End of the line for MacBook Pro - <AUTHOR> For nearly ten years, my entire computing environment has been a MBP with a Linux VM. OSX was an excellent end user (non dev) environment (music, photos, video), Linux is my preferred dev environment, and VMWare simplified wireless networking compared to some Linux/raw metal systems.
Then, over ten years, OSX has steadily degraded. Some of the UI decisions were just terrible, e.g. the skeuomorphic Calendar app (RIP). iTunes has long been a mess. iPhoto and Photos have been completely inscrutable to me for a long time.
By adding the cloud to things, Apple tried to maintain the fiction that your content is seamlessly anywhere you need it, while safe in the cloud. But there are at least two ids to deal with (I think? Apple ID and something else?). Consuming content on my phone chews up the data permitted by my phone plan. What I would prefer is to manage file locations manually. But the design of the apps makes that difficult. I never know if it is safe to delete anything anywhere, because I don't know the rules for propagating the deletion to other devices. It's a mess.
And now, the absolutely terrible changes for the new MBP. Getting rid of the ESC and Fn keys, and what appears to be a crappy MB keyboard, instead of the old, far superior MBP keyboard. And the non-upgradability of components has really gone too far.
I have the last gen MBP before the current one, and hope it lasts a long time. But looking ahead: If I go to vanilla hardware running Linux, how can I sync photos, music and other data with my phone? I'd rather not go to Android, since it appears that Google's incentive is to mine my data, and Apple does not appear to be in that business. <comment><USER2> I curse every time I accidentally click iTunes or Photos, as it means I have to wait minutes for my computer to stop lagging before I can close it. Worse, if you exceed physical memory, it seems to have a permanent slowdown until you restart. That's a feature back from the Win XP days.

The latest updates to iOS seem to make things laggier as well, to the point where the keyboard might pause after I hit a key.

<comment><AUTHOR> How old is your laptop? That sounds like the behavior of my previous MBP (the one with an HD) toward the end of its life. I put it down to disk fragmentation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The headphone jack to lightning connector doesn't work with Apple's iPhone battery case, which means to use a battery case with iPhone 7, you have to get a pair of wireless earbuds.

</comment><comment><USER4> People are being hyperbolic when they say Apple is "Getting rid of the ESC key" right? You guys know it's still there on the touch bar right? [https://www.wired.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/EscKey_TA-1...](https://www.wired.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/EscKey_TA-1024x768.jpg)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I know. Mechanical keyboard > old MBP keyboard > MB keyboard > virtual keyboard. For the six rows of keys on an old MBP, Apple has taken one step down on five rows, and two steps down on the sixth.

I concede that a mechanical keyboard is a bad choice for a laptop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The MBP still has an escape key, unless you pay extra to "upgrade" to the touch bar.

<comment><USER6> And you can satisfy being treated as second class with low speed memory, Lowe processor, leser ports etc.</comment></comment>


Ask YC: Feedback on an alternative to TinyURL - <AUTHOR> http://www.oneryng.com/assign

<comment><USER2> It's quite a long URL, so not really "tiny".

The idea itself has been tried several times before. CompuServe (or was that AOL?) was one of the first to have keyword-based navigation. A few years ago, I met an entrepreneur in London, UK, who was building a company through which you create a unique number for yourself, and that gets associated with all your contact details - sort of like a phone number but to all your contact details (a bit like a LinkedIn public profile I guess). There are other variations.

Personally, I find this way of navigation weird and I don't like it. Also, the domain name your service uses (oneryng.com) doesn't really brand the service in a useful way (but I do love the domain name!).

Also, what's your unique selling proposition? I can't see one!

Apologies if I seem a bit blunt. Please correct me if I misunderstood something.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, not at all blunt, this is exactly what I'm looking for. The unique selling proposition is that I plan on shifting this idea to the mobile market, since typing long URLs on a numpad is complete torture, and am just fleshing out the idea for now as a proof of concept.

Thanks for the background information, it's very helpful. Any good suggestions for a short, succinct domain name that's to the point?

<comment><USER2> As a mobile user, I know exactly what you're talking about. But I have to say that the new virtual keyboards from HTC and others have solved most of the bad input problems.

Also, search engines are becoming more and more important for navigation on mobile devices because as you say, typing long URLs is not fun but finding them is easier. How will you compete with Google and Yahoo!?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I wouldn't use it just because the keyphrase is mutable. It is bad enough that TinyURL obscures the destination, but with the possibility for the destination changing without even the submitters knowledge makes the service completely untrustworthy.

Maybe I'm missing something...

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, the idea is for people who want an immutable keyphrase to contact me for some sort of contract where they ask for a specified amount of time for the keyphrase to stay constant for some reasonable sum of money.

<comment><USER4> Well, if that's your business plan, it seems like its nothing more than an extension of domains... which provides no benefit to the customer. Why spend money on a "keyphrase" when you can spend money on the actual domain?

I don't see what possible reason a person would have to pay for a keyphrase? Most people use sites like tinyurl to send links to friends, why would I pay for a service like that? If I was a company, I would just buy a domain with that keyphrase (e.g. www.keyphrase.com) or do something like companyname.com/keyphrase

I think a better monetization plan would be to load the long url link in an iframe and put ads on the top of the page.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm trying to capitalize on the trend of searching for a company slogan or phrase instead of going to the actual site. A lot of businesses are posting ads (non-internet) that say "Go to Yahoo.com and search for <company name>" instead of saying "Go to <company name>.com/<project name>".

This trend should increase with the proliferation of mobile web browsing; typing a domain name is a pain, and I hope to make browser plugins for each mobile browser that capitalizes on this new development.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> <http://qurl.co.uk/> offers something for toolbar access

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm most interested in whether the idea is easy to understand, any feedback is very much appreciated!

<comment><USER4> The idea is easy to understand to anyone that knows that tinyurl is. Otherwise, they might be confused. I think a screenshot of the address bar showing a long url and your short "keyphrase" one would help explain your site to your users. I also don't particularly like the design (e.g. the font, black background, blue links...) I'd suggest a simple white page, something like the google homepage.

<comment><AUTHOR> The screenshot idea is genius, I'm going to try that. Simple is good, I'll definitely take that into account.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> you can overwrite people's keyphrases, and when you hit "back" to the main page the captcha thing isn't visible.

also captchas suck.

<comment><AUTHOR> I know, I hate captchas myself, but I don't want spammers to hammer the server with porn sites or anything like that.

<comment><USER6> tinyurl doesn't have a captcha.

neither does comments or account creation on YC.

<comment><AUTHOR> I removed it, I understand now - it's better to wait until entirely too much spam arrives before implementing CAPTCHAs.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How To Rise Fast At Work: A True Story - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/21/rise-fast-job-leadership-careers-employment.html?feed=rss_popstories <comment><USER2> One of my co-workers decided to go the project management route. Our boss at the time was very supportive, letting him help with the project management tasks for the current release while still doing some coding duties. This was probably 5 years ago. He took on project management for another product for a year and half. And then, what really made his reputation, a high visibility, high risk project, etc. etc. Now managing 40 people. If I had to hazard a guess, he's making double what he did as a coder and happier because he was _never_ happy coding/fixing bugs. If you're not happy coding, maybe management is a better fit for you. Beware that many of those who leap the chasm to management don't make it and those who do have to pull themselves up to the edge of the cliff with their fingernails.

In general, the people I know who were coders who have risen up in the ranks (probably 2,3 levels above me) in management had a game plan. They knew what they were trying to accomplish. They had a very good mentor. And they've done it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Perhaps I like being a coder/doer too much, but there's an assumption that the ideal to strive for is to move up the chain into management as quickly as possible. What fun is that?

<comment><USER4> It's an insidious problem, because ultimately in most organizations hiring decisions are made by people who _do_ believe that (i.e. they control the budget), and believe that doing so counts as "success". Which is why you can be a 40-something with 20 years experience as a hands-on programmer and can't get hired, because you are viewed by these people as a "failure" for not having made it into management in your 20s.

<comment><USER3> Sometimes I dread getting older for political reasons... I'm 30 now and have not had (or wanted) a "real" management position. I guess I'm doomed.

<comment><USER4> Staying hands-on is pretty difficult in other industries. A good friend of mine is a research scientist. She loves what she does and is good at it and wants to go on doing it. But now she as been offered two choices, she can go for a Fellowship and spend her time writing grant proposals and mentoring students or... Well, no-one really talks about option B. And no-one who's taken option B is around the lab to ask.

Same in banking, you might be able to stay a trader, if you're good. You couldn't stay an analyst, it's up or out. Or in engineering, you don't get to _actually_ design machinery or chips or whatever for long, again, up or out, gotta make room for the fresh intake of graduates.

This might not be the best way to work, but it's the norm, and a programmer who really can stay hands-on their whole career is fortunate indeed. My own strategy in this area is to stay hands-on but do less work directly, spend my time automating common tasks and developing tools to make junior members of my team more productive. We'll have to see how that plays out...

<comment><USER5> Most of the top people in electrical engineering at any company will be in their 50s. These aren't managers, these are very senior engineers who design from a system level.

It is hard to become a system architect without many years of experience under your belt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article is funny.

It seems like both candidates worked at an investment firm, but neither were promoted for anything related to doing what investment firms are supposed to do -- finding good opportunities to invest in.

