A Buddhist Approach to Consumption - <AUTHOR> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1588557 <comment><USER2> >>Back in 2015, I was invited to lead a mindfulness retreat in Ireland. Upon arriving in Dublin airport, I made my way to the immigration counter. Presenting my passport to the officer, he asked me whether this was my first trip to Ireland. 'Yes', I replied:

I love the irony of an author speaking about the Buddhist approach to consumption while engaging in the most consumptive act imaginable: international flights to a meditation retreat. We need to get consumption under control. We need to reduce not only our carbon footprints but our overall impact on the natural world. Buddhism, or any other approach, isn't useful if it promotes excess. Flying to Ireland to discuss philosophy, or to indulge in a better or more pure mode of eating, is exactly the type of excessive consumption we need to curtail.

>> In the photos taken during our day at Universal Studios,

>> In October 2015, I was walking around in New York City.

>> It reminded me of a talk our teacher gave when we were travelling in China

We get it. You like to travel and have the time+money to do it. What does Buddhism say about boasting?

<comment><USER3> It's not altogether unsurprising though. Most religions tend to align themselves with the notion that "being a good person" is the same as "developing your _public status_ as a good person", (in that the mechanisms they'll employ for self-correction don't make any distinction between the two) and westerners looking to ancient eastern philosophy for answers have always played right into that game.

Alternatively, every good idea that came from Buddhism doesn't need to be a Buddhist idea to be a good idea, so there's no point in selling good ideas using Buddhism unless you're trying to promote the bad ideas as well. Good ideas stand on their quality of impact, not on the quality of their source.

<comment><USER4> The concept of public prayer (what you referred to as providing _status_ ) versus private prayer (the opposite) emerged fairly early in Judaism and was inherited by the other Abrahamic religions. It is alluded to and mentioned outright several times in almost all the holy books and oral tradition (if applicable). I don't think it's a problem with the religions themselves, although possibly with religious education.

I also find that in the West, most people go about religion by finding that which fits the lifestyle they already have. Very few are willing to sacrifice anything meaningful or make serious changes to fit a religion's teachings. It is much easier for them to find the sect of X religion that also allows them to Y and Z.

<comment><USER3> The reason I am willing to attribute it directly to religion is because there's a kind of 'natural selection' that goes on with regards to people's religious attention such that those who practice their religion exclusively in private end up being those that practice dying religions (as they can't effectively compete for mindshare against those that proselytize.) Obviously that's only an approximation, but even so it is a pretty good one, as it is not a coincidence that the spread of specific religions correlates with promotion of public religious practice.

Most religions will associate the promotion of their religion as a good deed, and they are willing to overlook many bad deeds that lead to it for those reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617311769)

It is a review of work in mindfulness and consumption. It is slightly deeper (but also academic).

</comment><comment><USER6> Gautama Buddha was born Hindu, a lot of these approaches to Buddhism were taken from Hinduism, the Gita etc

</comment><comment><USER7> Surprised that this is ranked so high with a paywall. Is there an easy way to access the article?

<comment><USER8> Maybe someone will copy and paste it for us

<comment><USER9> [https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1588557](https://sci- hub.tw/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1588557)

<comment><USER8> Thanks!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Spotting vaporware: three follies of would-be technologists - <AUTHOR> http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/spotting-vaporware-three-follies-of-would-be-technologists/ <comment><USER2> I've been looking for this article to come into existence for many years now. Puts so many of my complaints about science (from being in the trenches) to eloquence.</comment>


Apple countersues Nokia for patent infringement - <AUTHOR> http://www.edibleapple.com/apple-countersues-nokia-for-patent-infringement/

<comment><USER2> It looks like Apple's patent's are primarily UI/software related, which in the worst case are relatively easy to workaround.

Nokia's patent's on the other hand are related to wireless technology which are not easily workaround-able, so IMO if this goes towards settlement Nokia has a much stronger hand.</comment>


Ketamine lifts depression via a byproduct of its metabolism - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160504141131.htm <comment><USER2> S-Ketamine injected through the ear drum, into the middle ear, is currently undergoing phase III trials as a treatment for noise or infection induced tinnitus.

Chronic tinnitus is currently a condition which if one were to go to the doctor and ask for a cure one would be told to get used to it as there is not much that can be done.

The pace of medical and biotech advancement is increasing as the FDA has relaxed a bit and better understanding of human biology is creating cures for what once were incurable diseases. Exciting times, but not fast enough for me.

The most interesting question for me these days: How can we 10x the number of dollars and scientists engaged in medical research, and then 10x that?

<comment><USER3> Dammit, I got my hopes up... :(

"The treatment, delivered directly into the inner ear via three injections over three days, must catch the disorder while the problem is still within the ear, before the brain has begun overcompensating for the loss of hearing. Once that happens, no amount of adjustment to the receptors on the auditory nerves will do any good.

Because it is not known when that transition from ear to brain occurs, one of the current trials, of 300 European patients, is specifically testing tinnitus sufferers who have developed the condition no more than three months prior to treatment. The other, a study of 330 North American patients, is investigating a therapy within one year post-trauma. Preliminary results suggest that S-ketamine is effective beyond three months, but declines in effectiveness within a year of the initial trauma, so later stages of the trial are being refocused on the four- to six-month time frame. The trials will be completed at the end of this year, and Auris hopes to submit to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval in the summer of 2016."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wish there was a good program advocating the effectiveness of Electroconvulsive therapy (and maybe some studies around harmful effects on long term usage). I've taken basically every drug on the spectrum (benzos, SSRIs, et.al.) for most of my life since I was a teenager and nothing helped as much as ECT.

<comment><USER5> Bit tangential but I think this can be informative for some sufferers - I've been taking zoloft for a few years now as I have (or had I should say) panic/anxiety attacks and co-morbid depression which went untreated for decades ... I inquired from my doctor about ECT, and although ECT is the cadillac of treatments, in some patients that it has not worked, to my great surprise, nicotine has had a really great effect on reducing or eliminating depression.

I'm not advocating taking up smoking, although it is something worthwhile to consider if things like ECT don't help. There's probably ways nicotine can be therapeutically administered without the negative side-effects of burning tobacco.

<comment><USER6> There is, unfortunately, a social stigma associated with the non-tobacco- smoking form of nicotine ingestion and the components to those devices (e-cigarettes) are not regulated enough for us to be fully sure of their effects.

<comment><USER7> You mean batteries and heating elements? No, to be less obtuse, I must infer: Clearly you mean the fluids.

Let me get this straight...you are actually claiming that regulation increases knowledge? The mind boggles.

That is a shocking and novel epistemological formula - although obviously it has been the implicit subtext of public education in the u.s. for over a century.

<comment><USER6> No, I'm talking about the heating elements.

'Our results demonstrate that overall electronic cigarettes seem to be less harmful than regular cigarettes, but their elevated content of toxic metals such as nickel and chromium do raise concerns," said Constantinos Sioutas, professor at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering, and corresponding author of the study, which was published online on August 22 by the Journal of Environmental Science, Processes and Impacts.

The metal particles likely come from the cartridge of the e-cigarette devices themselves - which opens up the possibility that better manufacturing standards for the devices could reduce the quantity of metals in the smoke," said Arian Saffari, a PhD student at USC Viterbi and lead author of the paper. "Studies of this kind are necessary for implementing effective regulatory measures. E-cigarettes are so new, there just isn't much research available on them yet.'

