good chance that the MongoDB of 5 or 10 years from now truly will be."

Either MongoDB will be, or other databases that have learned the lessons, both good and bad, of MongoDB.

RethinkDB appears to have captured the "MongoDB done right" mindshare, and PostgreSQL has gained JSON and is gaining better replication in order to cover the same niches.

<comment><USER7> > RethinkDB appears to have captured the "MongoDB done right" mindshare

Mindshare is irrelevant. MongoDB is killing it in the enterprise right now. They have integration with Oracle, Teradata, Hadoop and countless partnerships with other vendors. You can guarantee MongoDB will still be around in 20 years the way it is positioning itself. Can't say the same about RethinkDB (as great as it is).

> PostgreSQL has gained JSON and is gaining better replication in order to > cover the same niches

The PostgreSQL replication story is pretty pathetic given how old/mature it is. And I've seen nothing to suggest that anything is really improving in this area. There are a range of addons none of which are supported or built in. Basic replication is confusing, the documentation non existent in parts and good luck getting any support.

You compare it to MongoDB (or really any of the newer NoSQL databases) and it's like night and day. It takes minutes to setup a replica set and there is plenty of documentation and official support for any issues.

<comment><USER8> It really is killing it in the Enterprise, and I'm trying to do my part to remove it. I'm at a client that wants to use MongoDB. It's on the approved product list. They have little to no experience with it.

Every chance I get, I advocate ArangoDB. It also is Mongo Done Right. You get joins, graphs and a thoughtful future plan from ArangoDB team. To help bridge the gap I've written an ArangoDB Hadoop connector [1]. Unlike the MongoDB one, you can read and write.

I've also added better Clojure support to it: from a driver to a Ragtime migrator.

Sadly as it stands Mongo has a better Ops story than ArangoDB. Until that improves, I don't think that ArangoDB will make it into many Fortune 1000's outside of some small prototype style applications. Maybe micro-services in the enterprise will change this, but I don't think a large insurance company wants to support multiple database standards in general, and definitely not within a family.

1 - [https://github.com/deusdat/guacaphant](https://github.com/deusdat/guacaphant)

<comment><USER9> You should give RethinkDB a look... it has a great ops interface, and now that it has automatic failover, is probably my first pick... I wanted to like Arango, but they tend to lag behind in node support.

I happen to like MongoDB, warts and all.. that said, I would choose other options over it, depending on the need.

<comment><USER8> I did. At the time (haven't looked lately) RethinkDB didn't have GEO support while ArangoDB. Turns out that I don't really need it right now (different project). I stay because it's a great community. The Devs watch StackOverflow for questions. They are respectful and helpful in the user group.

I know that RethinkDB has a good rep in those areas too. It's just that ArangoDB is a good general fit for what I need even now. I guess you could say I came for the GEO, I stayed for the warm hearted underdogs that are the ArangoDB community.

<comment><USER9> That's funny, my first production use of MongoDB was because their geo support was better than ElasticSearch, which at the time, I couldn't get working correctly... I'm toying around with RethinkDB today for a hobby projuct, liking it so far.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Counting arguments very carefully? Nearly every SQL library does this for you.

        cur.execute("INSERT INTO a (b,c) VALUES (%(a)s, %(b)s);",
            { 'a' : a, 'b' : b })

Also, SQL is typed, so even if you did fail to count arguments there is a good chance you'd just detect it the first time you ran it.

The article acts as if treating the DB like native structures is somehow innovative and new - it's not. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_database](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_database)

We mostly abandoned object databases because they sucked. SQL was a huge improvement over them. SQL is a great way to organize and preserve the integrity of a lot of business data.

It's also a fantastic way to avoid repeated trips to the DB:

        SELECT * FROM employees AS e
            WHERE e.department_id = (SELECT id FROM departments WHERE name = "engineering");

In Mongo, I'm pretty sure you need to first lookup engineering, then lookup the employees in engineering. That could be O(# employees in engineering) queries rather than 1.

<comment> lloyd-christmas > In Mongo, I'm pretty sure you need to first lookup engineering, then lookup > the employees in engineering. That could be O(# employees in engineering) > queries rather than 1.

The problem with that summary boils down to bad architecture. The point of document storage is storage with purpose; the intent being to make querying EASIER. This could easily be structured to be a single query. You can structure a document countless ways to represent that query, all of them would likely be different based on the purpose of the app.

<comment><USER10> Whereas with SQL there is more or less a single canonical way to do it and it's mostly independent of the app. I.e. the data design is minimally coupled to the specific use cases.

Right now I'm building a data store and I _don 't know_ the app(s) that's are going to be built on it.

It would be really great if computing could stop forgetting it's history. Object databases failed for a reason.

<comment> lloyd-christmas That doesn't make sense to me. A single query is faster than a join. Designing things for your application's purpose seems fairly tangible to me. It's application dependent. I use both for different B2B businesses I work with. One works very well with Mongo and would simply be slower with SQL. The Mongo app has one point of access for writes, while everything else is reads. It's near impossible to become inconsistent. The other application would be an absolute shit-show if it used Mongo. I'd never sleep at night with a fear of it failing. Nothing is black and white, and choosing the wrong technology isn't a failure of the technology.

<comment><USER10> Obviously a single query is faster than a join, but it's very hard to guarantee that you'll always be making that single query.

Data inconsistency is not about concurrency. See this example on Wikipedia illustrating why 3NF is necessary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_normal_form#.22Nothing_b...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_normal_form#.22Nothing_but_the_key.22)

In that example, "Al Fredrickson" can potentially have 2 birthdays even in an entirely single threaded app.

I'm really curious to hear a use case where Mongo was actually significantly faster than Postgres. Could you give a toy example that illustrates the flavor of the problem?

<comment> lloyd-christmas One of our applications I jokingly call "mad libs". It's effectively a document generator. A single point of entry for constructing the document skeleton (admin). The data structure for it is recursive, while user data is meta driven. Any necessary data on any given page is a single query. The only directly related multiple-query is the skeleton construction on the admin side. That part is fairly complicated (and swarmed with tests). There are potential inconsistency issues which could only come about if the admin was putting in a fair amount of effort into destroying their own app (spam POST/PUT wouldn't even cause it). Since the possibility exists even in the near-impossible, there are eventual consistency tasks running. But again, it would be pretty impressive to actually get it inconsistent. Given that the user side is meta driven anyway, there aren't any lasting effects on their side. Had we gone with SQL, the query for the (recursive) skeleton would have been 3 tables, one of which would be recursive. My use case is where reading drastically trumps writing. This tends not to happen in the unicorn industry, so I fully agree that it's silly in many _publicly discussed_ applications. But many B2B applications can fit the use case.

<comment><USER11> You didn't respond to the question about speed. Probably because Mongo has been considerably slower than Postgres in virtually every apples-to-apples comparison I've seen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't understand the recent backlash against NoSQL here.

First off, almost all of the complaints would have been valid years ago. Secondly, there is so much more choice out there today if mongodb wasn't the right answer for your project, and so many NoSQL stores have had time to mature and get polished APIs and docs.

We use various data stores for different purpose across microservices, mostly ES, couchbase, and datomic, and "use the right tool for the job" and "do one thing and do it well" feels like the right approach to take. For most applications, a SQL DB feels like a really big hammer that is put to a lot of things that don't look like nails.

<comment><USER10> The main problem MongoDB solves is "I don't want to learn SQL". The backlash is against this use case.

(This article certainly seems to be appealing to this use case, c.f. "counting arguments really carefully".)

<comment><USER13> Alternatively, "I want to do everything in JavaScript", and not learn _any_ other languages.

A lot of recent "innovation" is mislabeled laziness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just a note that in PG'OCaml (an OCaml interface to PostgreSQL), you _can_ write:

        "insert into foo (col1,col2,col3) values ($a, $b, $c)"

and it creates the safe prepared statement with ? placeholders. At compile time. Type-checked against the database to make sure your program types match your column types.

[http://pgocaml.forge.ocamlcore.org/](http://pgocaml.forge.ocamlcore.org/)

<comment><USER15> I would be very careful with such SQL statements. I am guessing it relies on some intrinsic fields' order? That could change anytime. Order of fields shouldn't have any impact on you app, but I think in your case it does.

<comment><USER14> The "..." wasn't literal. I have amended the post to make this clear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I agree that the three areas outlined in the article are things that MongoDB got right: a structured query language (instead of a textual query language), replica sets, and the oplog.

But the lack of transactions over multiple documents (in the same shard at least) and the lack of joins over multiple collections are a big showstopper for the kind of applications I develop.

I note that solutions like YouTube's Vitess provide something similar to MongoDB's replica sets.

I also note that PostgreSQL's logical decoding provide the same functionality than MongoDB's oplog tailing.

<comment><USER17> Always wonder what kind of simple apps most people must write, if they not need joins?