The 'good' candidate merely figured out how to use excel better and become a manager. The other guy completed tasks and made friends with fellow analysts.

I have to say, I doubt this place was training their analysts to be good stock pickers and instead pumped out mediocre returns while gobbling up fees off of their clients/investors.

<comment><USER7> Here is probably how I'd break it down (based on what I've seen my friends in the finance industry do): Analyst = excel grunt work VP = budget grunt work Senior VP = investment work

<comment><USER6> It depends on the fund. All funds are different so it is tough to generalize, especially since they widely vary in size and responsibility.

I have a good friend that works for a large mutual fund who already pitches stocks to the PMs. Other guys I know are simply excel monkeys.

In investment banking, it is a bit different. Analysts and Associates are excel jockeys with the job translating towards sales/deal sourcing as you climb up the ladder.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've got a few points and opinions to throw out here.

Firstly, after reading a lot of comments here it seems that many people are talking about how NOT to get into management and stay with the job you love (particularly in reference to programming).

Though this sentiment relates to this article I also find it somewhat disconnected in the context of Mark and Ted's opinions of their roles. A lot of commenters clearly seem like they're already in established programming roles with a degree of authority they enjoy, whereas these two guys in the article aren't. They're new to their company, and are striving to get to a place where they're satisfied (quite the opposite situation from many of the commenters).

Next, the general message I gathered from this article is that being successful in an organisation is apparently about having an awareness of your surroundings and making small yet persistent changes without getting in the way of others. Doing the opposite, which in Ted's case was shameless self- promotion, working hard, working overtime and being highly-strung with a drive to get further is not the way to succeed.

Now I find this VERY debatable, because a lot of it is subjective to the organisation's culture. What's to say that in another organisation that values aggressive proactiveness Ted would've been promoted instead, while Mark would have taken another year or two to move up? You cannot teach people how to be successful in management based on one case-study. Furthermore, each staff had no idea of their performance until the actual bonus time and hence were kept in the dark. There's something wrong here if Ted was convinced he was on the right track. Isn't this what mid-year reviews are all about?

The key messages I can see here are to have an aim, observe and adapt. Mark had an aim, which was to somehow distinguish himself from the pack. He observed his environment and he adapted. Ted had an aim too (promotion + bonus), which he clearly observed because he seemed to have worked his butt off. Having failed to get his promotion he now has to adapt (move to a new company, change his ways, whatever).

The story isn't finished yet. A year later tables could turn. Mark could get comfortable with where he is and slip, while Ted could make it very big.

</comment><comment><USER9> A quick point... Excel is a dangerous weapon because the vast majority of people, office drones included, don't know how to use it.

Really what it all comes down to is positioning yourself in a position where you aren't easily replaceable is really the "secret" to rising up on the corporate ladder. Networking and having good visibility into the company's overall workings and being a rockstar Excel jockey are really just two sides of the same coin.

From what I've seen, to rise above middle management you need both. A deep working knowledge of your tools and a good grasp of the big picture and all its moving pieces.

Also as other posters have mentioned some of the details in the story are suspect. Ordering supplies and lunch in IBD? Doesn't he have analysts to boss around and endless pitchbooks to compile?

</comment><comment><USER10> _He began ordering lunch for the investment group's weekly meeting and making sure office supplies were ordered on time and in the right quantities. It was obvious he didn't mind pitching in where help was needed, and his supervisors began to notice his work ethic._

That's surprising. I would think that if someone did that at an investment bank, they'd get fired and replaced with an administrative assistant. Same work, less pay.

It also sounds like Ted made himself a real pest.

<comment><USER11> A lot of investments banking jobs average 12+ hour days. People waste a lot of time sitting at their desk with little to do, because they can't leave until their boss does, and their boss can't leave untill his boss leaves, and the people at the top got their by working late for years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> In my company, the unwritten rule is that incompetent managers usually take up the responsibility of ordering lunch and office supplies. Occasionally, some nonsensical "compliance" paper work is generated to produce the illusion of work.

</comment><comment><USER13> Good article. Reminds me of the advice given by this Foerster guy. <http://www.careeradvicebook.com/> Almost exactly what he recommends.

</comment><comment><USER14> If we all took the advice of this article, we'd manage ourselves right out of business.

In my experience rewarding the top performing "hamsters" nets greater retention and gains for the organizations productivity than a sole focus on rising managers.

<comment><USER15> Or you might manage yourself into a highly efficient team structure with managers who are actively enabling their people instead of jealously guarding a fiefdom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sound Pretty biased to the management side of the story. If Ted & and mark were equally intelligent/smart, and knowing that ted worked hard to do better than his collegues , Soon he would have been the "go to member of his team". and mark would remain the networking guy.

Felt this article assumes Mark is double smart. i.e he can network, see & improve what other departments are doing & be the "go to member" of the team.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm a little disappointed that this type of "you too can make sacrifices and work hard...for America!" propaganda made it to the top of HN, and really disappointed that it wasn't due to irony....

<comment><USER18> Where are you getting this sentiment from? At what point does the article mention "work[ing] hard for America"?</comment></comment>


Is It Better to Rent or Buy? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/17/upshot/100000002894612.app.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur <comment><USER2> I bought a house 2 years ago. I bought it to "live in it" and not for "investment" (US East Coast for context).

The thing is that when you start buying houses/apartments/condos/townhomes to make money, that is when you _could_ get into trouble.

Make no mistake though. Owning a home is very costly depending on the type of home and area. For example, my single family detached home costs me money for things like maintenance, repairs etc that come out of my pocket. Did I forget to mention "Property Taxes" ? In NJ, it can easily be over $1000 per month for a single family home worth 500K (yes it is not a typo. It is over $1000 _per_ month). You are paying for all the schools and other stuff that you have access to.

So don't buy a home just for financial reasons. Buy a home if :

\- You want your "own" place and not worry about landlord bullshit (i hated my landlord charging me bogus cleaning costs once the lease was over. fuck that)

\- You are not looking to use the house as an ATM or credit card. Try to refrain from Cash out refinance type of offers. Don't get fooled into getting cash for another reset of your mortgage.

\- You intend to live in the area hopefully for 5-7 years (ok things can go wrong but intention should be there)

\- If something happens for the worse, you can still sell it (hint: don't buy in an area where it is hard to sell)

\- Very important: Put at least 20% down. There is a reason this is preferred. It gives you instant equity which means if the price fluctuates a bit (7-10%) down, you are still positive in case you had to sell due to unforeseen circumstances. I know it is the American dream to own a home but people trying to buy with 0 down or even 5% down are inviting trouble in today's market at least. Try not to do that. Wait until you have the down payment.

Some more tips for rookie buyers:

Know the differences between buying say a condo vs a single family detached home. I personally don't like condos or even townhomes because of their stricter community rules/HOA crap that they charge you for. I was looking at a condo once which said that they don't allow outdoor bbqing unless you get permission. WTF. sorry, not for me. I want "feedom" to do things in my home. So for me, single family is the closest option. But for you it could be townhomes/condos for other reasons. So know the difference.

<comment><USER3> This is a great case (for and against) owning a home.

I'd like to add this is also why HOAs are worth avoiding. Imagine owning your own home but losing the freedom to do whatever you want with it and now having to put up with HOA bullshit instead of landlord bullshit.

They can also take your home if you get behind on your HOA dues. And fine you for rules they can create on a whim (and take your home if you fail to pay fines).

The disturbing thing is that the number of HOAs and the % of cities they inhabit is growing rapidly. Many developers create HOAs during development to keep the area looking nice until all the properties are sold off (and as soon as that happens the HOA is run at the whim of whomever picked up the rains from the neighbourhood).

Ultimately HOAs are anti-freedom, but nobody bats an eyelid because in the US only "freedom from government" is taken seriously, while freedom from employers/companies/organisations is all but ignored as a social issue. It is disturbing.

I just hope that for anyone unfortunate enough to live in a HOA area, they have non-crazy/non-sleazy people running the HOA. I also encourage everyone to get involved in their HOA otherwise risk getting bonkers rules passed by some nutjob who moves in and wants grass within 2 cm.

<comment><USER4> The problem is you are probably going to live in your house for 5 to 30+ years. There is not guarantee the sane governance your HOA provides today won't be insane next year.

I am thinking of buying a house in the coming years and plan to avoid HOAs like the plague.

<comment><USER5> As others have said, there are sane ones and insane ones. Sometimes you need them. Where my dad lives, for example, there's a shared private road and the maintenance/plowing of that has to be managed. One could certainly not live there, of course, but you really have no way to avoid some sort of HOA in that circumstance. (In general, it's probably also true that the more space and separation you have from your neighbors, the less need for a HOA to mitigate conflicts and standards. Tall fences make good neighbors and all that.)

<comment><USER6> An HOA could be structured such that it only has the power to do specific things. Need the HOA to maintain a shared road? Structure it such that maintenance of that specific road is all it can do, and all it can raise fees for. Also set it up so that changing the HOA responsibilities requires a unanimous vote.

The real trick to having a good HOA is probably structuring it such that it cannot morph into a bad one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In a way, you're always paying "rent". If you buy, you pay rent to the bank (principal and interest) for 30 years and rent to the government (property taxes) forever. You also pay utilities and insurance, maintenance and improvements. Homeowners tend to spend money on renovations and stuff, which is a hidden cost.