[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-08/uosc- ses08281...](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-08/uosc- ses082814.php)

But now that you mention it, the vapor does emit alarming levels of formaldehyde when the devices are used at high voltage:

[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069)

<comment><USER8> The methodology of that NEJM study was flawed and naive, at best. Look into it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash The recent emergence of studies suggesting psychedelics as a novel means of treating depression and other mental illnesses is a double-edged blade: the sheer capability of drugs like LSD and psilocybin and ketamine to hard-reset the brain's pathways is a huge leap from the accepted style of treatment that often boils down to "Take these pills, check in each week, maybe you'll feel better in a month or two."

However, it also gives people the false impression that all they need to do is chew on some shrooms and listen to the Grateful Dead for a couple of hours and suddenly they will be free of all addiction and depression forever.

Every time a study like this comes out there is a predictable pattern in patients' depression scores: immediately after psychedelic treatment, depression signs plunge, wade around the low end for a while, then steadily creep back up.

With the exception of people whose brains simply do not work as they should (I have a friend who is chronically depressed because his body can't produce enough serotonin even with antidepressants), depression is often as influenced by external factors as internal ones. A spectacular drug trip won't change the reality of having a death in the family, not being able to find a job after being laid off at 45, or simply the stress of the modern, always-on world.

Discoveries like these are always helpful towards understanding the brain and how to formulate effective treatment, but in the end, mental health will always be vastly more complex and harder to cure than any physical ailment. There will never be anything close to an ibuprofen for the brain.

<comment><USER9> #1) The serotonin theory of depression has seen way better days. There's simply no way you (or anyone) can say with such reductive certainty that your friend is "not producing enough serotonin"

[http://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/the-chemical- imbalance...](http://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/the-chemical-imbalance- myth)

#2) The novel method of ketamine doesn't really appear to be related to the psychedelic trip itself -- indeed many people are using regular sub-threshold doses of ketamine in their self-designed regimens and seem to be getting good results. LSD and psilocybin treatment seems to be mostly about insights gained during the experience -- much like a supercharged therapy session. Ketamine on the other hand, appears to have some sort of mode of action that isn't about insight and is more about a "brain reset" of sorts.

#3) I do agree with you that mental health issues defy reductivity simply because they encompass biological, psychological, and sociological systems that all interact.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash All good points, although I would supplement that "microdosing" tiny amounts of powerful hallucinogens (with doses so low that psychoactive effects can barely be registered) has also gained traction in recent years. Proponents of microdosing argue that taking 1/20th of a tab of acid every few days allows them to remain productive while under the influence, and that the effects are more positive and profound than they have experienced with traditional antidepressants. It's no silver bullet but it is an option that merits further study.

[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-brief-history-of- microdos...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-brief-history-of-microdosing)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > How can we 10x the number of dollars and scientists engaged in medical > research, and then 10x that?

Have you considered multiplying by 100? Note that the preceding sentence also has the advantage of having a real actual verb in it.

Though I suppose it's pointless to rail against insufferable tech buzzword- speak, or typical valley-style nonsensical 10x statements at this point. Oh well.

<comment><USER2> Exponential growth doesn't happen in one discrete operation, friend.

Here's some more interesting info about the trials for s-ketamine as a tinnitus treatment.

The vision for the company that is trying to bring intratympanic s-ketamine to market as a tinnitus treatment was very interesting to me.

The founder was looking for new uses for drugs that are currently approved and with long safety records, that could be tested on animals.

I thought it was interesting criteria for a low-hanging fruit search of the problem space in medicine, considering regulatory realities as well as financial ones.

<comment><USER10> > Exponential growth doesn't happen in one discrete operation, friend.

Correct. In fact, it simply doesn't happen at all in a category like medical research spending.

Even if it did it's not likely the returns to that spending would grow exponentially.

But to humor you, by what mechanism do you think medical spending in the U.S. will grow from its current $95bn per year amount to $9.5 trillion?

Is your assumption that basic medical research will grow to consume 57% of the country's GDP, or do you anticipate growing the size of our nation's economy by approximately 50% to accomplish this feat?

Assuming you've got that sorted, who do you think should get the $9.4 trillion dollars in additional medical research spending you propose?

<comment><USER2> Sounds fanciful, right? Only if you impose the constraint of this being an effort by ~4% of the human population, the population of the United States.

The U.S once spent 75% of global research dollars, it's share has now dropped to below 50% as Asia has come online in this sphere.

If current spending is just 95 billion in the US, that has been quite a drop from previous years, but for a thought experiment, if US level research spending was the same per capita for the rest of the 96% of the human population, we would be somewhere around 2.3 Trillion globally.

There are billions of people outside the U.S, some with minds as sharp as WSU's Joe Harding, who as of right now are left out. But where do we find the money to lift them out of poverty?

One answer, we discover cures for some really expensive ailments, like diabetes, heart and respiratory disease.

What is the cost of disease? It is terrible. With an aging population, it has the capacity to ruin developed nations.

While we tinker around the edges, and manage chronic disease like diabetes with insulin, or Parkinson's with carbidopa, we spend large fortunes and get poor outcomes.

SENS is moving in the right direction. We need the ability to repair ourselves at the cellular level, and we are making progress in this regard.

What is the prize of discovering how to repair the inner workings of the molecular machinery that make us up?

> First, Non communicable diseases already pose a substantial economic burden > and this burden will evolve into a staggering one over the next two decades. > For example, with respect to cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory > disease, cancer, diabetes and mental health, the macroeconomic simulations > suggest a cumulative output loss of US$ 47 trillion over the next two > decades. This loss represents 75% of global GDP in 2010 (US$ 63 trillion). > It also represents enough money to eradicate two dollar-a-day poverty among > the 2.5 billion people in that state for more than half a century. [1]

So yes, $9.4 trillion is a good global goal, but I believe there is opportunity for tremendous cost savings.

Open source drug discovery, open source cancer treatment, that is what I am interested in these day. I would like to see an army of pro-amateurs collaborating online and performing experiments on mice in their garage, a hacker movement for biotech.

We are on the cusp of fantastic gains in health and longevity. We have only just begun to understand the molecular processes that age us and make us sick. Lets pick up the pace.

[1] [http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Harvard_HE_GlobalEconomicBu...](http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Harvard_HE_GlobalEconomicBurdenNonCommunicableDiseases_2011.pdf)

And PS:

I checked out your page, you did some work for my favorite band, The Hold Steady. Awesome :)

<comment><USER11> Thank you so much for taking the time to give a level-headed response to GP. While many seem to disapprove of their tone, I actually found GP's questions to be rather good ones, and was wondering the same things myself. And as I keep reading, rather than the usual name-calling I've come to expect from Web fora, I see nothing but very good, detailed answers in reply. Thank you for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> OK, I've been skeptical in the past about studies suggesting drugs like ketamine and MDMA could be used to treat depression. Ketamine especially would not be a good anti-depressant pill, because it is highly addictive, not to mention you're giving a _depressant_ to a depressed person.

However, this result is promising. This study has claimed to have isolated the anti-depressant effect to a particular product of ketamine metabolism, and that this compound contains none of the anesthetic and addictive properties. Obviously, this is just a single study, performed on mice, but it is a promising first step towards the potential development of a new anti- depressant.

<comment><USER13> " _not to mention you 're giving a _depressant_ to a depressed person_"

Heh, these concepts are unrelated to the point that this statement could make a decent joke. As a rough example, it's on the level of "not to mention that you're installing a clock application on a computer that's _already overclocked_ ".