I will be happy if i got such simple tasks :)

<comment><USER7> How exactly do you think eBay, GMail, Facebook etc work ? They aren't relying on relational database joins.

If you want to write a truly scalable application you structure everything such that you do joins in your application layer.

[http://highscalability.com/ebay- architecture](http://highscalability.com/ebay-architecture)

And in the case of MongoDB you avoid joins since it is a document database. You embed data instead.

<comment><USER16> Not everybody works at eBay, GMail or Facebook scale.

Most applications fit very well in a single server. For example, Stack Overflow runs on a single instance of SQL Server, replicated to a slave in another data center. In such a case, the convenience of joins and transactions is priceless.

And even at scale, it makes sense to rely on joins and transactions. The perfect example is AdWords that runs of F1 and Spanner:

"Our users needed complex queries and joins, which meant they had to carefully shard their data, and resharding data without breaking applications was challenging."

[http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co...](http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/fr//pubs/archive/41344.pdf)

<comment><USER7> Exactly. But many of us do have apps that are beyond the capabilities of a single instance.

And in this situation the rule of thumb is to do joins in your application layer so you can store different types data (e.g. graph/document/relational/unstructured) in different systems and easily cache where needed.

The fact that so many new databases have been created in the last decade suggests that there are a lot of people who do fall into this camp.

<comment><USER18> A lot of us have apps that are beyond the performance requirements of Stack Overflow?

<comment><USER19> Yes. It's not an especially exotic level of performance. Especially if you're talking about applications that handle traffic from other machines, as opposed to humans. As websites go, Stack Overflow is of reasonable size, but as _systems_ go it's small.

They have about 7.5m visits per day to Stack Overflow. That's about 86 requests per second, which perhaps at peak is several multiples larger than the average. I wouldn't consider that a particularly gargantuan website. That sounds like traffic that you could service with a reasonable fleet of web servers and database fleet, given caching. Quite a lot of actions on the site can be applied with eventual consistency, I'd imagine.

[http://stackexchange.com/sites?view=list#traffic](http://stackexchange.com/sites?view=list#traffic)

I don't mean to say that the system or the problem that it's solving is trivial - I am sure it is difficult to get right. As websites go, it might be large, but as _systems_ go it's not particularly high traffic among systems that receive traffic from machines rather than humans. Imagine that you operate a data center, and you want to sample CPU, memory, etc. from your machines every minute. If you collect 50 samples per machine per minute, and you have 258 machines, you'll be handling 86 samples per second. Storing 86 samples per second into a time series database is probably considerably easier than SO's website rendering, but it goes to show that high-traffic or high- frequency systems are common in companies beyond small to medium size. It is easy for cross-cutting concerns like this to have _massive_ request volumes, far greater than the human-generated traffic to any website.

<comment><USER18> 7.5m visits per day. What does that mean, page loads? Stack Overflow isn't a static website. One page load is a lot of requests to the service. Stack Overflow is a very dynamic site, and a lot of requests are made after you actually load the page. I'm not sure you're accurately characterizing the kind of load that Stack Overflow is subjected to.

To anyone else reading: no, your use case probably isn't so special that the solution Stack Overflow arrived at just doesn't work for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > You can argue, and I would largely agree, that this is actually part of > MongoDB's brilliant marketing strategy, of sacrificing engineering quality > in order to get to market faster and build a hype machine, with the idea > that the engineering will follow later.

Author nearly lost me here with this logic. Placing Marketing ahead of quality in something that is supposed to store a _very_ valuable asset (data) is near insanity.

I get the mindset of "break fast", "release often", etc. in terms of customer facing _features_ , but in something that is supposed to be a core part of your foundation, stability is if utmost importance. Otherwise nothing else works - and you lose customers, business, opportunities - because you can't look them up later.

Its not "brilliant marketing", its just marketing.

<comment><USER20> This is all true, but the success of MySQL shows pretty clearly that just because something is insane doesn't mean it's not good business.

<comment><USER13> I think the success of MySQL is due to there being fewer options for a period of time (the "dot.com boom"), and thus it became a popular choice to avoid commercial RDBMS costs.

I'm no MySQL fan when things like PostgreSQL are an option, but its probably more sane than some other currently popular choices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have to agree with the author, especially since the points he raises are the ones that helped me greatly on my first "serious" personal project[1].

Coming from postgresql land I would have never thought you can have such great replication with automatic failover. I've had literally 100% uptime for the past year.

And that's on commodity servers (one of them being in a room in my apartment, the other two in a proper datacenter) going through the usual upgrades, downtime, reboots, going from mongo 2 to mongo 3 and such.

Speaking of which, the migration from mongo2 to mongo3 was another pleasant surprise: they've made it backwards compatible. So I could do the upgrade on the servers, one by one, checking everything was ok and after that I could focus on updating the drivers and rewriting the deprecated queries, no need to have everything ready at once.

The accessible oplog was another gem that fit my project really well. Gone was the need to poll the database, I could just "watch" the oplog. That, coupled with long polling on the browser side meant I'd have very little chatter between the db/server/web client when idle. Websockets would have been nice, but adoption wasn't high enough that I'd be comfortable going forward with it.

And all this considering MongoDB was my first NoSQL experience.

I agree it doesn't fit every project, but when it does, it's a really nice experience.

[1] [https://graticule.link/](https://graticule.link/)

<comment><USER16> I agree that MongoDB has a great replication story.

But I don't understand that part:

> The accessible oplog was another gem that fit my project really well. Gone > was the need to poll the database, I could just "watch" the oplog.

Coming from PostgreSQL, you could do the same using LISTEN/NOTIFY?

<comment><USER21> > Coming from PostgreSQL, you could do the same using LISTEN/NOTIFY?

I have to admit I was not aware of this feature.

However, from the docs[1]:

> Commonly, the channel name is the same as the name of some table in the > database, and the notify event essentially means, "I changed this table, > take a look at it to see what's new".

From what I understand, you just know that _something_ has changed, the actual change is not included in the event, so you need at least another query to see what changed.

Did I understand correctly?

In MongoDB you get the operation (insert, update, delete), the document and another few details right in the event.

[1] [http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/sql- notify.html](http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/sql-notify.html)

<comment><USER22> When you notify, you can also include a payload (ex json) which can be whatever you want.

<comment><USER23> I looked into this before and the Postgres docs say somewhere the payload size is limited and intended to be small metadata... in some cases you will not be able to fit the contents of the update into it

<comment><USER24> Looks like the default limit is 8000 bytes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> RethinkDB took all the good parts of MongoDB and added proper engineering.

[https://www.rethinkdb.com/](https://www.rethinkdb.com/)

<comment><USER16> But still no transactions over multiple documents (at least in the same shard)?

<comment><USER26> ACID transactions in a highly available distributed system are hard and often fail in subtle ways when done wrong at the edges. Any implementation will take years to mature in the lab and in actual production usage. This isn't a knock on the Rethink guys; their product looks pretty awesome and is moving quickly.

For a solution today, MarkLogic is a transactional distributed document database. Cross-document and cross-partition transactions have been a key tenet of the architecture from the beginning (like, 2002 beginning). Take a look at [https://developer.marklogic.com/blog/how-marklogic- supports-...](https://developer.marklogic.com/blog/how-marklogic-supports- acid-transactions) for details.

Full disclosure: I'm a Product Manager at MarkLogic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I love the point about the Oplog.

There are a few equivalents for common SQL DBs (see LinkedIn's Databus for Oracle and MySQL), but in general, getting access to the write log is really hard. Even though it's sitting there!

It would be wonderful if there were some kind of established API or library that would let you parse the MySQL write log without doing hideous, fragile operations that change from version to version. Sure, change the format, but at least version and document it!

</comment><comment><USER28> When we chose MongoDB for a project, a dominant criterion was out of the box geo queries. It helped that the storage and query approach had good impedance match with NodeJS. From a query perspective, we wouldn't have benefited much from SQL anyway, since much of the reading is free text or social graph or location based search which we moved to Solr.

</comment><comment><USER29> It becomes much simpler to setup replication in PostgreSQL than before.

reference: [https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to- set-...](https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-set-up- master-slave-replication-on-postgresql-on-an-ubuntu-12-04-vps)</comment>


Why I Wear The Same Thing Every Day, And What I Wear - <AUTHOR> http://blog.timoni.org/post/24619757935/why-i-wear-the-same-thing-every-day-and-what-i-wear <comment><USER3> Funny to see what a female thinks of as "wearing the same thing every day". For most dudes I know, That's a lot of clothes to own.

I think I made it to age 30 without ever owning 3 pairs of pants at one time.

<comment><USER4> I recently helped a female friend move out of an old apartment, and I was absolutely astounded by how much clothing she had lying around. It surprised me because she came off as a stylish, but not terribly fashion-centered person. By my rough estimate, this list represented probably 1/5 of my friend's clothing.