Then there is the psychological cost of ownership, which to me is a mental burden knowing I have debt.

The way I see it, there's no such thing as ownership. You're always paying someone. Suppose you own your house free and clear - can you paint your house pink? Can you have a collection of junk cars on your front lawn? (The neighbors will complain.) Can you build a patio? (Not without a permit.) Can you blast music really loud?

I recently bought a mortgage note (which makes me the lender) and let me tell you, as much as the homeowner thinks she owns the property, in my mind I have all the control.

Just my two cents, from the perspective of being a lender and a landlord. And yes, I rent.

To me, the only time it old make sense to buy a house is if I would buy it as an investment. Or if I have a family and the price is right. Personally, I value flexibility and less stress.

<comment><AUTHOR> > To me, the only time it old make sense to buy a house is if I would buy it > as an investment. Or if I have a family and the price is right. Personally, > I value flexibility and less stress.

You are comparing two different kinds of things, financial sense and the intangible sense.

Over a lifetime, renting _almost_ never makes financial sense.

Renting can have some benefits, but they tend to be intangible ones.

<comment><USER7> I agree with you 100%, thanks for pointing this out.

Some intangible benefits do translate to financial benefits, though. Like as a homeowner you are more likely to pay for costly renovations. And this is a guess, but people tend to buy a more expensive place than they would rent. And renting closer to places you want to be might save money in travel, commute, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Like as a homeowner you are more likely to pay for costly renovations.

Renter pay for those costs also. The money has to come from someplace. It's simply amortized over a longer period. For a property owner they have to swallow it at once.

It's a _really_ common misunderstanding on the part of renters that they believe their rent only covers the right of existing in a property. It covers all the costs of the property owner (and likely makes them a _little_ money extra).

However, let's suppose you're in month-6 of a 1-year lease and the owner decides to renovate the roof or something. You're protected from paying for that until your lease is up. But this is one reason why rent goes up over time. You, or the next tenant will eventually end up paying for these things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is interesting data to me, because it shows me that I made the right choice to buy instead of rent a few years ago. In the area I live (based on the limited looking I've done and talking to friends who do rent), it's not uncommon for rent to be higher than what I'm paying for my mortgage + insurance, for a smaller place.

I would like to see an similar interactive app for determining if I should lease or buy a car. :)

<comment><USER9> There's no app because:

\- Cars vary widely in how they hold value (for example: [http://www.autotrader.com/research/article/car- news/209232/2...](http://www.autotrader.com/research/article/car- news/209232/2013-nissan-leaf-resale-value-forecast-lowered.jsp))

\- Cars will always depreciate, houses will often _appreciate_

\- Leasing is almost always the poorer choice, barring basically the one case where you know you will need a car for the lease term only (and will not be getting another car afterward)

<comment><USER10> Leasing is always worse unless you prefer to have new cars every 3-5 years. If you need a car for the length of the lease term only, it's better to privately buy a 5 year old Corolla/Civic for $12k and sell it 3 years later for $10k.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a fantastic analysis, but one also needs to think about the less quantitative benefits of home ownership. Owning a home gives you equity in your community because your economic outcome is tied to the neighborhood. In fact, home ownership rate is tightly correlated with reductions in crime rate [0].

As a renter in SF, I feel more like a tourist than a resident -- I don't care very much about the schools my kids will probably never go to or a lot of the far off political issues that will probably never affect me. I'm a young programmer and don't really have roots here. I think it would feel really different if I owned my home.

Home owners, did buying change your sense of community?

Disclaimer: My company Open Listings (YC W15) is trying to make it simple and more affordable to buy a home [1].

[0]: [http://ecedweb.unomaha.edu/neba/journal/EBJIP2009NiDecker.pd...](http://ecedweb.unomaha.edu/neba/journal/EBJIP2009NiDecker.pdf) [1]: [https://www.openlistings.co/](https://www.openlistings.co/)

<comment><AUTHOR> I can say that it did. I definitely became far more interested in using my own agency to define a nice place to live. When I rented, if a guy 2 buildings over was robbed, that's somebody else's problem. As an owner, I'll call the police the moment I know it will help keep my area decent.

We're actually going through a mini-crisis where I live as young kids who grew up here are now turning into teenagers and starting to do teenager-y things. A few minor crimes have occurred recently and as a result of citizen interest, the police have been out in force and even made some arrests.

Keep in mind, this level of crime, which is a big deal in a decade here, was weekly where I rented, and I didn't rent in a bad area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Showing the sensitive and non-sensitive variables as a greyed out bar graph "behind" the slider is a brilliant bit of data visualization.

</comment><comment><USER13> I made the decision to buy my first house a year ago and just closed on it two weeks ago. For me it was less about the cost, although that was the genesis of the idea. I lived in Northern Virginia and paid $1,700 a month for a basic two bedrooom, 25 miles from DC. When my complex told me they would raise it soon to $1,800, I said enough. I moved to Atlanta and found rent in a better place, better amenities, etc. for only $1,100. I knew buying a house would be cheaper in the long term, but what really did it for me was the oppressive rental companies. My lease forbade people from staying at my apartment for more than 3 days without being added to the lease. Traffic and parking was horrible. Noise was horrible. What really pushed me over the edge was the constant having to be on guard from the ever present, ever spying leasing office.

I now pay only $130 more per month than I did living in an apartment, but it's the freedom that I think is the real benefit of buying a home. That and triple the space...

</comment><comment><USER14> After the housing bubble I kept a close eye on rent/buy metrics and spent several years renting while watching many friends crash and burn after having bought. But aside from the financial aspect, it's hard to overstate the extent to which renters get treated like second class citizens.

When a housing situation goes south and your only recourse is to uproot and move, you're not exactly in an advantageous situation. I had the misfortune of renting from someone who more or less turned out to be a slumlord and whom I had to take to court to get my deposit back from after deciding to leave. The tenant laws were luckily very clear. A landlord needed to prove the condition of the property is what they said it was before and after, which in my case they couldn't since the damages they claimed were fabricated. But to my surprise, the judge, when considering the he-said-she-said nature of the dispute, ruled in favor of the landlord "by default", as she said, even though the law is very clear on where the burden of proof lies. I could have appealed, but by that point I had moved out of state so it wasn't worth the hassle.

When I eventually did buy a home, the lender required a letter from all of my previous landlords stating that I was a tenant in good standing, even from the slumlord, who I can assure you was not interested in doing me any favors. No amount of discussion with the lender could move them on this point, and it looked as if I was not going to be able to get the house. The situation was saved when, at the 11th hour, I quietly received the needed letter from the slumlord's wife, who was apparently more sympathetic.

The idea that the absence of personal letter from an indifferent slumlord could prevent me from buying property was insane, and the entire ordeal, including the court judgement, highlights the extent to which property owners are held in higher regard than renters, as the judge said, "by default". You'll find this to be true in so many situations...

<comment><USER15> Just bought a house, and this is why it's very important to shop around lenders. I had a great guy, but if he'd asked for this information I'd have said no I'll find another lender. Even if this meant I might loose the house. And unless you are 10 days or less from closing you can find a lender to work with in that time frame.

Edit: that isn't to say you didn't do your due diligence, just adding my two cents. You might have done a great job researching and still been F-d. It does happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you buy a house and pay off the mortgage, once you're older and don't want (or aren't able) to work any longer, you can live in your house for the cost of your utility bills. If you don't own a house, you still have to pay rent.

<comment><USER17> You're going to be in a big surprise when your property tax bill comes to mostly fund trillion dollar public retirement pension accounts. Property taxes of typical city can run up to $200 or $400 a month.

<comment><USER18> Rent will increase to reflect that change.

<comment><USER19> But when you rent you have the option to move to another city if you don't like how your tax dollars are being managed. Especially when you are retired/unemployed and thus don't have to worry about living close to your job. You don't even have to move far necessarily depending on the type of tax you are trying to avoid.

<comment><USER20> Moving is a very disruptive life change, becoming more disruptive the longer you have been at your current location. It isn't something to be undertaken lightly, so it would probably take a significant move in property taxes to induce one to move.

<comment><USER21> Moving isn't very disruptive for me. Since 1995 I've moved once every couple of years and have lived in 6 states and 12 cities. Working remotely has made this super easy.

<comment><USER20> First, you are the exception. Second, moving frequently actually makes it less disruptive to a point because you are not sinking deep roots in one particular area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The option to even rent seems mostly like a large coastal metro phenomenon to me

Outside, LA, SF, DC, NYC, maybe Chicago or Philly where are all these stand alone houses for rent?

serious question

outside of major markets I don't percieve the rental stock of nice, stand alone homes with yards, being paticularly large or liquid

isn't the rent vs own always a bet on the relative size of the rental stock vs available for sale stock?

if I wanted to rent a $250,000 4 bedroom home in somewhere like Westerville, OH, how many options am I really looking at?

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---

[http://www.homes.com/rentals/westerville- oh/?beds=4](http://www.homes.com/rentals/westerville-oh/?beds=4)

looks like there are 4 houses that meet the critera having 4 bedrooms (and Westerville is actually much larger than most suburbs)

951 Brockwell Drive, Westerville OH, 43081 will cost you 2,000 to rent

zillow say the house is worth 231K

if I'm putting down 30K, and taking a 200K mortgage at 4% interest, [http://www.mortgagecalculator.org/](http://www.mortgagecalculator.org/) says I'll pay $1,194.41 a month

where are all my savings from renting again?