<comment><USER14> Love the example. In reminded of snopes' take on the "the car called Nova failed to sell in Mexico because 'no va' means 'it doesn't go' in Spanish" myth. Their example was of Americans not wanting to buy a car called "Notable" because it had no table.

<comment><USER15> Or was "not able".</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Top Github Languages for 2013 (so far) - <AUTHOR> http://adambard.com/blog/top-github-languages-for-2013-so-far/

<comment><USER2> _Prolog is a big surprise here. If anyone can explain that, I 'd be interested_

I'd just about be willing to bet money that it's just bad data. Github try to autodetect the primary language for repos, and their detection isn't always right. In fact, I've found it to be wrong quite often. I'm guessing they have tagged more than a few repos as "prolog" that aren't really prolog at all.

Personally, I really think they should let the repo owner configure this, or at least let them override the auto-detected value if it's wrong. But so far, there doesn't seem to be any way to do that (at least not that I've found).

</comment><comment><USER3> It's interesting to see Fantom and Awk tied for second-to-last place. Strange bedfellows!

It's also interesting, to me at least, to see Nimrod and Ceylon with similar numbers of repositories. I've seen Nimrod linked to and mentioned here a number of times. I don't think i've ever seen Ceylon mentioned. I find Ceylon very interesting, because it's an attempt to build a Java successor without falling into the kitchen sink of madness that Scala has.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm surprised Ruby is the #2 language. Because, frankly, Ruby sucks [1] [2].

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5157886](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5157886)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5872899](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5872899)

<comment><USER5> How are those two links related to "ruby sucks as a language". I tried tons of languages, from php to js, obj-c, clojure, golang, java, scala, python and coffeescript (not really a lang tho :)). Ruby is without doubt one of the best designed languages. The syntax might not be the right thing for everyone (I don't like python's for instance), but the language itself is really well designed to be as natural and less surprising as possible for developers. OOP wise it's a pleasure to work with. PHP is basically the opposite.

In general on the topic: Major reasons why Ruby and JS lead the whole thing is that a) the communities are extremely huge and active (in open source) and b) smaller modules/gems are preferred over huge frameworks (yes rails is huge, but it's actually a set of other gems - sort of). And since the author sorted by the amount of projects and not the lines of code, JS leads the list due to a ton of small modules (e.g. for node.js or component).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This reminds me of the TIOBE Programming Community Index[1]. It will be interesting to have a new datapoint to reference.

[1] [http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index....](http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html)</comment>


Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/bloomberg-bankrolls-a-social-media-army-to-push-message-11582127768 <comment><USER2> Why is it healthy for American democracy to have an oligarch purchase the U.S. Presidency like a shiny, new yacht?

<comment><USER3> George Washington lost his first campaign to the Virginia House of Burgess in 1755, 271-40.

When he ran again 3 years later he gave away 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and two gallons of cider royal — "nearly enough for a half-gallon per voter." And guess what, he won.

Considering we wouldn't even declare independence until 18 years later, it's safe to say that buying influence in an election has been American since the beginning, and even before.

[1] [https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12384/swilling- planters-...](https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12384/swilling-planters- bumbo-how-george-washington-won-votes-campaign-ads)

<comment><USER4> On the other hand, the Rockefeller family had a very long record of spending enormous sums on elections, whether by running themselves, or through an own candidate, and loosing every single time.

It will be a good read for everybody deifying "a realpolitik grandmaster" Henry Kissinger how badly he failed in the role of Rockefeller's political adviser. His ineptitude in politics was borderline tragicomedic. This the best proof to me that a "professional politician" is really an oxymoron.

The rich are bad at politics more often than not, and their money can compensate for that only partially.

Georgie Washington was however a spectacular politician on his own, without a doubt.

<comment><USER5> Sorry, there's been at least one successful Rockefeller.

Win Rockefeller was elected, and very popular.

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

<comment><USER6> Nelson Rockefeller was also Governor of New York from 1959-1973.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd respect the hell out of Bloomberg if he came out and said "damn right I'm buying this election...because the rules are that messed up" followed by a comprehensive plan to forever get money out of our elections.

<comment><USER8> There is a candidate saying the rules are messed up, but its not Bloomberg, its Sanders.

Bloomberg is the guy the rules were written to benefit. He doesn't want them changed.

That's why he chose to run against Sanders, when it appeared Sanders could win.

<comment><USER9> Exactly. Bernie is the only candidate I know of who is a fan of getting the big money out of politics and has been fighting on that platform for years:

[https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-out-of- politics/](https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-out-of-politics/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is the game that is being played : [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-202...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation- war/605530/) (The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President). The article is a little biased, but shows the sophistication required to play.

To bring a contrarian pt of view: If you are a billionaire and you ask for donations, people might say, "Why are you asking us for money, why don't use your own?"

</comment><comment><USER11> So he's hiring a bunch of barely-over minimum wage workers to spread his message... and? What do you think the other politicians are doing with the millions they raise? This isn't a story.

<comment><USER12> He'll be on the debate stage tonight as a legitimized candidate -- having not participated in the competitive process at all, and without a single donor (doesn't need 'em), and levering his billions to flood media.

It's a rather disgusting story, actually.

<comment><USER13> You know, I strongly disagree with Bloomberg, having lived through his reign of terror in NYC personally. But I just don't see the point in focusing on this kind of attack.

The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal frameworks established by folks like him.

Sure, there's the huge personality flaws that Bloomberg displays by taking this strategy, but those don't seem to be of major concern to most American voters. Our current president is a daily salient reminder of this fact.

If we want to focus on Bloomberg's personality, why not start with all the horrific policies he enacted as mayor? There are far more visible character flaws in those decisions than this decision to buy his way towards the Democratic party.

If you supported his policies, after all, you'd have no problem with this strategy being undertaken - right?

<comment><USER14> "The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal frameworks established by folks like him."

So what though? What point is this rebutting? If a process is crooked and disgusting then damn straight you're gonna have people complaining about it and demanding they do better, as you see here.

<comment><USER13> My point is rebutting the point made by the poster before me, who said there was a real story here.

I disagree. This is somewhat par for the course. For many people, this could be the first time they experience the disappointment of how corrupt folks like Bloomberg operate within the political sphere. However, these people would be incorrect to chalk this up as historically or even politically noteworthy, for many of us this is rather unsurprising and the story has already been told many times. Why rehash these tired tropes when Bloomberg presents so many new, unique, and significant issues that we now must address?

<comment><USER14> That the process is crooked and disgusting is absolutely the realest story that there is here. Again, I don't understand your point. You're just being dismissive and accepting of a bad status quo for no reason other than that you (but not others!) are resigned to it.

In other words, just because you don't care doesn't mean that others don't. And the news isn't writing stories catering to solely your interests; there's millions of other readers to consider.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wonder if the entire race could be won by offering an incentive of sorts. Say a $50 Amazon gift card for every (new) voter who sends a pic of their vote receipt or something... Granted its a lot of money, but so is gifting billions to the media conglomerates for more (useless) ads...

<comment><USER16> Secret ballots prevent that kind of attack. Everywhere I have voted in the US, at least, doesn't include ballot selections on the receipt.

<comment><USER17> I saw someone recording a video of themselves selecting the choices on the voting kiosk. No one is going to stop you from doing that, nor would it be practical to try.

<comment><USER18> Pretty sure that is illegal, wouldn't be a major complication to add a metal detector outside voting booths.