Granted, a sample size of 1 is not terribly informative; however, my gut feeling is that a women's wardrobe will generally be considerably larger than a man's wardrobe.

On an unrelated note, I love hearing about life hacks like these. Reminds you of how much else there is left to optimize.

<comment><USER5> _...she came off as a stylish_

The author is definitely NOT stylish by any reasonable definition of this word. Hence the difference in the wardrobe size. Things like "ethical" or "green" consumption only make situation worse.

<comment><USER4> That's a little harsh of you, don't you think? Her wardrobe isn't varied, but as long as the default 'works' there's no reason she can't pull it off.

Do you remember what your friends wore yesterday? From what I've experienced, clothing doesn't really matter once you get past first impressions.

<comment><USER6> So much of fashion is fit anyway, you'll be more stylish with a small wardrobe of clothes that fit well than a wide variety of ill-fitted stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I saw this post and ignored it on first glance. I just assumed it was some guy and as such it's pretty easy, particularly as an engineer. At work picking out the engineers is largely trivial (jeans, tshirt, runners). There are variations (eg SF engineers have more an affectation for, say, checked shirts at present).

As a guy this seems totally fine. Women seem to have it much harder and not really because of men either. Women (generally speaking) are highly critical of other women and much more conscious of their appearance and behaviour because of other women (take women's shoes: the only people who care are other women) so it's interesting for me to hear this "utilitarian" approach from a women's perspective.

I find the comments on jeans interesting. She's right in that there is a lot of variation in women's jeans but this in itself sends an interesting signal.

In the past couple of years there has been a style of skinny leg jeans. By and large these look ridiculous. Below the waist straight leg jeans are basically timeless so right there you have an easy differentiator between those women governed by the fashion of the day and those governed by other considerations (like actually looking good; yes there's a difference between that and being a slave to trends).

Anyway, for wearing the same thing there sure seems to be a lot of clothes on that page.

<comment><USER8> There is huge variance in t-shirt quality and fit. In my experience, American Apparel tees are the best I've ever found, and I order them 150-200 at a time (in black, of course). I have to lie and say they're for screenprinting, due to some weird requirements Am Appy instituted for their (now pretty restricted) wholesale customers. In bulk and in quantity (free shipping), they are $6/ea stateside. (Retail where I live is €27.)

I firmly believe from experience that no t-shirt looks better than a washed- once American Apparel black T in the right size. It's the closest thing we hackers have to a suit, I think.

By "runners" I assume you mean running shoes? Those aren't all-weather and can't be worn with an actual suit. I've a nice pair of black Doc Martens which shine up wonderfully, and have been treated to be fairly waterproof. They are perfect universal-occasion shoes, and incredibly comfortable.

<comment><USER9> Have you thought about using one of those fabric softeners designes specifically for black clothing?

My t-shirts last about 3 years. Business-presentable up to a year or so ... that's hundreds of washes considering I cycle through most of my t-shirt stack every 1.5 weeks.

After 5 years they're only good enough for the gym, on account of the fabric becoming weird. The colour is still mostly fine.

Also, I think you're doing something seriously wrong when washing your t-shirts ... you _are_ doing cold washes right? Nothing above 40C and all that ... also, is your washing machine filled with sand or something?

<comment><USER10> T shirt... Business presentable...?

You live in a world that is quite distant from mine and anyone I know.

<comment><USER11> If it's from Armani

<comment><USER10> ...that would still be a definite no.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I feel like a creep digging through her flickr to find a picture, but I honestly was just curious about the clothes. This one seems most like what was described in the post.

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/meatstravaganza/5793064302/in/g...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/meatstravaganza/5793064302/in/gallery- timoni-72157628513378237/)

<comment><USER13> Thanks for finding this. It looks like a pretty good outfit, and subbing in a fancier shirt or shoes seems easy to do. Nice job, Timoni!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've been wearing a shirt and tie since I was 18. The only t-shirts I own are the oversized ones I pick up on random occasions (get them as a bonus when buying something for example) and I only ever sleep in them.

This isn't to say I wear the same shirt an tie. Obviously I own dozens but the point is when I dress in the morning all I have to do is:

\- grab any socks and pants,

\- grab any shirt, trousers and jacket (they are all toned down and guaranteed not to clash),

\- and now (the ONLY time I exert my half-asleep brain) pick a tie that isn't too offensive

You are dressed for any occasion, regardless how (in)formal. Never need to think about what to wear, don't need to own different clothes for different occasions, never need to buy new clothes simply because of fashion changes - shirt and tie has been around for decades and is likely to stay until well after I'm dead. The only time I buy new clothes is when I retire old ones due to wear and tear.

Served me well all my life. Never felt overdressed and my friends forgive me if I ever am but the point is that perfect strangers will react positively and are more likely to treat you well and trust you.

<comment><USER15> Don't you ever get too hot and sweaty wearing a shirt and tie all the time? Do you still wear a shirt and tie to very casual occasions, like a baseball game or a night in playing video games?

<comment><USER14> I'm being perfectly honest here - I don't own other clothes. This way I can fit all of them in a tiny closet and it makes life easier when moving.

We don't do baseball in the UK but I get your meaning. You can always take the tie off - instant casual. With the local climate there's little chance of getting too hot but I don't wear a sweatshirt underneath the shirt so all I need to do is take the jacket off and unbutton the collar in case the sun makes an appearance in between the fog and the drizzle.

Actually, I did have a problem once, something mentioned here a couple of times. Riding a bicycle would snag the trouser leg occasionally. Fixed that with a safety pin.

<comment><USER16> > Fixed that with a safety pin.

Wouldn't bicycle clips be easier to put on and take off? They also have the advantage that they can be made of yellow, reflective material.

<comment><USER14> So they would! You live and learn, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Fascinating piece. I am saving a link to both the article and the discussion here, which is also very eye opening for me. I happen to be female and my mother sewed beautifully and shopped sales. I grew up with tons of clothes, much of it custom made just for me and I would stand for fittings. I also studied clothing and at one time I wanted to be an image consultant. But I eventually came to hate shopping for clothes. All the time I spent studying clothes made it possible for me to buy stuff without trying it on. I walk into a store, pull stuff off the rack -- oftentimes the sale rack in fact -- pay and leave. This became a really vital skill while I was getting well. Last year, when I was shrinking so dramatically, I threw out my clothes after one or two wearings. If I couldn't have grabbed clothes for $2 an item off the clearance racks that fit, met dress code, and looked good enough to wear to work at Bigco, I couldn't have made the healing journey I made.

I am currently homeless and currently literally own only (clothes-wise) the jeans, long sleeved T and sandals I am currently wearing. That is not due to being homeless. Instead, it is made possible by being homeless. It is a health choice, rooted in my ongoing efforts to kill the infection that nearly took my life eleven years ago. My relationship to clothing has been complicated and it was when I got over caring so much about how I looked that my background came in handy for flying under the radar socially while living a very strange life. I have had the most fun with clothes in recent years while not being a slave to societal expectations about how women should look/dress.

Anyway, it is something I want to write about but do not know where to start. I am hoping this piece helps me with those plans. So thanks for writing this. I feel like I have a million things to say about it but I want a) to not let my day get eaten by this distraction and b) would rather write it for one of my websites than for discussion here.

</comment><comment><USER18> This article was actually really confusing. It reminded me of people who spend their time coming up with the "perfect productivity system", a quest which ends up ironically consuming all their time and preventing them from actually getting any real work done. I largely wear the same thing every day too -- I have 5 pairs of jeans, a single pair of shoes, and a bunch of polo shorts that I bought on sale once. Regardless of what I pick, it matches, so there is really no decision at all.

<comment><USER19> How did her sitting down and thinking about her clothes sudden "consume all her time?"

<comment><USER20> Well, for example she states that she came up with this system to not lose time getting dressed in the morning.

Writing that blog post in itself probably took more than a few hours — to write, review, edit, do the graphics for it, etc. If the initial goal was to spend time not thinking about clothes, that doesn't really feel like an optimal way to reach it.

<comment><USER21> the blogosphere is _full_ of posts by people who spend the time and trouble to solve a problem once and for all, and then share how they did it. it's sad that the comments here are so patronising.

<comment><USER19> Tell me about it. :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> T-hawk This approach also seems to include a dependency on being in San Francisco or other places like much of California where weather remains rather constant during the year. A New Yorker wouldn't be wearing a hoodie in July or August or a T-shirt in January.

<comment><USER22> Adapting my usual wardrobe for colder weather involves a few extra layers.

Base: jeans, black t-shirt, possibly a fleece vest, leather shoes.

Cold weather (~20F or below): beanie, leather jacket (lined), scarf, possibly a heavy sweater depending on the duration of being outside, and gloves. Also athletic tights (more insulation than just plain jeans).

Really, it doesn't take much.