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---

I'll buy the argument that it makes sense in major cities, especially in markets where flippers drive up the costs

and also for people who would be buying attached properties

I'm not really that impressed with the argument for suburban stand alone properties in flyover country

<comment><USER23> I live in flyover country, and rented single family homes here with no problem until we finally bought a year ago. It's true that there's a smaller stock of rentals, but there are more than your example suggests. I'd bet that there are lots of rentals in Westerville, OH that aren't coming up in your search, because they are rented through other mechanisms (anything from Craigslist to a sign in front of the house to locally-specific websites). It's true that fewer people are looking to rent, because buying is more accessible to the median family here than on the coasts, but renting is absolutely a thing that people do.

Also, mortgage is REALLY not the only cost of home ownership. I own a house worth about $200,000. My mortgage payment is about 850/month, my taxes are about 550/month, insurance is 60, and I budget 300/month for maintenance. It would cost me 1600 to rent an equivalent house, so I'm paying more on a monthly basis to own than I would to rent. Some of that is equity, true, which is why we bought. On the other hand, when/if we sell, we'll be paying a realtor $12,000 for the privilege, so we'll have to live here awhile before the equity gains outweigh the transaction costs.

<comment><USER18> You don't mention the principal part of the mortgage payment and the tax benefit of mortgage interest and property tax.

You might not be paying much more than rent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This tool was huge in helping me make a good financial decision when I was thinking about housing recently. Hopefully some people at the upshot are reading this, but I'd love the ability to save searches, and also see all the data in an excel like pivot table of some sort to see how the different variables all play together.

</comment><comment><USER25> Ignores mortgage insurance for down payments < 20%

<comment><USER26> It might sound a little sarcastic, but i think in the vast majority of cases, if you have a deposit < 20% the right answer is to rent.

<comment><USER27> One area where this might not apply is on VA loans; which applied to me. Currently in PhD program and was able to buy a house with a significantly lower mortgage (22% cheaper per month) than renting. Which eases the pain for wife and children during this time.

<comment><USER28> Doctor loans are similar - they don't need PMI but I'm not sure if the interest rates are higher than the regular mortgage loans

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> One more thing... I was quite adamant that my home not be in an HOA community. I'm worried less about artificially inflated property values, and more concerned with personal freedom. There are a lot of rules and laws on the books with the county and city as it is, not to mention the state. No one should have a bunch of nanny neighbors trying to control each other. Not living in an HOA gives me, the home owner, the most power and control.

</comment><comment><USER29> The home price growth rate is decisive here. If you expect it to be flat or negative, the scales tip heavily towards renting.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think a good estimator would be the one taking into account the fact you're probably going to sell your place after some years to buy a new one, because you wont be able to have any cash if you don't.

<comment><USER31> It does take into account the sale of the house when you leave it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> What you will notice, after playing around a bit, is how incredibly sensitive the results are to interest rates and returns on investment.

Good thing those are easy to predict!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's important to understand this isn't a comparison of "can I find an apartment that's cheaper than buying a house". This is a comparison of like- for-like housing units. Check your local market, what can you rent an entire house for? What's the mortgage for buying a similar house look like?

One thing renters often don't understand when making claims about the personal expenses buyers have to go through to maintain their property is that renters _are_ paying for those things, it's simply amortized over the period the property is up for rent. The money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the renters.

When a renter moves, there is $0 from their rent that they are able to capture and move forward to their next property. While an owner can sell their previous property and carry forward their equity. To make an analogy, it would be like a renter being able to turn a $1000/mo rent into a $500/mo rent simply by having paid all the rent on-time at their previous place. This doesn't happen with renting, but it happens with buying, where a buyer can carry equity from a previous home into the purchase of a new one and turn a $500,000 loan into a $250,000 loan (assuming the equity they're carrying forward is worth 50% of the loan amount).

The length of time you will live at a place is also unimportant. You _always_ need to live somewhere. Suppose I need to start housing myself at 20 and die at 90. I need to sort out shelter for 70 years. By buying a place you pay for it for 30, then get it for "free" (minus taxes and maintenance) for 40 years. With renting, you pay for shelter for all 70 years.

You can also rent out your property and make somebody else pay for it. Or rent out part of it for the same. In most rental markets, you can individually rent bedrooms for a total that exceeds the single unit rental price for the entire property.

What about markets where the rental fee is lower than the mortgage + taxes + maintenance? The property owner probably bought the property when property prices where lower, or owns it outright or is expecting to capture the delta when selling the property.

But rent here is so much lower than owning? For how long? If you purchase a home now, your 30 year mortgage will cost you the same per month for 30 years (or less if you pay off principal early). Thus a $2000/mo mortgage today will cost $2000/mo in 30 years. While rent only goes up -- usually with inflation. It's likely you'll be making more money in 30 years, so while renters will continue to pay the same share of income on rent, owners will not, their share of income for shelter _decreases_ over time.

The local property market has to be extremely strange for decades for buying to ever be a worse idea than renting over the long-run. There are some advantages to renting, but they're very rarely, if ever, financial over the long-term.

</comment><comment><USER33> The nytimes is really killing it with all these neat infographics and cool article layouts/animations! Congrats!

</comment><comment><USER34> Great calculator! I like that they take into account the opportunity cost, or foregone investment income.</comment>


Ask HN: Suggestions for product management courses for a software engineer? - <AUTHOR> Hello! I'm an aspiring PM. I have worked on some side projects which helped me to work with Designers, other Developers and do marketing myself.<p>I'm an engineer by profession, but I'm really excited when I work on delivering a great product and so planning to switch to full-time PM. There are entry barriers for a job and also I'm not acquaint with the professional side of the Product Management, wondering if there are any courses or resources which were helpful or even experiences who did the same. <comment><USER2> I'm not sure of any good courses. Getting an MBA is often helpful for getting into PM.

Here is a list of books I'd recommend:

Tuned In Joel on Software Don't Make Me Think The Lean Startup The Mythical Man Month The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO The Design of Everyday Things Escape Velocity Competition Demystified The Art of Agile Development</comment>


The first software patent ever granted - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/05/dayintech_0526 <comment><USER2> This isn't the first software patent it's "The First Pure Software Patent."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law)

</comment><comment><USER3> Strange, how the "rooting for the underdog" effect makes fighting for software patents a noble act of a single person versus the big ugly faceless judicial bodies.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, quite different than the impression given by the whole patent troll phenomenon.

Imagine if this under dog hadn't gone through so much trouble. The software landscape would be quite different now.</comment></comment>


Super Nintendo Game Bugs - <AUTHOR> https://byuu.net/game-bugs/snes <comment><USER2> One of my favorites was in Final Fantasy VI.

If you cast vanish on an enemy (especially Gabbldegak) then use Relm to sketch the vanished enemy, a number of things would happen.

Sometimes General Leo would join your team, your stats would get pumped massively, and you'd own something like 99 of hundreds of items. Unfortunately, a bunch of graphics could look wrong and your game could spontaneously freeze, or your game state would be erased entirely.

This bug actually played a role in me becoming interested in programming!

[https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Sketch_bug](https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Sketch_bug)</comment>


Google signs agreement with HTC - <AUTHOR> https://www.blog.google/topics/hardware/google-signs-agreement-htc-continuing-our-big-bet-hardware/ <comment><USER2> Important bit:

> That's why we've signed an agreement with HTC, a leader in consumer > electronics, that will fuel even more product innovation in the years ahead. > With this agreement, a team of HTC talent will join Google as part of the > hardware organization. These future fellow Googlers are amazing folks we've > already been working with closely on the Pixel smartphone line, and we're > excited to see what we can do together as one team. The deal also includes a > non-exclusive license for HTC intellectual property.

<comment><USER3> Please don't use code blocks for text quoting. They cause side scrolling which can be annoying in desktop browsers and nigh unreadable on mobile.

Common methods to quote text blocks on HN are to use a > prefix and/or asterisks to italicize the quoted text.

Edit: Thanks for updating!

<comment><USER2> Sorry - I used '>' first but instinctively changed it to a block since HN didn't actually format it any differently. (And I use a Chrome extension to restyle HN, so code blocks don't have the issues you described.)

<comment><USER4> I also find quoting on HN annoying when I need to do it. But it occurs to me that this may be (at least in part) a deliberate move to discourage quote- heavy styles of discussion, which are always tempting but would probably not be good for HN.

I'm thinking of this sort of thing, as found in the good ol' days on Usenet:

> > Sorry - I used '>' first

> You should have trusted your first instincts.

> > but instinctively changed it to a block

> So you tried the right thing and changed it to the wrong thing? What's wrong > with you?

> > since HN didn't actually format it any differently.

> You didn't request any formatting and you're surprised HN didn't give you > what you didn't ask for?

... and so on. (For the avoidance of doubt, the snarky tone of the above does not reflect my actual opinions. It's just what tends to happen in the comment- on-fragments kind of interaction, which is one reason why discouraging it here might be wise.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Random things that strike me about this deal:

\- HTC's stock price has been going down for the past 5 years, and EPS was down sharply recently. Does this make HTC more or less viable on its own going forward?