<comment><USER17> That would be considered voter suppression by lots of people. Also very expensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> [https://archive.md/MCRbf](https://archive.md/MCRbf)

</comment><comment><USER20> Are they requiring them to #ad the posts?

<comment><USER21> This is a really good question and I'd like to see some fines dished out if they're not.

<comment><USER22> I wouldn't. there's no reason anyone should have to disclose if something is an ad.

<comment><USER23> FTC, for a start. Political ads have more scrutiny as well, though I don't know the details.

[https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press- releases/2019/11/ftc-r...](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press- releases/2019/11/ftc-releases-advertising-disclosures-guidance-online- influencers)

<comment><USER20> This is way more stringent than I realized (especially the buried in hashtags part) although the example at the end of doing #BrandNamePartner seems like it could be used disingenuously, like would #TeamMike satisfy the FTC requirements?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What a fascinating choice between two New York billionaires. A populist carnival barker vs. a man who built his own personal tech/media empire.

I'd bet dollars to donuts Mike's got a tech team in place right now that is running rings around the DNC's haphazard patronage party.

<comment><USER25> Also a supposed Democrat that run as a Republican and Republican that's running as a Democrat.

<comment><USER26> Bernie -- an Independent running as a Democrat.

Trump - a former Democrat, now the Republican president

Bloomberg - a former Republican, turned Independent, now running as a Democrat

Parties used to have the power, but now it seems like popular politicians are picking the party they think provides them with the easiest path to power, realigning their policy views accordingly.

<comment><USER27> Bernie's "independent" label means very little. Look at how he votes. He's a Democrat. It's a weird attempted knock against him considering how consistent he's always been.

<comment><USER28> Bernie tried to primary Obama...he's independent

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Paid shills tend to have a strange effect where they polarize people in the other direction than intended since their arguments are not always well founded and honest, and they will always suffer from some form of groupthink. It's a slingshot effect--at first people fall for the farce, but soon they realize they have been mislead. It could even spoil the election and get some to vote in the opposite direction.

I think it's also pretty easy to spot these days and we're armed much better to fight it at the platform-level.

I don't think this will end well for Bloomberg, he has a long way to climb, and his name is literally associated with big money. He may have already reached saturation, and this is a dying move.

<comment><USER30> There's a lot of engagement on some issue or other, such as this one of how easy it is to spot paid shills and then while making a pretty reasonable point about it stating something very contentious as fact. Just like we see from Bernie and his total commitment to call communism by another name.

And that last bit is 1% of the interest and is tangentially related so it doesn't totally jar. Look out for it. You get the same ones repeated again and again like that. It may be totally organic too because Assange is a narcisist rapist who is lying about being afraid of being extradited to the USA so lots of people have said so. Keep repeating and it becomes fact undermines anyone with a different point of view. Full disclosure I am not an Assange supporter nor a Bloomberg or Bernie supporter.

Paid shills are actually really hard to spot. I strongly suspect most of what jars as paid shills aren't paid.

<comment><USER29> Yeah I think you have to stem the tide to avoiding the "unpaid" shills. I've even seen people who shill in one direction just to be accepted by a community so they can troll them.

I hypothesize you could detect this type of stuff using semantic analysis of text if you check word order and frequency (or go ML with fastText or w/e) you could get maybe 90% accuracy at determining whether someone _isn 't_ a shill. There needs to be an investigative process which humans undergo after this. Then some form of identification would be required before any sort of ban (ideally you tell them, this only stops the false positives from rejoining) can be lifted, just incase any local laws are broken.

The shills all have some source material, so they should be closer to it language-wise than those that they teach/brainwash.

But hey, I wish I was paid to shill against other shills and detect them, it would be an interesting job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> A populist President can be mitigated by Congress if they choose to act and also take back some of the executive powers they gave the President.

<comment><USER32> Congress doesn't give the President anything except money. Executive powers come from the Constitution, not Congress.

To put it simply: the President does not serve at the pleasure of Congress.

<comment><USER31> Yes the executive powers in the Constitution are obviously not governed by Congress but Congress has indeed delegated some their responsibilities to the President. These, known as the emergency powers, are what I am referring to.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/preside...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential- emergency-powers/576418/)

<comment><USER32> That's all well and good, but those are powers that have never been used since they've been granted, and that article is just a bunch of "Trump is so scary, look at all this stuff he could do!" tripe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I don't even.. wow..

Talk about buying the election.

Are anyone going to be fooled by this?

Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting?

<comment> user00012-ab Yes, 90% of the population is fooled by this.

<comment><USER34> Is this based on facts or just your opinion? I'm willing to bet 90% of the population isn't fooled by it.

<comment><USER35> Do you think advertising is ineffective?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It may be an unpopular opinion, but I am ok with Bloomberg spending some of his money. Granted, 300MM to him like approximately $20 to me, but still..

Do not misunderstand me. His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly. That said, I am perfectly fine with him finally spending at least some of his vast fortune instead of hoarding it like a dragon.

Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate.

<comment><USER37> Surprised to see such naive takes on HN. Wealthy people don't "hoard wealth like a dragon". It's invested in companies that translate to products, services, and jobs.

<comment><USER36> Companies are assets and as such they are still part of his wealth. It is not like I said he sleeps on gold coins in a vault.

No need to get literal.

<comment><USER37> Money sitting in a vault and money invested in companies that employ people and produce value for society could not be more different.

<comment><USER38> Not to be too negative, but

>money invested in companies

does not equal

>produce value for society

Necessarily. Those two things CAN be the same, but aren't necessarily the same.

<comment><USER37> Needlessly pedantic. If companies are profitable, they provide some sort of value even if you don't think so. Much more than people sucking up welfare benefits and not giving back, at least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't like this idea of buying elections. But at the very least, I'm happy to see the Democratic machine upside-down, with all of the designated incumbent royalty falling behind the outsiders.

<comment><USER40> I appreciate the sentiment, but for those of us who have been negatively impacted by the policies of the current administration, it is worrying that a candidate with broad appeal has failed to materialize at this point.

<comment><USER41> The candidate with broad appeal is Bernie Sanders.

<comment><USER42> Broad appeal _among democrats_ , but the candidate with the best chances in the national election is not the center Democrat, it's the center American, which if you imagine Democrats and Republicans being two ranges butted up against the center, is the rightmost Democrat!

<comment><USER43> I don't believe republicans or "independent" voters will ever actually cross the aisle anymore. Trump still has massive MASSIVE support from registered republicans.

<comment><USER40> Less than a third of Americans identify as republican.

<comment><USER43> And that third gives Trump something like a 90% approval rating. My base assumption is that in order to win them over, you'd have to significantly match up with their world view. A significant part of their world view seems to be that "Democrat = bad" so that's kind of a non-starter, and I'm not sure I'd want someone elected who has compromised their platform, morals, principles, etc enough to be liked by people who still support Trump.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Shilling on social media appeared overnight. Literally a switch was turned on and suddenly hundreds of "totally organic" posts about Bloomberg are popping up everywhere mimicking local forum/board subcultures. Many of the people seem to be posting somewhat ironically, though it seems his campaign has attempted to embrace the same style of "no press is bad press" attention that undoubtedly contributed to Trump's election.

It's pretty gross to watch someone literally buy an election. I hope he fails. But there's a good chance he'll get far, because though he is running as a Democrat, many of his past statements regarding women, minorities, and stop and frisk appeal to the non-PC Republican sentiment that worked in the last election. And you can count on the fact that the average person won't understand that none of this buzz is organic.