<comment><USER23> It doesn't take much because you stay indoor most of the time. Spend a day outdoor in freezing weather to see the difference :)

<comment><USER22> No, that's dress for wandering around Chicago in Dec/Jan.

Sunlight daytime and night are somewhat different. And yes, I do tend to run warm (body mass and musculature help).

Indoors: shorts and a T.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've always wondered why there is so little of talk about what to wear in nerdy crowds, e.g. on HN. Looking at the way people obsess about every single detail about their lives (how to exercise in gym, what music to listen while coding, etc.), there should be _way_ more discussion on this but it's nonexistent.

I think a wearsthis site, similar to usesthis.com, would be quite popular. I'd like to know what shoes Spolsky is wearing, what t-shirts pg prefers, what brand of underwear Drew Houston uses, and, of course, where does Zuck gets his hoodies (they are custom made: [http://www.quora.com/Mark-Zuckerberg-1/What- brand-of-hoodie-...](http://www.quora.com/Mark-Zuckerberg-1/What-brand-of- hoodie-does-Zuckerberg-wear)).

While coding (and especially when I'm hung up on a problem) every little distraction, even miniscule, distracts me, so I _hate_ wearing shirts, I have to wear t-shirt. I've yet to see t-shirts that are marketed predominantly for coders, say, with a nice quote on them (e.g. ""Metaprogramming is the language feature that helps you write code that you won't be able to understand once the cocaine (or Ritalin) wears off."") and the ASCII table on the back.

<comment><USER17> Thank You!

I actually want to do something with fashion. Not sure what. I have tried asking around on HN and found it frustrating. This discussion is turning into a goldmine of food for thought (or maybe buffet?).

<comment><USER24> Here's an example I like a lot from Tantek Celik: <http://tantek.com/log/2008/03.html#d06t1604>, something along these lines would be great.

I think just going around asking valley luminaries what they wear & pack while traveling and why would be a great place to start.

<comment><USER17> I came up with this "brilliant" idea for a brainy clothing site called Geek Chic, but the domain was already taken: <http://www.geekchic.com/>

I am still trying to decide what exactly I want to do (in addition to spouting off on several websites). I have already written a tiny bit about clothes on one of my blogs and I want to do more of that. I think there is room for a kind of brainiac's guerrilla fashion site, so to speak. Thank you for your remarks.

<comment><USER24> See, the thing is I don't _want_ to be chic, at least not in the sense that word connotes for the majority of people. I want to create/buy/wear clothes that _coders_ would find cool and "chic" (without looking like a total weirdo, of course). If there are so many cool looking skins for my Macbook (e.g. [http://www.etsy.com/search_results.php?search_type=all&i...](http://www.etsy.com/search_results.php?search_type=all&includes\[0\]=tags&search_query=to+macbook+pro+skins&page=1)), why can't have the same creative disruption in my clothing?

<comment><USER17> Oh, that was my exact thought. Sorry if I failed to convey it. I am someone who does social hacking and the amount I have studied things like clothes let's me hack the system. I have a $3 haircut from another homeless person. I get asked by non-homeless types where I got my fabulous haircut. I get asked if it is permed and complimented on the highlighting. There is no perm and it wasn't highlighted.

I have two ASD sons who have a yawning disinterest in things like fashion and who live in shorts and t-shirts. We get told they are "beautiful" young men and asked about their hair, etc. too. So I think I am uniquely qualified to bring guerrilla fashion to folks who do not give a flying fuck about fashion and would take glee in being praised for their t-shirts and hoodies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Not sure if the author is an HNer or not, but since she's into leggings I _have_ to drop a link to Black Milk: <http://blackmilkclothing.com/collections/leggings>

My girlfriend has been absolutely in love with these, and I've been getting her damn near every new one they come out with, because they look great and (apparently) are a great fit and good materials.

<comment><USER26> There is a, somewhat squeezed, comments section on her blog :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The 8-bit renderings are cute, but actual pictures would be nice.

<comment><USER16> Yes, exactly. Of the combos, rather than the individual items.

<comment><USER28> I thought about doing a bit of a photo shoot, but it's not really my style. Do you want outfit pictures on me, or just pictures of the clothes?

<comment><USER29> On you would be helpful, but the clothes as combos would suffice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "When I first started looking for things like a 'standard tank top' or a 'standard jersey skirt', I thought they'd be easy to find."

I find this to be the case too often. Jeans are easy (Levi 501, anyone?) but finding a t-shirt or collared shirt that fits well, is comfortable and that I will likely be able to buy over and over again for the next 10 years is quite difficult.

GAP and Uniqlo sort of do this but even they change things around a lot. I think sites like Everlane.com could do quite well out of this concept: most people like to stick with basics they love. Make good basics and keep them around forever. I've always wanted to be able to login on my iPhone and click 'give me two new t-shirts' and have them delivered to my door, the iPhone app should know where I live, my card number and my favourite stuff...no questions asked!

</comment><comment><USER31> As odd as it sounds, I try to model my outfits after CIA officers[1], which depends on the context and environment, but generally involves regular jeans, a normal t-shirt, and a button-down shirt for men. What you'd see at the local Home Depot. It's comfortable, discreet, and durable.

I have a few pairs of jeans, a few pairs of t-shirts, and a few pair of button-down shirts, and a couple pairs of shoes.

I don't call it "wearing the same thing every day" and I still have far less than this person and I never "waste brainpower" on deciding what to wear. Her whole post gave me brain cramps, however.

1\. Typical example, Raymond Davis: [http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/02/article-0-0E2E4ADE...](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/02/article-0-0E2E4ADE00000578-82_468x310.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER32> I appreciate her effort to find a look not subject to the whims of fashion. However, she will have to adapt her look in a few years when the leggings under a skirt look goes out of style. I'm sure she'll adapt, perhaps switching back to tights.

It's also a look that will be difficult to pull off when she's 20 years older. For some reason, women have to dress their age. My guess is because there is so much societal pressure for women to look younger that there is significant backlash when the effort becomes too transparent.

Men have it easy. A well fitted Saville Row cut suit has been relatively fashionable for at least a century. The only thing you'd have had to change would have been the tie, and you would have had to lose the hat about 50 years ago.

<comment><USER33> > Men have it easy. A well fitted Saville Row cut suit has been relatively > fashionable for at least a century.

I'd be laughed out of the office if I wore that.

<comment><USER8> Find a better office, quick.

<comment><USER34> Seriously. I've worked in places with a relaxed dress code, but no one would be actively hostile towards someone deciding to wear a suit, even with everyone else wearing a t-shirt and jeans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> A hoodie? In my book that is _very_ casual. I would only wear one on a fishing trip or some other private activity where the risk of bumping into work associates is minimal. A cardigan would seem like a better common denominator between dress codes.

</comment><comment><USER36> Surely the character to cite would be Jeff Goldblum's character in The Fly, who owns a set of identical comfortable, smart casual clothes for exactly the reasons stated by the author and the character in Jurassic Park (presumably the book).

In any event, this is a much tougher problem for women than men, but she isn't really describing "an outfit" but a wardrobe. I don't have a problem with that, but the title is misleading.

</comment><comment><USER37> Fashion makes a lot more sense when it's treated as a language (and one that women have a multiple-decade head start on versus men in our society). Then this article is less about how the author found a way to think less about fashion and more about how the author is using the language of fashion to communicate something different and interesting about herself. Regardless of the "reasoning" for doing it, that's what's really happening here: she's expressing herself through this medium, in a surprisingly different and interesting way.

</comment><comment><USER38> Somewhere in a fashion forum, well-dressed people are reading a tech article and scoffing about how much time we spend on computers.

</comment><comment><USER39> I think women don't fully appreciate the uniformity of men's clothes. Her plan is still more variable than most male dress codes like (dress shirt, slacks, leather shoes) or (T-shirt, jeans, sneakers). But I agree that too much choice causes stress. It must be a nice feeling to limit your possibilities and go from a 15-minute decision tree to a nearly instantaneous choice.

<comment><USER40> We appreciate the uniformity of men's clothes sizes, too. One of the reasons women have to think about clothing and shop for clothing a lot more than men do is that we can't just look at the jeans in our closet, note the size, and walk out of any store with a pair of jeans labelled with that size and expect that they will be wearable. Women's sizes on labels have very little to do with the size of the clothes, even clothes from the same brand/store.

Fashions come and go more in women's clothing, too. My go-to dressup item is a navy blue blazer which is a standard that should be available all the time, right? No, some years standard blazers are out of style and cannot be found.

That's why all the work put in by the OP to find simple, classic styles is mysterious to many men. They can find simple, classic clothes that fit pretty much anywhere. That's a lifehack that's MUCH more difficult for a woman to achieve.

<comment><USER41> As I guy, I've had a similar experience with most clothing. I always have to actually try anything, can't go by labelled size alone.

Of course, this probably varies with location.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Joe Celko does this but his outfit is a three piece suit.