\- Apple finally made a VR push with the upcoming macOS High Sierra and iMac Pro—along with the HTC Vive. Google didn't fully acquire HTC here, and HTC's trajectory was already tied to Android, but still seems an interesting wrinkle there.

\- Samsung continues to hedge their bets, most recently with Bixby. Really wonder if Google's continued hardware investment will make them seek more of their own path.

\- Why would Google acquire just a team from HTC? Seems like the oddest of acquihires yet.

<comment><USER5> Apple has to push something new (but iOS apps with AR were there as late as around 2011) and major "next big thing" to play catching up. Apple as a creature is done. It is just following the phenomenon momentum founded by Jobs to maximize profit. Once the day it goes past the max profit tipping point, what is real will show up. Money is the quantitive fact that few would go against, once this fact changes, opinions will soon emerge. My personal thoughts.

<comment><USER6> Apple will bring out iVision or something like HoloLense/Google Glasses. Same story as like the iPod.

<comment><USER5> Hopefully so.

Apple under Jobs showed polished deliverables to customers. Without him, Apple demoed prototypes more, talked about plans and fields they worked on more and tried to pumped up confidence by giving out information more. It's been like this for a few years. Not a short time in the tech world.

They did regroup and formed a new foundation that is quite strong. Positioning at product and service for privacy alone has no competitors in the near future. And they have everything needed to make customers believe in them (on the other hand, do customers really have other quality and trustworthy alternatives?).

The best product after Jobs from Apple, to me, is AirPods. That's the only product makes me amazed and satisfied.

I'm actually a big fan of Apple's approach on making product and an iOS developer myself.

<comment><USER7> I really really had hoped that somehow, magically, Jobs' death wouldn't hurt Apple's trajectory, but things don't seem to be playing out that way.

<comment><USER8> Right. They only managed a pathetic trippling in market cap since he died and have only dominated a single new industry (they're now the biggest watch company in the world by revenue, just from watches). How disappointing.

<comment><USER7> Wasn't talking about financial trajectory.

<comment><USER8> Ok, what then, Technology? None of the other handset makers are even close. 3D face recognition, computational photography, augmented reality, health, CPUs, security, privacy,display and build quality, App ecosystem. They're ahead of the pack across the board. The new multitasking, drag-and-drop and inter-app communications stuff in iOS 11 is so far ahead of Android it's almost cheating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So this is like an acqui-hire except that the employees don't see any benefit from it except that they are now Google employees?

Meanwhile, HTC Executives pocket a huge wad of cash? Great.

<comment><USER10> Isn't that any acqui-hire? The people who do the work are traded like cattle and usually don't get anything out of it. Worse, sometimes they did have equity in the company, but that's now traded for equity in the new company, but with a reset on the vesting time period.

<comment><USER9> Not if you just say no to startup equity offers for less than 1% of the company, but sadly there's one born every millisecond...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> TL;DR, Google doesn't acquire HTC, they bought a team.

<comment><USER12> From the other side of the coin, HTC sold their "seed corn[1]." Without their (premier?) phone development team, did they sell off their path to regaining phone market share?

[1] [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/To+eat+the+seed+corn](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/To+eat+the+seed+corn)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So confused. So in essence, Google bought a team from HTC?

<comment><USER14> Yeah, from announcement of HTC to Taiwan's stock exchange,

Google buys HTC's Pixel team, license to HTC's IP, and a RF lab (Subsidiary of HTC) for 1.1 billion USD.

<comment><USER15> Where is the RF Lab announcement?

<comment><USER16> A simple Google search failed me, maybe I don't know what I am looking for, but now I am at the mercy of the internet when I ask...

What is a RF Lab?

<comment><USER14> It's a Lab for Testing about radio, something like TRP, TIS, LTE OTA test and so on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "It's still early days for Google's hardware business."

Why no mention of Motorola in 2011? Google bought it for $12.5B, and sold it 2014 for $3B.

I think it would have made the blog post better to give some explanation for why Things Are Different This Time.

<comment><USER18> Google bought Motorola patents that came with hardware businesses attached for defense purposes, not because they wanted in on the hardware business. This was after they found themselves unarmed during a thermonuclear patent war.

Google dropped the hardware businesses and kept the patents. The patent market was notably frothy at the time, and conventional wisdom then valued Motorola's patent chest at $4.0-4.5 billion (Apple + MS consortium bought the comparable Nortel trove for a price in that ballpark). If that value is correct, then Google made a profit on buying and selling Motorola (patents + Moto Home + Moto Mobile).

<comment><USER19> Typical forced intention after fact.

To say Google not interested in hardware when they purchased Motorola is plain baseless.

<comment><USER20> That is what all the coverage at the time pointed out.

They missed out on the Nortel patent portfolio earlier that year I think.

<comment><USER21> Coverage at the time, and since, in the apple-centric web focused on how Google tried to compete in hardware with Apple and failed and how they "lost" billions on the deal.

So that may be where this confusion arises.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> HTC's press release raises even more questions -- they claim they will continue to develop the next flagship phone?

> HTC will continue to have best-in-class engineering talent, which is > currently working on the next flagship phone, following the successful > launch of the HTC U11 earlier this year. HTC will also continue to build the > virtual reality ecosystem to grow its VIVE business, while investing in > other next-generation technologies, including the Internet of Things, > augmented reality and artificial intelligence.

[http://www.htc.com/us/about/newsroom/2017/2017-09-21-htc- goo...](http://www.htc.com/us/about/newsroom/2017/2017-09-21-htc-google/)

<comment><USER23> I read it as:

HTC will continue to develop HTC's next flagship phone.

Google will continue to use the HTC Pixel team they just brought to develop Google's next Pixel flagship phone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think this is great for HTC, HTC is really good on hardware, and are only really struggling with marketing their phones, partnering with Google is almost a no brainer

<comment><USER25> But Google is not good at marketing either :/

<comment><USER26> Google's strategy is to make something so good that they don't need to market it. This harkens back to when Google won search. I think they've done alright with this strategy, whereas whenever they try to 'go mainstream' with glitzy marketing and big vision (thinking of Google+ here) they usually botch it bigtime.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm very excited about google's future plans. Anyone else feel like this is their path towards competing with apple and samsung in the long run?

<comment><USER28> As long as you don't give a fuck to your privacy you should be very excited.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> So, a billion dollars for about a 100 engineers.

<comment><USER30> A lot cheaper than Instagram.

<comment><USER31> Or whatsapp. But then those were complete acquisitions

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Google has desperately needed its own hardware for several years now.

This is especially apparent this year. Just to name a few things:

\- Apple is much later to the AR game than Google, yet can push AR to ~200 million devices at the push of a button. Google has had Tango for a while now, and can only push it to a very small number of phones (compared to Apple's)

\- A11 bionic chip is so far ahead, it's not even funny anymore, _and_ is married to all other parts of the hardware and software. Google has nothing that's even close to this.

\- "Kinect-in-a-phone" sensor strip of iPhone X. Even if Google has the know- how, it can never provide the same features, because they don't have their own hardware.

"Owning the stack: The legal war to control the smartphone platform" by Arstechnica remains as relevant as ever, [https://arstechnica.com/tech- policy/2011/09/owning-the-stack...](https://arstechnica.com/tech- policy/2011/09/owning-the-stack-the-legal-war-for-control-of-the-smartphone- platform/)

<comment><USER33> Google's fundamental need is a coherent and competitive OEM ecosystem. It so happens that making hardware, like Microsoft makes Surface products, is one way to help that along. It used to be accepted wisdom that when a platform provider competes with their ecosystem partners, that's a bad thing. Now it's "complicated."

For example, let's suppose Android One takes off and all the cheaper-tier OEMs let Google handle the OS updates, and let's suppose that lights a fire under Samsung and other upper-tier OEMs to provide more-timely updates for longer. Does Google still need to make 3% of the hardware market share?

<comment><USER32> > Google's fundamental need is a coherent and competitive OEM ecosystem.

Nope, it doesn't. Because it means it has no means to control OS distribution, updates, and hardware improvements. Google is now entirely dependent on OEMs to deliver Google's software.

Let's say, Google comes up with a great new idea. A true competitor to Apple's AR (well, Google had it a year and half ago), Face ID, camera tech etc. Right now it may take anywhere from a year to five years to get this into the hands of consumers.

The only way to get anything coherent out of the Android ecosystem is to either impose extremely tight controls on major OEMs (Samsung will definitely not agree to that), or become an OEM.

<comment><USER33> They are working on it. Currently several OEMs including Moto, Xiaomi, and Sharp are making AndroidOne phones. Project Treble further streamlines both AndroidOne and every OEM's porting.

Absorbing significant market share from OEM partners isn't going to happen on the basis of a another couple of Pixel phones. It may come from rationalizing the platforms and porting requirements for Android.

<comment><USER32> > They are working on it.

The've been working on it for several years now. The result? Nothing is really happening.

Let's take AR as an example. Google had Tango ~1.5 years before Apple announced their AR. Tango had rationalisation and platform requirements for Android devices.

End result?

\- Tango was moving nowhere. There were ~0 devices supporting it.

\- Apple announces AR. It will be immediately available on ~200 million devices within a few months of iOS 11's release

\- Google scrambles to remove some of the requirements from Tango and launch it ... for the two top devices on the market only. Running Nougat and up. That is, ~14% of ~10% of the Android market.