<comment><USER45> I see this also for Bernie, in odd locations. I've been playing Warcraft 3 reforged lately, and the general chat that shows up on the main menu in-game has been all kinds of people extolling the values of Bernie Sanders.

Of course, it could be grassroots. I just doubt it.

<comment><USER46> I am paid to shill in warcraft 3 general chat. I can vouch for this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> He's just protecting his fortune against Bernie. Spend a billion, keep the remaining 39. Good deal. He will lose even if he does get nominated, and he's OK with that. This is a page directly from Trump's playbook: Trump routinely puts himself into situations where there are several ways for him to win and no way to really lose.

</comment><comment><USER48> Why doesn't he just buy Fox News?

<comment><USER49> ...it's not for sale? Never really understood this line of attack.

<comment><USER48> It was a serious question where I don't know the answer... Shares are publicly traded at NASDAQ. The Murdoch family seems to hold 39% (of the shares with voting power?) according to Wikipedia... Not sure how feasible it would be to buy enough of the rest if money wasn't an issue?

<comment><USER50> That would require a hostile takeover, which is no simple thing. News Corp has a market cap of >$8.6 billion. It almost never happens that anyone can buy a controlling interest (of a sizeable corporation) on the open market without an explicit agreement from the board of directors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> If Bloomberg get elected and successfully purchases the presidency, I'm moving my family out of the US. I will no long contribute to our collective GDP or pay taxes. I'll vote with my feet if I can't vote with my rights as an American citizen.

<comment><USER52> Don't forget to pay your exit tax.

<comment><USER53> Is this real?

<comment><USER54> Yes though the official name is Expatriation Tax. [https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international- taxpayers/expa...](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international- taxpayers/expatriation-tax)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Jeb Bush spent $130 million to lose the Republican primary. Hillary Clinton spent probably an order of magnitude more to lose the general election. Both outspent Donald Trump just to lose to him in their respective races. Money isn't everything and Bloomberg is risking alienating voters with his ham fisted advertising. His ads on YouTube are non-skippable. He paid extra for that yet it's more likely to anger viewers than to get their votes. If his social media army is just as obnoxious in their campaigning for him, well, a fool and their money are soon parted.

</comment><comment><USER55> Archive of full story:

[http://archive.is/WuPf8](http://archive.is/WuPf8)

</comment><comment><USER56> He would probably never do that, but I wouldn't begrudge Sanders if in case of a contested convention and having amassed the most delegates he would go 'Your call, but if you throw this to Bloomberg you should plan on a scenario of him running against Trump _and_ myself as Independent' of course Bloomberg could do that too and in fact might be counting on it. And then it will be a game of chicken with a 2nd Trump presidency as the cliff, or maybe they'll just give it to Klobuchar

</comment><comment><USER57> Interesting. Now that the cat is out of the bag any mention about him from any acquaintance is just going to make me think they got a check from Mike and make me dislike him more each time.

Does buying support like this work? "Hey family, Mike Bloomberg is awesome, we should all vote for him". That just feels so artificial and fake, but maybe if the phrase gets repeated enough people start believing it...

> Outvote also allows users to look up whether their friends have voted in > past elections by matching their contact lists against public data.

That's a good way to lose family and friends. "I see you haven't voted, if you want to stay friends and be invited out, better vote or donate to Mike's campaign".

> it is important to be transparent about paid commercial promotions, but he > views the ethics of political activism as less clear. ... "it took decades > for TV and radio to figure out what disclosure for ads should be."

So promoters don't have to put disclaimers in their messages. Does that open the door for his opponents to pretend to be Bloomberg's supporters but say ridiculous stuff to make people dislike him.

<comment><USER58> > Does buying support like this work?

Definitely. When a voter is in the booth, and has to make their decision for once and for all, name recognition and the opinion of your community matters a ton. Further, the _type_ of social media content that is being produced is painting him as sort of a benevolent, rich, goofy guy. It's intentionally anti-establishment, but not in the radical way or the thoughtful way... it's a safe type of rebellion and that is endearing to a massive amount of people.

> Does that open the door for his opponents to pretend to be Bloomberg's > supporters but say ridiculous stuff to make people dislike him.

This has happened for a while and will continue to happen, although this kind of stuff is mainly isolated to niche Twitter... as we run up to election time, I think you will see more of this Clickhole/Onion type posting of anti- support-support.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Many here seem upset at the idea that Bloomberg is spending a lot of his own money to run for president.

Running for president is very expensive. All other candidates are also spending a lot of money -- but they're spending a lot of _other people's money_, to whom they are now beholden. What do those other people expect to get in return for their financial support? Surely they don't just give away millions of hard earned dollars to install someone in the most powerful office in the world out of faith in democracy. Donors and their groups -- especially the large and important ones -- are almost always aligned with explicit policy (and often persoanl) quid pro quo expectations, should the candidate win the election.

Bloomberg, by contrast, is spending his own money. He's not beholden to anyone's interests or greed or kickbacks or special interests. Whether you like or dislike his policy proposals, surely this point, at least, is better than a candidate with a wealthy donor network of obscure motives pulling the strings behind the scenes.

<comment><USER60> _Many here seem upset at the idea that Bloomberg is spending a lot of his own money to run for president._

No - it's not that he's spending his own money. But rather, how he's spending it.

And they're not "upset". They're calmly pointing out the obvious: that this kind of attempted influence buying is profoundly dystopian and antidemocratic.

<comment><USER59> All of the other candidates are also doing that; there's nothing special about how Bloomberg is spending his money. The others are doing the same, but with other people's money -- people who will now expect to wield influence behind the scenes. Is that not worse?

<comment><USER61> Perhaps stating the obvious here, but if the money comes in small increments from millions of people who are broadly representative of the population (ahem, Bernie Sanders, ahem), then the politician will be beholden to the people they're actually _supposed_ to be beholden to: the voters.

If we allow the extremely wealthy to have an extreme advantage in campaigns, we'll end up with a government that only serves their interests. Why would we expect anything else?

The solution to this is public funding of elections that puts all candidates on an equal playing field, or at least overturning Citizens United and _only_ allowing direct donations under the maximum _including_ from yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Excerpt at [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3817721/posts](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3817721/posts) .

</comment><comment><USER62> Yesterday it struck me that a quality i look for in a leader is integrity. E.g. their unwillingness to be bribed by wealth and luxury.

I think some Americans might be misinterpreting Trump's and Bloomberg's position. Their personal wealth made them jaded, not immune or uninterested in the idea.

</comment><comment><USER63> Here is what will happen : Bloomberg will be anointed the nominee. Trump will win again and the democratic party will blame russya to deflect blame.

</comment><comment><USER64> Bloomberg is showing everyone how to beat Trump at his own game. Let's hope they learn in time.

</comment><comment><USER65> If Bloomberg succeeds in buying the election, we will never have another president who isn't a billionaire again. This is a far greater, long term threat to American democracy than anything posed by the Trump administration's lawlessness.

<comment><USER66> Donald Trump spent less money on the election than Hillary Clinton maybe a counter example that people don't like

<comment><USER67> I think that this is true, though I have no numbers to back it up.

He appeared to run a cost effective campaign. The endless free coverage provided by pundits and commentators who continuously mocked was transformed (by him) into a strength. He also made full use of social media to reach as many people as he could. I'd be hard pressed to name another candidate who so effectively used twitter.

The slogan and the hats too. Make fun of him all you want - but it was an effective and cheap marketing campaign. More importantly - its a message that resonated with a lot of people.

That's how you win elections.