He told me that it is part of his 'personal brand' so he is easy to recognize and approach when at conferences and public in general.

I wonder how different people's approach to him would be if his signature outfit was a hoodie.

<comment><USER43> That must suck on really hot days. Where does this guy live?

Having read this whole thread, y'know what's even better than wearing the same thing every day? Not wearing the same thing every day. I have a bunch of different clothes, and deciding which of 'em to put on really doesn't take that much time out of my day.

<comment><USER44> Linen suits are very comfortable on hot days.

People who say suits are uncomfortable have usually only worn cheap suits.

<comment><USER45> I learned the hard way that linen trousers, if they're satin lined, are definitely not comfortable on hot days. Doh.

One thing there's still a dearth of in the marketplace is men's trousers with stretch. I had a pair of gray stretch cotton/spandex (~5%) slacks from Banana Republic 8-10yrs ago that were absolutely perfect for anything, but haven't found much else similar since.

Imho, a simple wardrobe is great but being able to execute on the plan depends wholly on one's lifestyle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> By attempting to be 'unconstrained' from fashion, OP has become more constrained than ever. Is she saving time & money? Maybe...but that blog post and graphics sure took some time to put together.

And now that she's made this public, she's stuck. Want to wear something different, colorful, playful? Fuck it, gotta stick to the schedule.

Clothing isn't time consuming or energy draining. It's about finding a style you're comfortable with, wearing it with confidence, and gently moving in and out of new styles as the times (and your personality) change.

<comment><USER47> I assure you, if she changes her mind and wants to wear something else, no one will think less of her for not staying true to a blog post she once wrote. Maybe it took her time to put the post together, but that was more about writing something interesting than building a how-to doc for the fashion- casual.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I just finished a year of living out of a suitcase. I was pretty careful in choosing what clothing to bring, but even still, there were lots of things I barely used.

Minimalism takes time to perfect.

And for those who are wondering: nobody commented on my wardrobe.

</comment><comment><USER49> Leggings are a great solution for women, but I'm still looking for a non-jeans everyday pair of pants for men. Something stretchy and comfortable, that can be dressed up and that I can ride my bike in.

<comment><USER50> J.Crew has some great chinos. I like the 484 Slim fit. They fit my body like a glove. Also, this swedish company Velour makes slim fitting chinos as well. I'm a 32x30 but I buy their 30" pants as they are quite stretchy and after a few wears and washes fit almost perfectly. Also, I like the Levi's 510 super skinny jeans, but I get a 34x32 and then have the pants hemmed.

I think I have 12 pairs of pants in active rotation and they should keep me going for a few years.

I like form fitting pants for a number of reasons:

1.) Your cuffs don't stretch out over your shoes and get all mangled by walking on them. Not a good look and it reduces the lifespan of your clothing.

2.) You don't need to roll up your pant legs when biking, as the pants are in no danger of coming in contact with the chains.

3.) They are somewhat revealing and add to sex appeal. Yes, this sort of stuff matter for men as well as women.

<comment><USER19> I love chinos and a good pair of Levis. Great recommendations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I bought about 30 pairs of the same gray socks and 30 pairs of the same black boxer briefs. It's so nice never having to match socks, or worry about running out of them or clean underwear to wear. They're small items, so they don't take up much space.

In regard to pants/shirts, I'm still on a mission to find basic t-shirts that don't get messed up after many washings. I think pima cotton is the way to go for this (currently, I'm buying my shirts from aether. not cheap, but the quality is great). I have about 10 of the same black shirt (and one red, one blue and one white... just to mix it up a bit when I'm feeling "crazy").

Shoes... I have 3 pairs of black high-tops from Tom's. They are comfortable, can pass in dress-up situations, and cover my heels.

Long story short, I don't really think about what I wear anymore or spend anytime going through that mental process in the morning/evening. Some of my friends think I'm a bit weird, but I'm glad I did it!

<comment><USER52> _I bought about 30 pairs of the same gray socks and 30 pairs of the same black boxer briefs._

My kind of man, I know exactly where you're coming from with this. My sock wardrobe is black socks, white socks and that's it. Never understate the importance of taking care to how you are presented, but at the same time I'm not going to drive myself batty just trying to put together a wardrobe that requires maintenance just finding something.

<comment><USER53> I've cut out the white socks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I just buy my clothes in outfits. For each pair of pants there is at least one sweater and at most two that will go with it. I don't try to mix and match to make new combinations on the fly. When I wake up, I think briefly of which sweater I'd like to wear and get the designated matching pants, or I think of which pants I'd like to wear and pick an appropriate sweater from the pre- defined matches. This usually takes less than 30 seconds.

I have to admit though that this scheme has arisen largely from shopping at thrift stores (not that I probably couldn't afford new clothing, but it remains a thrifty habit from a tight-budgeted youth). I enjoy the hunt for an outfit, but when I find one, I don't have the option of just buying 10 because generally the items are one of a kind in the store. Overall it works for me: interesting clothes, fun finding them, uncomplicated mornings, low budget.

</comment><comment><USER55> Is it just me or did she fail to include a picture of what this actually looks like? Would've been a great usability enhancement to the article.

</comment><comment><USER56> There was recently a company that did a line with the same basic concept: <http://weareultra.com/projects/ultra-10/>

The idea is that 10 pieces of clothing could mix and match to last you an entire year.

</comment><comment><USER57> I agree with her not finding good pants to wear ( I know this from my wife). The nice & affordable clothing market is a hard one to crack I think. Women do face a lot of issues with sizing that have nothing to do with looks or vanity. The components for a good fit are universal but women have an especially hard time finding good items. Especially if they bike+work.

The last time I went to the mall I saw way too many cocktail dresses for women but was hard pressed to find active clothing for my wife which looked good. This is a non trivial problem which needs some good brains behind it. No - <USER2> don't want to pay for Rapha for some such brand.

</comment><comment><USER58> Michael Kors wears the same thing every time you see him: black blazer, black t-shirt, plain designer jeans.

He has talked before about his 'style' and says that he used to be very high fashion with his clothing but just found it was too much work.

</comment><comment><USER59> First of all, this is a very nice writeup and concept.

Alas, what works for a designer in San Francisco will not work for financial industry in Toronto.

Some have already mentioned the climate aspect. In the finance you just cannot come in every day in the same shirt, tie or suit and (to a lesser extent pants or shoes). If you do, you are sort of signalling that either you do not make a lot or cannot manage your money and either is a red flag. So you can say clothes are a part of professional reputation, just not the one you put on a resume.

</comment><comment><USER60> I'm also a female, a designer (ux/ui) and I try to spend as little time as possible thinking about my clothing and hair, while still looking like a designer.

The look described here sounds simple, but super casual and perhaps a bit dumpy for a designer. I find that the easiest thing for me is to wear all black clothing that fits well (don't buy it unless you feel great in that shape and material, no compromises). Avoid cotton because it fades and has a gross texture. Done.

</comment><comment><USER61> "and what you think presents your favorite view of yourself"

Isn't this a function with a whole bunch of variables like my mood, the occasion, the people I'm with, etc?

</comment><comment><USER62> Sorry, but consciously imitating Cayce Pollard -- pure hipsterism in literary character form -- is not really not giving a fuck. It's giving a fuck that people _think_ you don't give a fuck, which isn't quite the same thing.

I'm a guy, I'm single, and I live (more or less) alone. This is a domain in which I have some expertise. That said, it really is quite simple not to give a fuck about what you wear:

1) Go to your closet, or armoire, or laundry pile, whatever.

2) Pick out something that fits, doesn't look or smell dirty, and is temperature appropriate.

3) Put it on.

That's it. That's bloody all. I've gotten by like this for the past... ohhhh, six years ago? You've still got this costumery with all these pieces and gewgaws going on. For me it's: shirt, pants, bob's your uncle. I can be up and going in about 20 minutes, including shower.

I really wonder why more women don't do this. It'd be a sign of independence, and it'd shave precious minutes (or hours) off their "getting ready to go to work" time, leaving them more time to... sleep in, or hack, or whatever.

</comment><comment><USER63> I'm reminded of guitarist Pat Metheny's horizontally-striped shirts. I have albums from him that span decades and he seems to be wearing the same shirt in all of the liner notes.

I've never heard an explanation for this but have always assumed that he's so single-mindedly focused on musicianship that he doesn't want to have to think about getting dressed.

<comment><USER64> Or, he wants to establish himself as a brand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I am yet to have spent $40 on any clothing. Looking for shirts under $10 and jeans/pants/dresses for $20 makes it so much more difficult to have a decent wardrobe.

Although I know some of the pricey stuff is totally worth the money, it's difficult to break the frugal ways inherited from more difficult times.

But I am going to give away my clearance sale wardrobe and start fresh. Like, Timoni, I don't like having excessive stuff around esp. stuff that doesn't get used. So, I am planning a minimalist, functional, cool+classy and fits-all- occasion collection (SMALL!) which will be periodically recycled.