And the same goes for any other initiative that Google may have in the Android space.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> No one else hears this and thinks vertically integrated monopoly? What if Google advantages their own hardware over competitors, which in turn will decrease market competition and hurt consumers

<comment><USER35> You mean, do what Apple does, what Samsung tried with Tizen, and what pretty much everyone has done for mobiles outside Android / Windows mobile ?

<comment><USER36> Even if it's common practice, it's still worth asking whether it's good for customers.

<comment><USER37> Given how horrible non-(Nexus|Pixel) phones have been, I'd consider this to be better in practice. I agree with you that in an ideal world, other Android device makers would be on a level playing field and not do a shit job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I was really hoping they would at least take the HTC distribution and servicing channels to sell pixel phones more widely instead of just a few countries like currently.

<comment><USER39> I'm not seeing anything on the blog that says the will or won't do that. So, I guess you can keep hoping, for now at least.

Edit: specifically, I don't see anything that indicates they won't distribute it more widely. Sorry for being unclear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> OT, but but I find really irksome Veep-type blog posts that jump indistinguishably between what 'I' did and what 'we' or 'our team' did, as if there's no difference.

</comment><comment><USER41> So is this an acquisition or a recruitment drive?

<comment><USER14> More leak from HTC's internal mail to Pixel team:

[https://i.imgur.com/krONzs1.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/krONzs1.jpg)

Rick Osterloh will come to Taiwan for detailing the next step to them.

<comment><USER42> doesn't HTC also have a US R&D division (most likely they do to work with North American carriers and Qualcomm).

Do you know what's happening to them?

<comment><USER14> No news about them currently.

The mail only says he will go to HTC's Taoyuan and Taipei office today. and almost all announcements specified the "Pixel team".

Maybe the team is located at the two office only.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> When any company gets large enough they become a repository of technical failures and an acquirer of the same.

Unfortunately that ultimately matters little to stock value and market share.

</comment><comment><USER44> I think Google wants the VR (HTV Vive) team.

<comment><USER45> It'd be great to have a trilateral collaboration between Valve, Google, and HTC on that. Google would have the mobile platform stake, Valve the high end stake, and HTC the hardware stake.

However, they bought an RF lab from HTC, so it's probably a mobile product, not the VR product.

<comment><USER46> The notion of such a collaboration sounds interesting. For most industries, it would healthier for consumers in the long run if the major stakeholders competed, rather than collaborated, at this early stage. But in the short term, it means framework fragmentation, publishing pains for indie app developers as the big guns vie for exclusive contracts. Not to mention potentially delaying technological progress in the space, what with all the R&D occurring within isolated silos keeping their trade secrets close to the vest.

<comment><USER45> > _For most industries, it would healthier for consumers in the long run if > the major stakeholders competed, rather than collaborated, at this early > stage._

For what it's worth, I figure they have lots of competition in terms of Samsung, Oculus, and Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> ads money will feed engineers - good news

</comment><comment><USER48> I did a literal spit take when I saw this. Are they doing this for phone production or for the Vive/VR?

<comment><USER49> It sounds like the HTC Pixel Team, minus the management people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Didn't quite work out for them last time… why will this be any different than Motorola?

<comment><USER33> For all the reasons: Did not double Google's headcount, did not cost over $10B, did not distract management, did not make Samsung queasy...

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Good news for HTC

</comment><comment><USER52> Is it me or do you also see another Motorola in making?

</comment><comment><USER53> Good win-win.

</comment><comment><USER54> more acquisitions

another nexus 7

god, i hope so.

<comment><USER4> You might want to make the last line "o god, i hope so" or "god, i do hope so" or "god, i hope it is" if you were aiming for five syllables there.

[EDITED to add:] Hmm, no, the last of those doesn't work. Maybe "god, I hope there is".

<comment><USER54> thanks. no more drunk haikuing for me

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Guaranteed in the top 10 on Google's internal Memegen: "WTF are you doing cat" gif.

</comment><comment><USER56> Google bought Motorola for $12.5 billion and sold it at a discount...Google just doesn't get user experience. Google bought so many user experience startups and yet they have nothing to show after so many years...

<comment><USER39> While I have complaints about Google, UX isn't one of them. I can't think of a Google product that is really all that unintuitive, undiscoverable, or difficult to use.

Am I missing something? I guess it can be rather subjective, but I don't have any complaints about UX or UI.

I should add that I've been told I'm too forgiving of bad design, so this is a legitimate question. I really don't see anything wrong with the UX from any of their products that are in common use.

I did have occasion to use one of their search appliances and the UX wasn't bad, but the results were pretty terrible. Terrible results might qualify as bad UX, I guess?

<comment><USER57> Try showing a senior how to use Gmail versus how to use Comcast or AOL. You'd be surprised how well the current generation of tech savvy folks are trained on Google's UI patterns... and how little sense they make for everyone else.

I've worked with a _lot_ of seniors with home computer help, and Google software is practically a non-starter.

<comment><USER58> What in particular?

My wife is happy enough with it. Sometimes, I hear her complaining about Gmail, that she can't add attachments. But otherwise, it seems to work for her.

We're both seniors, by the way :)

<comment><USER57> The two biggest issues I come across regularly is icons people don't understand the meaning of, and the fact that the UI changes frequently. I've found a lot of the people I work with learn how to do things, and then expect them to remain that way. Moving a button over two inches or putting it in a menu will send people calling me to come back because they don't know how to do something.

I have a lot of people literally ask me to repeat a process several times so they can write each step in doing things like attaching a file or forwarding an email down on paper. So when a button gets renamed or moved or even just has an icon instead of text, it throws people.

<comment><USER58> Thanks. I'll ask her about the icons issue. But she uses an Android phone, so enigmatic icons aren't unusual for her.

She does have that habit about writing each step, though. It frustrates me when I'm showing her how to do stuff. But it's not a new thing for her.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


HN: Does anyone have a clue... - <AUTHOR>

...how things get on the front page? <comment><USER2> You can read the source: <http://www.paulgraham.com/arc.html>

Or take a look at this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781013>

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting, but there are still a lot of opaque parameters there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This sounds an awful lot like you're trying to find the best way to spam us. Assuming you're not, here's the flippant answer: post something we'll all like. Heh! Seriously, though. I can't imagine that asking a question like this is ever fruitful.

Step back and think about what it is you are _really_ trying to accomplish. Do you want to, say, reach a highly technical audience with news of your product? Find somebody to work with? If you can pose a question like that, you're a lot more likely to get a useful answer.</comment>


Air pollution causes brain structure changes that resemble Alzheimer's disease - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/well/mind/air-pollution-brain-dementia-alzheimer-memory.html <comment><USER2> Related / same vein:

Broccoli sprout extract contains compounds which lead to the production of something called sulforaphane.

Sulforphane, a chemoprotective compound, has been shown to rapidly 'detoxify' the body of airborne pollutants and other carcinogens. [1,2,3]

Briefly:

>> _In this subgroup analysis, the increases in the excretion of the mercapturic acids of benzene, acrolein, and crotonaldehyde for the broccoli sprout versus placebo group were +54.7% (+27.2%, +88.1%), +21.7% (+1.8%, 45.5%), and +2.0% (−13.7%, +20.4%), respectively._

1 - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4125483/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4125483/)

2 - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276337/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276337/)

3 - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24287881](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24287881)

<comment><USER3> Out of curiosity, I looked into the best ways to get this sulforaphane. Studies have found that it forms after plant defense systems are triggered by damage(like an herbivore chewing), but cooking(including the blanching done to frozen foods) cuts off that process. Some studies show that cutting up fresh broccoli, then letting it sit 90 minutes before cooking would allow for greater levels[0], and another showed adding powdered mustard seed to heated broccoli also increases levels[1].

[0][https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b05913](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b05913) [1][https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23411305](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23411305)

<comment><USER4> This is why raw broccoli sprouts are gaining popularity - they can be added to smoothies easily and are relatively palatable.

<comment><USER2> Yep.

Get the Broccoli Sprout Extract in capsules from a vitamin provider you trust: It has the max percentage of the desirable compounds.

Anecdotally, if you open the bottle and it smells like slightly rotten eggs, you know it's good (this is a sulfur compound after all).

<comment><USER5> Wouldn't just eating them work better?

<comment><USER2> I would prefer this (pretty easy to grow I guess?).

The advantage of the extract is that it is concentrated, so 1 gelcap is equivalent to $X grams of raw material I would wager. Theoretically bioavailability may be a bit better too with the extract.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A few weeks ago there was another story about air pollution and cognitive decline that made it onto the frontpage. I noticed that most of the comments on that story were people discussing air filters, respirators, etc.

I wanna get ahead of that crowd this time and say: this doesn't make much sense as a problem for individuals to solve. We should instead be focused on measuring the problem (where is most of the pollution coming from) and passing legislation to drive it down.

Air pollution is localized and therefore easier to legislate around (because the people polluting and the people suffering are in the same legislature). Local and state-level laws can help here in a way that they can't for climate change (which requires more international coordination).

<comment><USER7> Meanwhile, you can get air filters, respirators, etc. which work today while legislation could be decades away.

<comment><USER8> And when there is no personal action in favor of a thing, consider how difficult it will be to pass legislation in favor of that thing?