<comment><USER68> Populists win elections by scapegoating groups like Jews, socialists, intellectuals, Muslims, blacks or immigrants (depending on which year it is).

<comment><USER67> This is a popular narrative, but I suspect the reality is - many of these named groups also voted for Trump. Consider this front line report in Ohio.

[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/outside- coas...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/outside-coastal- bubbles-to-say-america-is-already-great-rings-hollow)

""OK. You want to talk about Trump? I voted for Trump!" I asked him if he was pulling my leg. He laughed. "No way. I may be a Muslim, but I am a businessman first and I am not stupid. Many Muslims here did. Under the table." He added with a big smile: "We are Americans. We have diverse views also.""

<comment><USER69> Anecdotal evidence is no evidence. The vote-count statistics in high-minority districts do not back up your suspicion.

<comment><USER70> Trump got 29% of Hispanic vote, 29% of Asian vote and 37% of the "other" vote.

Clearly there are a lot of minorities who voted for him.

<comment><USER67> Not sure why you are getting the down votes...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Clearly these tactics are despicable...and they work. Bloomberg is just demonstrating that he's the only one who really learned from Trump how to win in the modern era. Trump, of course, had Russian trolls posting rather than these folks...but potato/potaato.

And he's right - he went from nothing to third place (in national polls) solely through (mostly internet) ad spend.

What I don't understand is why _every_ candidate isn't taking a similar approach. These guys are showing it's not about events, likeability, policies, history, etc. It's just about mass manipulation enabled by the internet.

<comment><USER72> They don't have the money to do that, in part because Bloomberg and Steyer are buying up all the inventory and driving up prices in the marketplace.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> If he was Russian, this would be so uncool.

<comment><USER74> If he was Russian, he wouldn't be running for president.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I'm looking forward to the debate tonite, hopefully Bloomberg will get to show everyone what kind of candidate he really is.

I still think his entire campaign is just a twisted way to get around campaign contribution limits and possibly a bulwark to keep the wacko socialist candidates from winning the nomination.

Hopefully he proves me wrong and is a real candidate that will be able to stand toe to toe with President Trump and we will see a good old fashioned dust up between the two of them this summer!!

<comment><USER68> Improving society is "wacko"?

<comment><USER76> I don't think the OP meant it in the way you think. My guess is they're speaking of the riskiness of Bernie winning the nomination, where as someone more centrist seems like a safer bet.

But who knows, the experts said Hillary would win too.

Edit: Nevermind, the OP meant what you thought :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> All I have to say to Bloomberg is:

Okay Bloomer.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you find and evaluate open source modules for production use? - <AUTHOR> Some modules are well known and trusted (e.g. requests in Python, React in JS) and many components (Postgres, Redis, Sqlite) enjoy a good reputation, they are "battled tested" - but how about less well-known open source projects?
Short of studying the source code oneself, a lot of developers rely on Github stars, but that heuristic seems flawed.
How do you approach discovery and evaluation of open source modules and components for production use? <comment><USER2> 1\. Google for different keywords describing your use case. If you've exhausted Google, search your Lang's package repository directly (Google tends to only show a couple results per page)

2\. Is it solving your problem?

2\. Check low resolution metrics like stars, open issues, size or recency of commits. Weigh that against your use case. For example if it's a niche, stars matter less. If the requirements are well defined and in a slow moving space, recency matters less. Etc. If it's doing something big and fundamental for you, make sure that it has enough contributors who are likely to not suddenly stop contributing (preferably businesses whose success is tied to it).

3\. Read the docs, examples/demos, tests etc. Find posts by people applying it for similar use cases. Does it solve your particular problem well (incidental vs inherent complexity)? Read through some of its GitHub issues to get a feel for the maturity, usability and support of the project.

4\. Loop through those steps until you find something that holds up. If everything speaks for it except for longevity concerns start reading the code and consider whether you'd be able to contribute to it.</comment>


We Put Together a List of the 20 Most Common Email Patterns in the B2B Space - <AUTHOR> https://blog.companywell.co/the-most-common-email-patterns-for-b2b-companies/ <comment><AUTHOR> Throughout my professional career, I've had to guess at emails in order to make contact with the right people. I wanted to put together a resource for people to do the same if they ever need to do so.</comment>


Show HN: Discord Bot Library Written in Emojicode - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/MagnificentPako/plug <comment><USER2> This caused me to go on a deep dive of Emojicode, which, to my surprise, is very well documented with a formal syntax definition in BNF.

I'm not sure what this madness is, but I like it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Amazing, never thought I'd see something actually written in Emojicode.

</comment><comment><USER4> _Emojicode_ I thought I'd seen it all...</comment>


First-Mover Advantage - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-mover_advantage <comment><USER2> <IMHO>

In the vast majority of cases, there is no first mover advantage. Most ideas are not new. There will be some kind of competition already out there. In the rare case a project is wildly successful, being known as an innovator could result in favorable coverage, but being the first does not necessarily help you.

For example, Lyft came before Uber, then Uber launched UberX in retaliation to Lyft and surpassed their traction quite considerably.

Another great example is YouTube. They were not first, they just hit at the right time. Bill Gross talks about this in his TedTalk, "The single biggest reasons startups succeed." Other examples of success stories that were not first to market: Google, Facebook, Slack, Apple, etc. The list goes on and on.

Here is a good read about the subject:

[https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-blank-first-mover- adva...](https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-blank-first-mover-advantage- overrated-2010-10)

</IMHO>

<comment><USER3> AWS. Being the first in market not only has been their advantage but also the struggle of the later movers like Oracle and Google.

<comment><USER4> Was AWS really first?

> There will be some kind of competition already out there.

I remember LAMP providers and FTP'ing PHP files before AWS. I remember cPanel and phpMyAdmin. I remember Unix boxes that gave you free user accounts w/ open ports and everyone operated on the honor system.

While nobody could quite grasp the vast IT supply chain AWS would end up becoming, the writing had been on the wall for years. It only made sense to evolve from "here's a server" to "here's a server running a service" to "here's a service" to "here's a solution." I bet quite a few people had been dreaming of a platform like AWS by the time it came along, but of course they likely did not have the backing of a major tech company with superstar business leaders and tech experts (shoutout to Jeff Barr!).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Typically it's the fast followers who succeed, especially when the first mover has expended a lot of energy to establish the market.

"How can you tell which ones are the pioneers? They're the ones with the arrows in their _backs_."

</comment><comment><USER6> First mover advantage is valuable when every user makes your service more valuable to other users. This makes it harder for other companies to enter the market after a dominant player appears.</comment>


California law says companies can't punish customers who post negative reviews - <AUTHOR> https://gigaom.com/2014/09/10/california-law-says-companies-cant-punish-customers-who-post-negative-reviews/

<comment><USER2> Does this have any impact on Oracle's DeWitt clause[1]? I haven't seen it mentioned yet in the discussions on technical fora.

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

</comment><comment><USER3> Good start, but it cannot apply to a case involving two states. That would require a federal law. Then it wouldn't apply to a case involving two countries.

I want to see someone defend their having broken such a contract clause on the ground that it's unconscionable -- meaning the signer wouldn't have agreed to the no-disparagement clause if he had actually understood its meaning.</comment>


Next Test - Value of $125,000-a-Year Teachers - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/education/05charter.html <comment><USER2> Yes, great teachers should be paid well. But there's another side to this coin.

Teaching is a _brutal_ job.