This post was good for my plans. Tx.

<comment><USER66> > I am yet to have spent $40 on any clothing.

Winter coat or rain coat?

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> By knowing what looks good (in general and on you), you save yourself a lot of time. After a few odd years back in high school when I cared as a function of being different, I started to realize that I can get dressed in a matter of two minutes just by having the predetermined knowledge of what works. Over 15 years later and it hasn't failed me yet. In the end, I look fine or good enough and I don't waste time choosing or caring too much.

In essence, I suppose I've created a "reminder app" for myself in the sense that I've freed myself of having to think too much about things that should be automated.

</comment><comment><USER68> Blue dress shirt, white undershirt, jeans, frye boots. If it's winter throw a sweater over it. This blog puts way too much thought into dressing. I've been wearing the same thing for 4 years by accident i guess.

</comment><comment> X-Istence As a guy I am extremely lucky. Jeans, dickies short-sleeve shirt, black socks, magnum boots and a fedora hat and I am set.

It is what I wear day in day out. Sure, I have different colours, black jeans, {dark, light} blue jeans and the dickies shirts come in various colours {red, black, blue, marine blue, navy blue, white, green} but that is pretty much where it ends. Sometimes I'll switch out my fedora for a flat cap.

I own four pairs of jeans, and 8 pairs of dickies shirts, and those dickies shirts have been with me for a VERY long time. My oldest one is now 6 years old and still going strong.

</comment><comment><USER69> I would call an outfit a group of individual items, having a defined list of items (but having multiple of each) would be (to me) a "style". I guess it achieves the same goal whatever it's called so it's a moot point.

I personally have 1 (North Face) coat, 1 pair of outside jeans and... 160 t-shirts. I guess I would own more jeans if I left my apartment more than twice a month. As a side note I _would_ recommend having so many t-shirts however they take up _so much room_ , I have a 2 bedroom apartment to myself and both wardrobes are full of t-shirts.

<comment><USER66> Do you have a set order of the tshirts and wear each one exactly 160 days apart?

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> This isn't really "the same thing" it's "some things that all fall into the same 3-5 categories."

I got into the habit of wearing the same thing everyday last year, when I was dealing with some pretty serious colorblindness (corrected now, thankfully). I settled on a dark grey shirt, a light blue shirt and black pants.

Not the fanciest of clothing, but I generally don't need it to be all too often.

I haven't diversified now that I can see colors again. This is easy, comfortable, and requires no tought.

</comment><comment><USER71> Ivan Boesky, the famous investment banker/pawn for Michael Milken was rumored to have had many of the exact same suit so he didn't have to decide what to wear each day.

<comment><USER27> Steve Jobs and Stanley Kubrick did the same, many identical copies of one outfit. George Lucas may have more variation, but AFAIK limits to flannel shirts and jeans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> I only wear jeans (whatever style of levis fit well, usually 514), casual pants and t-shirts (fitted, solid colors, no prints or brands). I don't like collared shirts or 'business casual' in general. I do like late 70s/early 80's style sneakers, though, so I have a couple pairs of addidas originals, some ponys, gola, etc.

</comment><comment><USER73> Most appropriate use of pixel art ever.

[clarification: I found the pixel art in this post to be incredibly helpful and relevant.]

</comment><comment><USER74> This is logical. The elaborate version of this is like making a superhero costume for yourself.

It's easy to do in San Francisco where it never gets really hot or cold and the only precipitation is a mild drizzle.

If you're in upstate NY, however, you need to design a system that adapts to climate conditions from -15 to 110F.

<comment><USER17> No disrespect intended, but I have lived without a car for over four years and crossed the country (walking through mountains while it was snowing) earlier this year in winter in sandals. My experience: Being healthy enough means you tolerate a wider range of temps and climatic conditions without changing clothes. My sons essentially live in t-shirts, shorts and sandals year round. My oldest has walked to the store in the snow in a t-shirt, shorts and galloshes.

I feel like I understand how those eastern monks walk around in saffron robes in winter in the mountains.

</comment></comment><comment> mike-cardwell I think I pretty much found myself in the same situation, but without putting any conscious thought into it. I wear combats and t-shirts, every day. I put a jumper on if it's cold. Combats are good because they contain large leg pockets for all of my gizmos.

</comment><comment><USER75> I wish I had that kind of freedom while deciding what to wear at work.

Right now it's dockers, dress shoes and dress shirts every single day.

I really never understood what forcing a strict dress code on your employees is supposed to accomplish.

<comment><USER34> Corporate synergy!

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> To each his/her own, but having having and collecting a variety of nice clothes can be enjoyable. Especially now, since quality clothes – by historical standards – are incredibly cheap.

</comment><comment><USER77> oh man I could never dress like that. I like VARIETY. And when it's warm enough I like to show off my body - I've spent a lot of time and effort getting it into shape.

</comment><comment><USER78> I certainly agree with this outlook. I've been wearing nothing but blue jeans and plain white t-shirts lately, and it definitely has taken a lot off my mind.

</comment><comment><USER79> Thanks for the article; I really enjoyed getting the view from the other side.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm working on this too but more from the puthison.com dressed-up angle.

</comment><comment><USER80> I'd like to read the same article from a guy...

</comment><comment><USER81> Stupid...for the last 15 years I've worn a black tshirt and pair of jeans every day....every 6 months or so I replace the tshirts and buy a new pair of jeans...

<comment><USER82> _Stupid_

Please don't do this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> She could just stop at Muji, job done.

<comment><USER83> Looks like she's in SF. There's no Muji store there.

<comment><USER44> If only there was a technology by which anyone could buy anything anywhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> I understand her desire for simplicity and energy conservation but as a male I enjoy seeing women in a variety of outfits :)

</comment><comment><USER85> My wardrobe is an analogy to the color palettes I have used or would use in a Web Design.

Everything I wear could, in principle, be used as a model for a web design. This thought was the basis of "Getting Dressed Grid System" which ultimately failed.

I disagree with any "essential" justification for wardrobe. Attire, like anything else, is a tool for expression. Minimalism has its drawbacks, and will be perceived as such in the scheme of other dress styles.

I typically shop at thrift stores or what have you. I am generally "freegan" about clothing, as _anything_ could potentially be used for a design. In similar fashion, we look at font libraries as "bones to pick" for Web design. I believe it is a fruitful intellectual endeavor to view clothes in the same way. Anything might become an article of clothing, even garbage on the street.

I believe establishing a coherent image (like a brand) for one's self through "found clothing" is a better way to go. It makes clothing one's self, like preparing many vegetarian and vegan dishes, more like an activity of story telling: harmony (of ingredients; of colors), consistency (of taste; of themes which identify one's personality), robustness (of flavor; unconventionality of style [which indicates range of experience with fashion]).</comment>


VW Says It May Soon Be Overtaking Tesla - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-05/vw-may-reach-e-car-target-earlier-than-2023-osterloh-tells-wams <comment><USER2> It says this will happen in 2023.

Meanwhile, Tesla is going to sell a lot of cars, solar roofs, Powerwalls and insurance by then. It will collect a lot more FSD revenue, build even more factories, continually growing the volumes of cars produced as they continue to bring prices down.

Right now, VW can't even manage to get over-the-air updates working, which is why all those ID.3 cars have been sitting unsold in warehouses!

Feel free to keep your VW shares, and I'll keep my Tesla shares. Let's see which one of us is smiling in 2023 ;)</comment>


Show HN: Tuiqo – Document versioning made simple - <AUTHOR> https://tuiqo.com <comment><AUTHOR> Dzeno, co-founder at Tuiqo here.

Tuiqo allows you to work on many versions of your text at the same time, from within one document. It saves time wasted on tracking changes, creating multiple versions of the same document and reviews. We have completely changed the document structure for more intuitive writing, editing, and collaboration.

Here is the short demo video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5du9x9JKjDA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5du9x9JKjDA)

We're looking forward to your feedback or questions!

<comment><USER2> This looks great. Do you know who your audience is? From the features it would work great for writers, and help collaborate with editors/co-writers.

I'm guessing .doc format will be one of the more popular feature requests -- many would not try it without this format supported.

All the best

<comment><USER2> A quick note.. the "register" modal when I move mouse up is incredibly annoying. You should remove it, or make it appear using a non-intrusive UX.

Pinging you offline as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree and we will remove it. I think we will make it appear only once. The goal was to remind that you should make an account if you want to keep docs that you created since you can try it out without registering.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The New Prostitution Economy - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/07/welcome-to-the-new-prostitution-economy <comment><USER2> Putting the prostitution to one side, the underlying issues are particularly concerning to me.

In this article, young people appear to have either large debt or expensive taste. They're encouraged to attend college, but increasingly find that the available jobs don't meet expectations. "Vanilla", low-paying employment.