Imagine if all EVs, all good hybrid cars (e.g. Toyota), all vegetarianism for environmental reasons, rooftop solar, and all other "individual actions" were eliminated and carbon emissions doubled, and nobody seemingly cared about climate change. Just _imagine_ how much harder it would be to get a carbon tax. The timeline would go from someday to never.

Just as a general statement, some of the people who tell you "oh no, don't engage in individual action!" aren't actually supportive of the legislative approaches they suggest. They are scared that people taking a visible, meaningful personal stand against something will move the needle in favor of changes they oppose, in ways that online statements can't. Not everyone for sure, but those people are there, pretending to be allies.

I've lived in 2 places with persistent (~365 days per year) bad air pollution (France and Taiwan), and 1 place with seasonal air pollution, and the idea of not taking individual action to protect myself is just stupid. I support legislative approaches where sensible (or even possible), but:

> Meanwhile, you can get air filters, respirators, etc. which work today

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "New York, I Love You But You're Bringing Me Down!"

</comment><comment><USER10> My aunt lived in a house for years which turned out to have a leaky gas pipe in the basement. Aside from the fire hazard, she had been breathing in gradually rising levels of fumes for many years. Recently she has been diagnosed with Alsheimer's. Is it possible that type of gas was a contributing factor?

</comment><comment><USER11> Anecdotally, during the Bay Area fires of 2018 when the air quality was the worse in the world, it truly felt like walking around in a half-functional dazed fog

</comment><comment><USER12> So does it make sense for people to spend more time indoors?

<comment><USER3> It makes more sense to eliminate air pollution.

<comment><USER13> Electric vehicles would eliminate a lot of noise pollution too.

As a city dweller there is nothing I long for more than complete electrification of all transport and the death of the ICE.

<comment><USER14> I'd love gasoline to go away too but most particulate would still be there in the switch because of brakes and tires:

[http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf](http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf) (2016) Study highlights:

* A positive relationship exists between vehicle weight and non-exhaust emissions.

* Electric vehicles are 24% heavier than their conventional counterparts.

* Electric vehicle PM emissions are comparable to those of conventional vehicles.

* Non-exhaust sources account for 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 from traffic.

* Future policy should focus on reducing vehicle weight

Part of this is that we already spent a lot of deliberate effort on reducing emissions from engines. As the study notes:

> Before the introduction of air quality standards, exhaust emissions used to > be a major source of PM, especially for diesel cars (Miguel et al., 1998). > Since then, PM emission standards for vehicle exhausts have become > increasingly strict and now all new diesel passenger cars are fitted with a > diesel particulate filter (DPF). Bergmann et al. (2009) found that DPFs are > very effective at reducing PM emissions, lowering the emitted mass of PM by > 99.3%

<comment><USER15> That paper has some flawed assumptions, I think. For one, they tie resuspension linearly to vehicle weight, but say that it's related to the vehicle's wake. It seems that they're confounded by the typical relationship of weight and size (therefore wake). But electric vehicles while heavier, are typically the same size as ICE vehicles. Thus they might break the assumption that greater weight means greater resuspension.

The paper says that resuspension is the largest part of non-emissions particulates, so we have lowered brake sources (because regen means less pad wear) and lower emissions, and probably not greater resuspension. Maybe tire wear is higher. Put those together and it seems like electric vehicles should come out ahead, particularly if we're talking about diesel vehicles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What is this, an article for ants?

<comment><USER16> I'm a serous note though, air pollution is a major problem in places like Lahore, Peshawar etc(Pakistan).

I wonder if the best approach to regulating pollution is go from regulation and policy change or try to come up with solutions (startups) that tackle the problem directly...

<comment><USER17> There's almost zero monetary incentives for any startups.

Product focused on indoor pollution - doesn't help that much as people still spend some time outside.

Product that "cleans" outdoor pollution - the only way to get money from that is to sell it directly to government (maybe local). Unless you develop something really groundbreaking it's cheaper to do regulation and policy changes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sample size is 998 and is only women.

The study: [https://academic.oup.com/brain/advance-article- abstract/doi/...](https://academic.oup.com/brain/advance-article- abstract/doi/10.1093/brain/awz348/5628036)

>"Evidence suggests exposure to particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <2.5 μm (PM2.5) may increase the risk for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Whether PM2.5 alters brain structure and accelerates the preclinical neuropsychological processes remains unknown. "

I'm sure air pollution is pretty bad for you but this seems statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Great headline for New Yorkers who need something else to be afraid of.

<comment><USER19> So you would think that men are imune to pollution.

<comment><USER20> Even if men were immune poisoning only half the population still seems like a bad idea.</comment></comment></comment>


Senate Passes Bill Creating 'Copyright Czar' - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/senate-passes-b.html

<comment><USER2> I nominate Lawrence Lessig. :-)

<comment><USER3> I nominate Richard Stallman.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why is there never a Czar of Making Stuff, only various forms of Czar of Restricting Stuff</comment>


Full-Stack Developers - <AUTHOR> http://bradfrost.com/blog/post/full-stack-developers/ <comment><USER2> Well... As a Full-Stack Developer; we fall into two camps.

1) We work for Companies that will never need you to come in and consult because any Full-Stack Developer worth his salt understand Design and Coding AKA. "full-Stack" providing the same expertise you sell.

2) we are Consultants/Founders that are self-sufficient working on our own businesses and/or making a living catering to the same companies you work with.</comment>


My 2017 Expenses – Need Suggestion/ Guidance/ Tips/ Advice to Improve Savings - <AUTHOR> https://imgur.com/a/CwUYX https://pastebin.com/1keqsjZF<p>1. Does your yearly expense also look similar? 2. Is there anything you do different than me which leads to lesser expense? 3. If your expense is less of more than please explain. <comment><USER2> I live somewhere else, so I spent closer to 6k on housing (a mortgage, in my case). Next year that will be zero, as it will have been paid off in full after about 3 years.

You spend more on uber & lyft than you do on fuel, which is an interesting data point.

What is stash? Savings? How about DCU?

Is comcast cable? Or just internet? If it's cable that's an easy thing to cut out.

I don't see much that is outrageous in this budget. A lot of it is obscured by names of businesses, like walmart.

I think I spend less across the board, except fuel. Counting planes, cabs, fuel, car, insurance, rentals, and possibly a car payment (DCU?), you spent a LOT on transportation. My expenses in that category this year were registration, insurance at about $400, fuel, and a few oil changes I did myself. I bought my car (1996 Jeep) outright several years ago.

The entire 2nd column is totally fine, I'd ignore that altogether.

If you want an easier-to-parse budget, I would do this:

Categorize everything, like this:

* Housing

* Car Ownership

* Other transportation

* Groceries

* Eating Out (subway etc)

* Entertainment (zoo, movies, etc)

* Essential Utilities (electric, internet imo)

* Non-essential Utilities (cable tv imo)

* Medical

Then look at those numbers. I think you'll find your car ownership column is too high, and the rest is probably within your limits. To make it less expensive, own an older vehicle without payments or don't own one at all if your city can support that.

You will almost certainly be able to save money in eating out and groceries, and non-essential utilities. I do not recommend saving money in recreational, you aren't overspending in that category imo.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for submitting this - it actually inspired me to compile numbers for my 2017. The results were scary.

* $22k on student loans (good expense, I'm done with them now)

* $29k on rent (studio in SF, moving in with roommate this month to cut expense in half)

* $11k on restaurants (holy shit)

* $4k on groceries (not bad, but coupled with restaurants is very bad)

* $3k on alcohol (holy shit)

* $5k on clothing (meh not the worst)

* $17k on car payments, gas, insurance, etc (got rid of car so no more of this. pro tip - don't sign 3 year leases and then move to SF)

* 2k on Uber/public transportation (uber pass ftw towards end of year)

Going forward, 2018 will be a VERY good year in comparison since I'll be able to cut out MOST of these costs. But it's still disgusting how much money I wasted last year.

<comment><USER4> > * $5k on clothing (meh not the worst)

What? Unless you were starting the year with almost no wardrobe (ex. after losing a ton of weight), it's a lot of money to spend on clothes. I'm consistently under $1k per year.

<comment><USER3> I lost over 50 pounds in the last 18 months, so very much the case. Plus a couple very expensive pieces that should last for life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This looks similar in terms of total spending to what I was doing on my own in a medium COL city out of college, but I'd strongly suggest you categorize things better so you can figure out where you spend your money. For example, you have Whole Foods, Aldi, Sprouts, Costco, HMart. Is that all grocery/pantry? What about Target, they also sell grocery, but could also be clothes along with JCPenny. You've got Tmobile and Republic wireless -- add that together for just Cell Phone. It's impossible to tell what your vacation costs were. I see some expedia, six flags citypass, and whatnot, but no direct hotel charges. Just drop that all into vacation and/or entertainment.

It's also hard to see if we're not familiar with what things are, like DCU? Is that a Credit Union for your savings account? Is that paying off student loans? What about STASH? Is that your drug budget?

Some things jump out at me though

State Farm = renter's insurance? That's fine. Your AAA is concerning though for Auto, $854 every 6 months. You can probably get that lower without cutting coverage unless $2K was paying off the balance of a brand new car and/or you're under 26. See about bundling the renters and auto and shop around for rates. Is that $750 car service plan really saving you more than $750 per year? If the 2K was a super cheap car lease, $750/yr maintenance should not be required.