Parents complaining about grades and/or teachers. Student behaviour worse than its ever been (with administrators that do very little about it -- partly because of outside pressures). _Every_ bit of interaction with parents, and observed problem behaviours with students, must be documented. Dates, times, what was discussed, what actions are to be taken.

Far too regular class interruptions for all sorts of things (ex. sporting events, pep rallys, dances, early dismissals, awards ceremonies, field trips, plays). Teaching gets much more difficult when a non-trivial percentage of students are out every day, and/or class time is cut short (or gone) for other activities.

Rubrics required for _everything_ (a teacher can't just say, "this is C work" -- everything must be documented, and this makes the amount of grading work go through the roof).

Unending meetings, data collection requirements (you'd be _amazed_ at how badly administrators want to put a number on your kids). State curriculum requirements. Standardized testing. Paperwork up the wazoo.

And I don't even need to mention that you better not need to go to the bathroom during class, because you _can't_ leave students unattended. And between classes, well, you've got 4 minutes between bells. Better make it quick. And hope another teacher's not using the same bathroom you're heading for.

Higher pay for teachers would be nice, but that ain't the problem.

<comment><USER3> well, if they are gonna get paid 125k some quantitative accountability seems in order.

<comment><USER4> I think they tried that in some districts by tying the amount of the bonus to the performance of the children in the class. The teachers were the one administering the tests so some of them gamed the system a bit and cheated on the grading of the test.

<comment><USER2> It's not a matter of gaming the system. The teacher _is_ the system. Just about anything the kids learn (except for honors classes, where the kids will sometimes learn some things on their own) is due to strenuous effort from the teacher.

All teachers "teach to the test" to some degree. The good ones try to get the kids to use higher-order thinking skills, and their quizzes and tests bear this out. If you want the kids to get better _grades_ though, you _could_ just heavily cover the material that's on the test, then make sure you use _exactly the same wording_ on the test as was on the homeworks and quizzes (as opposed to mixing it up a bit to get the kids to think about things a little more).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> gaius already made this point, but I wanted to make it again as a comment rather than a reply to head in a different direction: _Unions_ are the problem. When crappy educators rise through the ranks to become department heads based on literally nothing more than seniority and a union contract, the education system has failed.

As far as salary increases, what good would that do? Because of the _unions_ , crappy teachers would recieve the same increase. Not only that, there would me MORE crappy teachers; $125k is definitely enough to attract people who don't want really want to teach. Good teachers teach for the same reason good programers program: it's what they love to do, it's what they were made to do, there is no other life. Money isn't everything. I'm not saying the rewards shouldn't match the benefit given by a good teacher, but again, the _union_ prevents this.

<comment><USER6> _The_ problem?

A little less ideology and a little more clear thinking, please. You could certainly convince me that unions are _a_ problem, but setting them up as the source of all badness is just your way of scoring points for your political/ideological team, rather than doing anything to contribute to the discussion.

So, onto your 2nd paragraph. How many "good" programmers are there, out of all programmers? One out of ten? (And that's being incredibly generous from my experience.) How well would these superstar volunteer for-the-love-of-it teachers do with 10x increased class sizes?

(And let's not forget all those who are thoroughly passionate about programming (/teaching) yet suck at it.)

<comment><USER5> What do you think the problem(s) is/are?

<comment><USER6> Well, let's see here.

I'd say that the largest concrete problem to me is our thoroughly anti- education culture.

And the largest meta-problem is that we have yet to discover a good way to measure the success of various approaches (and no shared philosophy, however small its kernel, as to what would even constitute success).

Otherwise, a laundry list:

\- A problem: Inflexible bureaucratic structure/procedure permeating everything.

\- A meta-problem: Debates about education always become proxies for ideological warfare. (C.f. your original reply, or the creationism push, or the "Culture Wars".)

\- A problem: Parental non-involvement.

\- A problem: Pushy, over-involved parents.

And on and on it would go, if I weren't supposed to be working right now. No wonder education here mostly sucks.

<comment><USER5> I think you're right about the fact that they're not _the_ problem; I should have chosen my words more carefully. I also admit that I am by no means an expert on these issues. I do believe, however, that they are _a_ problem, and in some places, a _big_ problem. I believe that almost any organization that does not promote or reward based mostly on merit is flawed. I'll allow for character assessment in place of _some_ merit, but not much else. I agree with you that this is ideology, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Also, of all the problems you listed, and the one I listed, I think if unions _were_ found to be part of the problem, it would be one of the easier parts to fix.

I hope I'm not coming across hard-headed on this issue. This is something I deeply care about, and I am definitely open to other perspectives.

<comment><USER6> The problem with ideology is that it generates beliefs, convictions, and orthodoxies -- not hypotheses.

As an anecdote (and counter-example), I grew up in Wyoming, where there are no laws requiring union recognition, in a school district with no union or association at all, and my primary education was not exactly great. Downright poor, actually, especially when it specifically came to teacher quality.

Further, your alternative "promote or reward based mostly on merit" sounds nice, but unless we can define merit in a measurable way, and gain consensus on that definition, isn't it also mostly empty words?

And, even if we could clearly agree on a way of measuring merit, how well would that survive the morass of local politics that education operates within?

All of this isn't to disagree completely with you.

Rather, it is to say that things are rather messier than 'unions are bad'; education issues (in particular) aren't really amenable to bumper-sticker solutions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interestingly, it may be that one could pay twice as much per teacher and still end up with a lower cost per pupil overall, as administrator overhead plays a large part in the regular cost formulation. $125 / 30 students ~ $4k, a fraction of both the DC metro public and charter school cost per pupil ([http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/03/dc-vouchers- better...](http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/03/dc-vouchers-better- results-at-a-quarter-the-cost/)).

<comment><USER8> So, a base cost of $125K/30 kids. Add in benefits for the teacher and you're at $150K. Liability insurance is another $50K. Rent per year for 1500 sq ft to house the 30 kids (the classroom is smaller, but you also need to amortize the cost the space needed for admins, gyms, halls, locker rooms, cafeterias, etc) is at least $30K. Supplies (books, sports equipment, etc) conservatively cost about $10K for the 30 students. And, realistically, you'll always have some administrative overhead (tech guys, librarians, lawyers, principal, secretaries, etc) which I can't imagine being less than $50K (amortized over a sufficiently large school).

That brings our total cost to, at least, $290K - which is about 10K per student. Still not too bad (although I'm still probably missing/underestimating some expenses ...), but at least marginally more realistic than your made up $4K/student number.

I like the idea of school vouchers and private schools too. But you have to be realistic.

<comment><USER9> IIRC the nationwide average for public schools is about $9K/student, and that includes areas where the cost of living is a lot lower than it is in NYC. So if they can actually get six-figure-salary teachers and still keep costs down to $10K/student, that would be fantastic for the profession.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One of the problems with public education is that it has to serve everyone.

Many private schools succeed because the don't have to deal with the same types of children as do public schools.

I'm sure this school will have good results, but I think the most important question is whether or not the results can be repeated.

Are there enough good teachers to serve all of the children in the U.S.? Are they just not teaching right now because of teacher pay?

The majority of these teachers were already in the educational system. This expeirimental school simply pooled the best of the best together.

I hope this model is successful, and I hope even more that they are able to figure out how to increase the quality of education when dealing with a much larger scale.

<comment><USER11> "Many private schools succeed because the don't have to deal with the same types of children as do public schools."

Or with the same types of parents. A private school can always tell parents to take their tuition dollars and go somewhere else, if the trouble they are causing exceeds the value of the tuition they are paying.