The description of the young woman who learned how to present herself and even how to do an elevator pitch sound like the exception, rather than the norm. Not everyone is so ambitious. Instead, the article suggests that most young people start doing this out of desperation.

Desperation for paying off increasing debt, desperation for not having been taught or learned the skills necessary to have a non-vanilla, well-paying job, desperation for not being able to have the life that seems so accessible online today but only available to a few.

</comment><comment><USER3> I want to offer a different perspective. This article is more itsightful than the comments tere suggest.

I have had multiple friends seriously consider this line of work, and some undertake it. No one talks about it. It's very secretive, and somewhat dangerous. It's not talked about with girlfriends at bars. It's not told to mom and dad, but it is all around you.

I once had one of these friends approach mose to ask if she could invest in my startup in cash because she had garbage bags of cash that she could no longer legally deposit in her bank. That cash put her through college.

Many of their clients do have significant others, and many of those significant others know what's going on. It's just "fun on the side". When this article says "tech guys" it doesn't mean senior developers; it means twenty-something VPs and CTOs.

<comment><USER4> > When this article says "tech guys" it doesn't mean senior developers; it > means twenty-something VPs and CTOs.

Exactly. Funny how the phrase "tech guys" has morphed from programmers and hackers (1990s) into VPs and senior execs (2010s). No programmers I know are able to afford to spend $700/hr on anything, let alone something you can get for free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sex is probably the highest demand human 'service' right behind food and medical attention. It only stands to reason that the internet would enable that demand to find people willing to be paid exorbitantly to perform sex acts. Trying to stop that via legislation is just as, if not more futile than trying to stop drug use through prohibition.

What is interesting and scary at the same time is what happens to relationships and sexuality if all of a sudden anyone on both sides of the pay for dating->sex equation can find what they're looking for? Does it make it everyone more callous about sex knowing that it is a commodity with a free market? Does it increase infidelity? Will it make people more accepting of and open about sex? Does it create more angry and sexually-frustrated males feeling like they're beaten out by people who can pay?

With the sugar daddy phenomenon it could create a source of modest wealth for a some of these women. In several of these exposes some of the women were using their sugar daddies to fund their business ideas or to pay for higher education. And really, it's not prostitution in the legal sense.

I think there'll be a lot of surprising outcomes from this, some of the good, some of them bad.

</comment><comment><USER6> This article, and the previous moral panic piece by the same author (Nancy Jo Sales), really do remind me of Scott Templeton from _The Wire_.

Quotes that are too perfect, stereotypes that are too stereotypical, plus a generous helping of "everyone is" quotes.

Mind you, accusing a journalist of outright fabrication is very serious.

What's more likely is that she was able to selectively form a narrative. Note the total absence of independent statistics. No interviews with police, independent researchers, other journalists, sociologists, economists. No quotes from people who break the narrative, creating a total absence of any alternative storyline.

<comment><USER7> Astute observation. There have been more documentaries and stories about this topic, and plenty of those seem plausible, but these often focus on webcamming and catering to specific fetishes and interests. Those stories also seem much more down to earth and less dreamlike.

Perhaps it was the 'jumbo-sized Danny DeVito's' that kinda broke the suspense of disbelief.

<comment><USER8> But this article is focussed on a very narrow niche market - not just prostitution but sugar daddying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >"If prostitution is really just physical labor, if it's no different than serving coffee or fixing a car, then why would we see rape as such a traumatic thing? If there's nothing different about sex, then what's so bad about rape?"

That was my thought too, I found this story to be really depressing.

But I feel like the author is trying to present this as a general and wide- adopted trend when it's probably quite marginal.

<comment><USER10> Well, forced-coffee-serving and forced-car-fixing also has a name: slavery. That's pretty traumatic, too.

<comment><USER11> That's a bit of a stretch. If you're forced to serve someone coffee one time most people would agree that's messed up but not that big of a deal. If you're forced to have sex once, you've been raped and that's a life shattering event.

<comment><USER12> You're completely missing the point. The point isn't which is more life shattering (no one is arguing that), the point is that our laws should protect against coercion against one's body. Forced labor and rape are differing levels of infringement on ones body. However, sex and labor are still products of one's body and the individual has the right to do with their body as they wish.

<comment><USER11> Sorry but it's you who is missing the point here. Nobody's arguing about whether we should be able to be forced to do anything. Everybody agrees that we should not.

The point is that there's a difference between regular labor and sex.

<comment><USER13> We may consider coerced sex to be more traumatic than coerced labor, but it's a difference in degree, not in kind. The author is arguing "If sex is just labor then it's ok to coerce people to do it" which is absurd. It's not ok to coerce people to do labor or have sex.

<comment><USER11> That's not really the point. That statement is being used to illustrate the fact that sex is not "just labor." If it were "just labor" it wouldn't be any more traumatic than being forced to make coffee or being forced to answer phones. Which would also be traumatic, but not as traumatic as rape.

But whatever, clearly there's a group of people here on HN who are taking the hard line "sex work is just labor" position and there's not going to be a rational discussion here.

<comment><USER13> Like I said, the difference is in degree, not kind. There's no reason two things have to be exactly the same amount of traumatic in order to be considered the same _kind_ of trauma.

Losing 10% of your net worth and losing 90% of your net worth are both traumatic. One is more so because it's to a larger degree, but it's not an entirely different thing, it's just a different amount. That's why we have different punishments for petty theft and grand larceny. Not because they're completely different crimes, but because they're different degrees of the same crime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I found the juxtaposition interesting in this article that one of the women got into "sugaring" because she was tired of dating "immature frat bros" and then found that many of her clients were lonely tech workers. At the risk of stating something which is a bit cliched, I think that there was an opportunity here missed where the woman could have legitimately dated a tech worker who wasn't an "immature frat bro" without having to resort to "sugaring". On the other hand, it doesn't speak highly of any of these men that they consider it okay to sexually objectify women by paying for sex, although I do understand their frustrations and loneliness when you're stuck working so many hours its impossible to even try to date.

<comment><USER15> I never got this "sexual objectification" thing. If it is sexual objectification to pay for sex (assumed consensual), then surely it's "intellectual/creative objectification" to contract someone to make a website, right?

I mean, if it was something special about sex, we wouldn't need to qualify it as sexual (prostitution is not 'sexual prostitution' or even 'sexual slavery').

So what is it that is the problem with sexual objectification? It's not the objectification proper since nobody is lamenting the objectification of plumbers and painters or what not. And it's not like anybody cares about what their feelings are like. Everyone seems to understand that it's a job.

So really, the aspect of sexual objectification people don't like is that they believe no one should be allowed to sell sex. And my question is why? We sure are allowed to sell food, either at the grocery or the restaurant. We're are allowed to sell and rent living arrangements. Although it's uncommon, there's even places charging for access to toilets.

So why is sex so special?

<comment><USER16> > So why is sex so special?

If only Rusty would have restored kuro5hin.org by now, I would link to my diary titled "The difference between boys & girls"...

'Evolution' has decided that women get to choose who they have sex with. Women have to be picky, men tend to take what they can get. Some women are much more open to sex than others. Some women factor monetary considerations into their decision process.

I once picked a woman up in the taxi from a cheap motel, and took her south along I-17. When we drove past Cheetah's (a strip club), my passenger said, "I've bet you've picked up a lot of ho's there." I protested that strippers were just working. She'd had a lot more experience with strip clubs than I, and she said something like "all strippers are ho's". Which I guess might be true enough to be a truism.

I also had a stripper who'd been followed home and beaten up by some of the clubs' patrons, probably because she wasn't available for the services they wanted. (Edit: I had this woman a couple times. Sometimes she arranged for me to pick her up again for her trip home, instead of calling the taxi company for a random driver.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The article has the name of one particular website repeated fourteen times, and it paints its marginal niche (sugar daddies) as something that everybody is doing, and as something normal and empowering for women. And, coincidentally, this website needs to attract women.

Everything about this screams "Bullshit marketing/PR piece". Is it only me?

<comment><USER18> That was absolutely my first thought. The article basically starts out with " _everyone 's doing it_", then talks about how all the tech guys are taking part, and even goes as far as explaining the value proposition of " _...girlfriend experience, without having to deal with an actual girlfriend._ ".

It reminds me of those " _Don 't buy <popular nutraceutical> until you read this_" advertorials, which purportedly offer a critical look, but are actually written by the nutraceutical company.

I've flagged the post. I recommend you do the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> In a truly 'new whatever economy' with minimal barriers to entry and no middlemen, wouldn't the competition quickly reduce prices to subsistence levels?

If these women are truly able to charge hundreds of dollars for their time, I'm thinking this is _way_ more of a niche activity than the author's implying.

<comment><USER20> I think 538 or one of those prominent economics blogs had an article about this; they looked at prices before and after the pill and sexual liberation of the 1960s, and concluded prices had collapsed. Basically they concluded that supply and demand (the default explanation) was working.