You have a car but significant expenses on Uber/Lyft. Are those related to vacation travel? Or are they to get around while your car is in the shop? Or are they a designated driver for when you go out?

Where did the $800 in ATM withdraws go? That's over 2% of the spending.

So overall I'd suggest updating your spreadsheet to get some higher level categories. From there, see what jumps out at you to drill in to as something you can possibly cut. So long as you're happy with your savings rate you can actually spend money on things you want. If that's food, clothes, hobbies, toys whatever. It's your life so make sure you enjoy it.

</comment><comment><USER6> What is DCU? Also what is AAA? What is "car" \- is that car loan?

I see you have another entry for car service plan which looks expensive to me at $750. I pay around £220 a year for servicing and a similar amount for insurance - my car expenses - excluding petrol amount to around £70 a month. Your electricity bill looks high too - are you running an aircon? My electricity bill is around £240 a year or less. My rent is £6k a year (I share with partner - we have a two bed cottage in the countryside). Your Comcast bill (I assume for Internet) and T-mobile combined is nearly $1k - I pay around £300 a year for Land line, internet and mobile phone, but I have no smartphone / plan, just pay as you go and I only really use the mobile for emergencies.

It's possible if you could get into some kind of shared living arrangement you could reduce your housing costs. I'm thinking something along the lines of a shared house or shared apartment to get the rent down. I guess it depends though on exactly where you live - I know that California has crazy accommodation costs.

</comment><comment><USER7> One thing I saved a lot of money on last year was with farm CSA's, where you put upfront $500 or so and then receive a box of veggies and eggs every week for the entire season that works out to about $20/week (or $15/week depending on single person). This assumes there is some farming where you live but BC, Washington, Oregon, California all have these CSA schemes. Because I consistently had so much food around I stopped eating out so much as well. Before I did this I would usually stop by a grocery store on my way back from the university lab every night and spend about $10CAD, so $300/mth or so VS $80/month, for 5 months.

</comment><comment><USER8> I am the OP. (i lost that password somehow)

Some clarifications...

Annual Package - $105,000

Withholdings - $25,000 - (TAX+INSURANCE+ETC,.)

Expenses - $35,000

Savings - $45,000

DCU - Digital Credit Union - Auto Loan

AAA - Auto Insurance

Stash - [https://www.stashinvest.com/](https://www.stashinvest.com/) \- I did a investment of $1000 in some ETF's.

Comcast - Just internet.

Car Service Plan - I took a premium service which covers some expenses for 10 years. I agree i could have avoided it. It is a one time cost, not yearly.

Electricity - Sawnee - Yes we have a air conditioning unit for both cold and heat. 4 months a year have to use it full time other time we use it 3 hours a day.

I will check on the categorizing part.

<comment><USER9> > Annual Package - $105,000

> Expenses - $35,000

I wish I could say that, and I think I'm doing fairly well.

> Electricity - Sawnee - Yes we have a air conditioning unit for both cold and > heat.

You appear to live around Atlanta, correct? Your housing expenses seem to be good for the area (not SF-level outrageous).

And by "we", do you live with someone? SO? Roomie? Family? If they can cover some of the housing/utility bills, that's an easy win. (or has that already been factored in?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> 35k/yr sounds reasonable for a professional living a regular white-collar existence in a major US metro. Obviously you can cut out Uber and take the bus, cut out Whole Foods and shop exclusively at Wal Mart, cut out Six Flags trips, etc. and all of that's going to make a difference of about $1-2k/yr.

How's your salary? It's probably easier to increase your salary than it is to scrimp and save to get your expenses down a couple thousand.

</comment><comment><USER11> The Met Museum is "donation suggested", because the land was donated by the city on the condition they kept the entrance free for everyone... But they make it seem like the $20 fee is mandatory.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think you should x-post this to reddit.com/r/financialindependence/

<comment><USER13> Seconded. Also you might like YNAB.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A) You can do this more effectively if you group your expenses by what you bought rather than where you bought it. At WalMart, were you purchasing video games or necessary clothing or holiday gifts or groceries? At Whole Foods, were you buying prepared meals or rice and beans? And wtf are DCU or STASH?

B) The best way to cut your expenses is to start with the biggest ones. Where do you live? Your rent is pretty low for SF or NY but pretty high for just about anywhere in Kansas or India. You're spending a lot on various car- related expenses AND a bunch on cabs. Do you really need a car where you live? Can you get by with transit? Or with a bike and the occasional cab? If you are in a car-dependent location and happy with it, can you find a place with lower rent?

C) Figure out which of your expenses are fungible and which aren't. Medical expenses aren't so much. But you could probably spend less at restaurants if you tried, and less at supermarkets if you prepared more meals from scratch.

D) You don't show how much you're saving or really what you're spending on, so it's hard for me to determine whether you're being frugal or extravagant relative to your income. If you're not saving at all and want to increase your savings to a respectable 10%, you've got some work ahead of you in terms of how you think about money. If you're saving 48% of your income and want to inch that up to 50%, that's likely a much easier task. If you're trying to edge up from saving 80% to 82%, you may have run out of places to cut.

1) I've never broken down my expenses this way. See point A above. It's normal for housing to be your highest expense. It's normal in much of the US for transportation to be the next highest expense, followed by food. (Medical can be a crapshoot where it's an enormous expense or nearly nothing.) In other places it's typically in the order housing, food, transportation and virtually zero on medical.

2-3) I spend about 50% more on housing to have access to transit, and my annual transportation costs are less than one month's rent. I live in a relatively expensive location and spend only about 25% more than you per year - which allows me to save over 50% of my take-home pay. How do I do that? A few things:

a) Max out pre-tax savings accounts (401K [with employer match!], IRA).

b) Auto-transfer money from each paycheck into investment accounts so it's not available to spend.

c) For any purchase that you don't absolutely NEED to have immediately (and be strict with yourself about what that means), wait a week to buy it, then re- evaluate how much you really want it.

d) Set yourself budgets for various categories, and stick to them - a weekly budget for groceries, one for restaurants and entertainment, etc; a weekly or monthly budget for optional purchases (e.g. games, fancy soaps, whatever it is you tend to spend money on because you want it instead of need it). You can save this up and roll it over for larger purchases (e.g. new electronics). A monthly budget for utilities (so you can watch whether you really need to spend as much as you do on electricity, or data overages, or pay-per-view or whatever). An annual budget for vacations, one for gifts, etc.

And finally:

e) Let yourself splurge once in a while on something small that you want but don't need - an ice cream cone or a fidget spinner or whatever. It helps the strict management of your expenses continue to feel like a choice rather than a straitjacket.

<comment><USER8> Is it really wise to do 401k if my employer does not contribute anything to it?

<comment><USER15> Yes, but in that case max out your IRA first before contributing to the 401k.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, usually you have more control over IRA than 401K investments, and I think the penalties for withdrawal differ. Otherwise they're pretty similar.

The other benefit of the 401K is that the annual contribution limits are higher, so you can sock away MORE pre-tax than you can with the IRA.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The US Needs a Cybersecurity Civilian Corps - <AUTHOR> https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/10/us-needs-cybersecurity-civilian-corps/152311/ <comment><USER2> I've been thinking this for years. I have no idea where the western powers are going to find the number of skilled hackers they'll need to counter the state- run threats coming from China and Russia.

Unfortunately in the free market, the most skilled will aspire for the perfect balance of high pay and relaxed/flexible workplace. Neither of these would seem to be a good match for military/intelligence service jobs, with their "yessirs" and suits, so it seems to me the governments have a crisis on their hands.

The OP talks about volunteer services, which has crossed my mind also, because it would probably work in a national emergency situation, but by then it's almost certainly too late. The people with the required skills are going to be the slowest to get all patriotic. Not that they wouldn't, or couldn't, it's just that they're not likely to be the nationalistic type so it would take longer before they were convinced of the threat. And then by the time they'd been screened it may be too late.

The best analogue to this is Bletchley Park in Britain in WWII. And in that situation the country was already at war, so the best minds for the job could be pretty much told what to do (or else be sent to the front line). And even then, the people were by all accounts pretty difficult to manage.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just curious, do you think enough subject matter experts (e.g. Data Scientists, AI researches) would volunteer in the event of a national emergency or is patriotism not a viable motivator as the authors suggest?</comment></comment>


Novel Photocatalytic Pervious Composites for Removing Toxins from Water - <AUTHOR> https://www.googlesciencefair.com/projects/en/2015/cbacfa2d746a37bebf0bd34168c7b09def87d368f44f38b6f7be284e71106c28 <comment><AUTHOR> This supporting of curiosity, invention, creativity and science contrasts sharply with the recent sad story of the Texan teen Ahmed Mohamed. We need to embrace such creativity early and embrace it and nurture it within our society.</comment>


Should county clerks be forced to issue licenses for gay marriages - <AUTHOR> http://abovethelaw.com/2015/08/should-town-and-county-clerks-opposed-to-gay-marriage-be-required-to-issue-marriage-licenses-to-all-couples/

<comment><USER2> Of course they should, as the piece concludes. There is no acceptable reason for a government employee to ignore settled law and refuse to perform the functions of government due to religious belief. Fire them and hire people who will do their duty.</comment>