If social attitudes change, and tech lends a hand by making it easier and discreet, I don't see why the same dynamic wouldn't continue.

<comment><USER21> Heh, Tinder where you have several "Like" buttons, each with a different price tag...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "What happens in a future without work?"

We like to answer with "basic income" or "we'll create new jobs", but that's not always the case.

Uberization of prostitution, surrogacy, professional cuddlers. That should open our eyes.

</comment><comment><USER23> "... on sites like RentBoy, which was busted and shut down in 2015 by Homeland Security for facilitating prostitution." \- am I the only one who finds this a bizarre role for Homeland Security?

P.S. This sure feels like a PR piece: [http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

PS2: The article has lots of ads for luxury goods while describing women using prostitution to buy these products: "She became a sugar baby in order to buy luxury goods." I can't figure out if that is terrible ad placement or genius ad placement. And there's a strange circularity where the article creates demand for luxury goods (and sex), while simultaneously providing a solution for how to obtain the luxury goods (and sex).

</comment><comment><USER24> The most surprising thing in this piece was that Homeland Security is shutting down sugar daddy websites for facilitating prostitution. I thought they were only supposed to go after a different type of threat. This expansion of scope is troublesome.

</comment><comment><USER25> Prostitution is a fundamental natural right. Even animals do it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_among_animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_among_animals).

To try and ban such behavior is immoral. Look at the fruits of prohibition:

1\. Prostitutes can not rely on the police for protection. This leads many women who practice this to be under the "administration" of a pimp.

2\. Because it is illegal, criminals are the ones who engage in the activity. With little respect for the rule of law, other laws are ignored such as age of consent, kidnapping, coercion, etc. This leads to literal human trafficking.

When I read comments about a lack of "reasonable regulatory framework", I cringe. So what would this look like? A "reasonable" approach would be to have all sex workers and their customers tested for STDs. How do we enforce that? You get a certificate from a regulatory agency? How do we prevent that system from being corrupted? How often should one get tested? Would the burden and costs exceed that of engaging in "illegal" prostitution? There are lag times from when STD is detectable and transmissible. It is not possible, even within a regulatory framework, to prevent the transmission of STDs.

I much prefer a technological solution. If prostitution was legal, the need to be informed about your clients would be addressed by competing interests. We don't need a government agency telling us how to engage in the oldest and most ancient of professions!

<comment><USER20> Also, if it becomes common, there's no reason to think the network of infection would be connected in the current way. You might find a lot of casual workers who are less connected, rather than a few with a lot of connections.

</comment></comment><comment> FLUX-YOU I'm actually jealous. That sounds like an interesting life.

<comment><USER26> "Interesting", as in, "may you live in interesting times"?

<comment> FLUX-YOU Yeah. There are undoubtedly mortal risks with this lifestyle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Banning prostitution is one of those silly policy mistakes that politicians around the globe have committed regularly in the past. There should be no place for morality in any modern legal framework. However prostitution still lacks a reasonable regulatory framework in most countries (with some Swiss cities being a notable exception).

<comment><USER28> > no place for morality in any modern legal framework

There's definitely a place for morality, but perhaps a better way to put it is that there should be no place for any non-utilitarian morality in any legal framework.

<comment><USER29> These thoughts scare me. Utilitarianism is far from perfect. For instance, would we as a society designate 5% of women as lacking right to their own body and allow any man to have them when he wishes? If the pleasure the men gained is greater than the suffering of the women, utilitarians say yes. And even if you say "No, because the suffering of the women will inevitably be greater," is that REALLY the reason that the action I stated above is wrong? Or is it...that women have a moral right to their body that is not subject to the whims of what is best for society

<comment><USER30> What you are referring to are "Utility Monster" arguments. I've yet to see a version of the Utility Monster that would actually happen in the real world. The better ones involve a computer that rules the world and is given a metric that seems good, but leads to bad consequences when it is maximized at the expense of everything else. But we aren't ruled by such a computer - we're still ruled by people.

> "No, because the suffering of the women will inevitably be greater" IMO, > this is obviously true. Why wouldn't it be the real reason?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This doesn't belong here.

I flinched when saw this headline, then cringed when I realized it wasn't just a terribly inappropriate reference to the "gig economy".

I wish we could restrict discussion about sex work to those who have been involved in it, or at least ensure their voices are included.

But I know this doesn't belong on hacker news. There's no tech, there's no engineering impact, and it's a dangerous topic given the delicacy of gender issues in a startup culture context.

<comment><USER32> > _no tech, there 's no engineering impact, and it's a dangerous topic_

Those are not the criteria for whether something belongs on Hacker News. The criterion is simply that a story be intellectually interesting.

This one is complex in that it has intellectually interesting aspects as well as other aspects. But that's not uncommon.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is the original sharing economy. It's terribly rigged for men, though.

</comment><comment><USER34> >> what I'm looking for in this transaction is not sexual satisfaction. Do you like everyone at your job?

Obvious Jane says: no, but I'm also not expected to screw them.

</comment><comment><USER35> Prostitution was historically outlawed because the part of the city where it happened ended up being some run-down smelly area, where you'd catch a venereal disease just by looking at it. I don't think anyone had a problem with high-class prostitutes, but it's easier to ban X than to ban poor people doing X. For example, it was only in 2009 that Rhode Island banned prostitution; but they banned brothels long before then.

Historically, it looks like the prostitution ban was mostly pushed through by this women's organization. They also did Prohibition, and this all happened around the same time women got the right to vote and WWI.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Christian_Temperance...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Christian_Temperance_Union)

I'm not sure how many of the historical reasons still apply: We're not in any serious war, zoning laws and city codes seem like they'd be sufficient to protect against slimy neighborhoods, there's been a 'safe sex' movement so it'd be less likely that people would freely transmit diseases, and abusive pimps don't seem as economically necessary.

Also, what's up with the VC that let a prostitute run up $60k on the tab. At no level of wealth are you ever "too busy" to watch your money, and this guy's job is to manage money.

<comment><USER36> _Historically, it looks like the prostitution ban was mostly pushed through by this women 's organization_

Interestingly, too, women on the whole used to vote more politically conservative than men, while today they vote more politically liberal than men: [http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21700425-europes-far- ri...](http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21700425-europes-far-right-not- such-hit-ladies-lefter-sex).

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> If you're on the fence as to whether prostitution should be legal, I suggest listening to this articulate sex worker before you make up your mind.

[https://www.ted.com/talks/toni_mac_the_laws_that_sex_workers...](https://www.ted.com/talks/toni_mac_the_laws_that_sex_workers_really_want)

</comment><comment><USER38> Please. They don't call it the "Oldest Profession" for no reason.

</comment><comment><USER39> $700/hr for dinner, parties, and fun? Sounds like a taunt...

</comment><comment><USER40> A prostitution ring was busted this year in my neighborhood. Most of the johns arrested were tech workers.

Hmmmm...

<comment><USER41> Maybe most of the men with ample disposable income in your neighborhood are sex workers?

<comment><USER42> I'm pretty sure you mean "... are tech workers", not "... are sex workers".

<comment><USER41> Erm. Yup. Thanks :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ford follows Tesla's lead and opens all their electric vehicle patents - <AUTHOR> http://electrek.co/2015/05/28/ford-follow-teslas-lead-and-open-all-their-electric-vehicles-patents/ <comment><USER2> > Ford says there will be a licensing fee.

So not like Tesla then...

<comment><USER3> Definitely an important difference. They are not actually open if there is a license fee.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, like, how is that any different at all? This is Ford going from saying "we won't license our patents to anyone" to "we'll agree to license our patents"? I _guess_ that's um, something… ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It seems like Ford is interested in having others adopt their standards. I'm sure that was part of the equation for Tesla as well.</comment>


Things 60 minutes didn't tell you about making apps - <AUTHOR> http://samrussell.com.au/the-truth-about-making-apps/

<comment><USER2> I appreciate the frankness in the tone. Basically it says, "there is a lot of work in making a worthwhile App." It is something that folks struggle with. If you have a great idea, and you start working on it right now, in a few years you'll be able to sell it. Longer event horizon than many are comfortable with. This is because if it sucks they won't get their 'few years' back. They will have to do it again. Some folks feel empowered by that tension, others decide to go work for a big company.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks Chuck, glad you liked my post. The tone was very frank, but I think the message is a little clearer when you spell it out for people in black and white!

Sam Russell</comment>


Demand for developers in Chicago increases - <AUTHOR> https://blog.brainstation.io/chicagos-growing-tech-scene-needs-more-developers/ <comment><USER2> As always, such shortages are largely contrived. If you aren't finding the talent you want, you need to raise the salary that you're offering. Per Stack Overflow's salary survey, the median Chicago full stack dev with a bachelors and 5 years experience only makes $90K per year.</comment>