Agreed with the question of scaling. It is easy to poach all of the best teachers and put them into one school, and you should get good results. But is this a solution to raising the level of education nation wide, or even in one city?

<comment><USER12> > It is easy to poach all of the best teachers and put them into one school, > and you should get good results. But is this a solution to raising the level > of education nation wide, or even in one city?

It's so much better to let the trouble-kids make sure that no one gets an education....

We can't save them all. However, we can lose them all, and that's what we're doing by keeping good kids in bad situations.

If you really think that the presence of good kids helps the bad ones, shouldn't you be paying the good ones for that help? After all, being with the bad kids costs the good kids.

<comment><USER11> Who gets the privilege of sorting out the good and the bad kids? Just go by GPA?

Interesting to note, that the school in the article is favoring poorly performing students in its lottery.

<comment><USER12> I don't think that these special schools are sorting.

However, their opponents do. They argue that letting kids out of crappy schools makes things worse for the kids who are left by denying them role models or somesuch. This is a curious argument because the kids left behind don't do worse when left behind.

I think that the opponents are wrong. (I'll even go so far as to say that almost all of the kids in the crappy schools would do better in these special schools but when you say that, the opponents figure out that you're accusing them of defending crappy schools.) However, my point is that if they're correct, they owe the "good kids" something for the sacrifice that they're asking them to make.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The article focuses on the hiring process they went through to find great teachers who were already teaching. The real challenge, though, is to find the best teachers who _would be teaching_ if it weren't for the absurdly low compensation for such taxing work. How would you do that?

<comment><USER14> Well, you could start by founding a school that pays teachers $125 000 a year and then getting a press hit in the New York Times.

<comment><USER13> And then you go see these new teachers in their classrooms... which they don't have yet.

What then?

<comment><USER14> Well, ideally the timeline goes something like this:

2008: announce the project; get the attention of a few of those who _would be teaching_

2009: launch, get a press hit in the NY Times; get the attention of hundreds of thousands more

2010: report good results and plans for expansion

2011: report good results and plans for expansion. At this point some of those who _would be teaching_ who were entering university in 2008 are almost ready to graduate, and others are ready for a career change.

2012: report good results and start hiring a bunch of the fabulous scientists, engineers, etc., whose attention you've been attracting over the past four years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was rather surprised when a family friend of mine told me that she takes in around a a $100k yearly. She is a middle school teacher(~10 years in the bay area). So teachers in many places actually get paid a good salary.

<comment><USER16> Teachers in many areas do not get paid well. What is good for NYC/SF/DC does not represent the rest of the country. I believe teachers make 35k on average. I had a friend teach a high school in the Appalachians and they started him at 24k. And they really had to scrimp, save, and beg the feds to pay him considering the avg income for his area was less than half of that.

If you are a teacher with degrees and certificates, then 100k in a major metro, plus 10 years would be about correct.

Additionally you didn't specify what she teaches. Science and math teachers are harder to come by and their salary reflects that. My middle school science teacher was plucked from a high school, which had plucked her from a local college. She was one of the highest paid teachers in the school because she had experience and a load of degrees. She was working towards her doctorate when I left. She didn't come right at and tell me what she made, but the Benz in parking lot and the neighborhood she lived in gave me a clue.

Also, this was a magnet school so the teachers tend to be of higher qualifications than a typical high school.

Plus people seem to confuse the union with government a lot. In government you get paid in bands. Bands are based on the type of job, your accreditation, and your seniority. You can do the bare minimum and stay at the bottom of your band, until you are pushed up to the next band based on some formula, or you can do more and constantly stay in the top of your band and get pushed through quickly. The union probably doesn't have a lot of say in how much teachers get paid. They do have a big influence on how the workplace is run (ie. how late they must stay, when breaks can be done, etc).

<comment><USER17> The average salary for public school teachers nationwide is $51009.

This is higher than most occupations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I fully expect this to work. The kids will love school in a way that no one thought possible. They'll learn more in a year than most pick up in 4. What then?

Why do I suddenly picture Don Quixote raising his lance, or Wile E. strapping on rocket skates?

<comment><USER19> I agree. Some people argue that if we raise teacher salaries, we'll have people become teachers for the money instead of for the love of teaching. However, many teachers that teach solely for the love of teaching just suck at it. I know because I have had many of these teachers. I would much rather have a teacher who is good at teaching, whether they love it or just like it, than a teacher who loves teaching but is bad at it.

There are x number of brilliant and dynamic students that graduate from universities across the US every year. Before the bust, did > 50% of these students want to become investment bankers because of their love for working in Excel all day? No, they wanted to do investment banking because of the high salaries and solid career footing it provided. It's basic economics; the higher the salary and job prestige, the more qualified the applicants will be due to increased competition for the job.

The main problems that cause education to under-perform in the US (I think) are bad parenting, a non-education oriented culture, and poor teacher quality. Of these three, poor teacher quality is the only one that is most easily affected. So how can one say that it's not logical that increasing teacher salaries can be a solution to helping improve education in the US?

<comment><USER13> "Some people argue that if we raise teacher salaries, we'll have people become teachers for the money instead of for the love of teaching."

There are _way_ easier ways to make $125K if that's all you want.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Was AWS support ever useful for you? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Many time! we use them at work all the time for services like ELB, that do not give you a lot of details. They are usually very detailed in the response.</comment>


Cloud Predictions for the Next Generation Enterprise - <AUTHOR> http://www.getapp.com/blog/cloud-predictions-for-the-next-generation-enterprise/

<comment><USER2> For a second, I thought this was an article about a new Star Trek series. And yes, I can feel the downvotes coming.

<comment><USER3> You and me both. Then I realized this was covert bullshit bingo in progress.</comment></comment>


A Simple Network Client in Rust - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wycd.net/a-simple-network-client-in-rust/#header

<comment><USER2> Another less verbose way of handling the results of the writes is the 'and_then' method which short circuits on 'Err' or otherwise calls the given closure ( which only borrows it's environment ) with the previous value and returns the 'Result'.

</comment><comment><USER3> You might want to add "Connection: close" to the request. Otherwise the server won't close the connection immediately, but only after a keep-alive timeout. In the meantime, your program will be waiting to read on the socket. In some cases you might even get an additional 408 response. Changing protocol to 1.0 should also work.

</comment><comment><USER4> > This means that stream.read_to_end() can only return a maximum of > DEFAULT_BUF_SIZE bytes.

That doesn't sound right. push_at_least() is called inside a loop, which looks very much like it should be able to read arbitrarily large amounts of data.

<comment><AUTHOR> you're right! i've corrected it and credited you. thank you.</comment></comment>


TriggerTrap -- a hackable, universal camera trigger - <AUTHOR> http://triggertrap.com/2011/07/05/triggertrap-what-does-it-do/

<comment><USER2> This has exceeded its funding goal on Kickstarter. It still has 24 days to go! It sounds like an incredible gadget to solve many photographic dilemmas. Say you wanted to get a wide angle photograph of a leopard as it approaches a watering hole. You don't want to be standing 2 feet away, otherwise you might get attacked, or the leopard just won't make an appearance. What if you wanted to time the shutter speed with the exact moment a water balloon is punctured? This device could apply to both those situations...Pretty neat. Wish I had $75. But I'm saving up for a new camera.</comment>


FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE is now available - <AUTHOR> http://www.freebsd.org/releases/10.3R/announce.html <comment><USER2> Main HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11418742](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11418742)</comment>


The simplest way to create a beautiful landing page for your iPhone app - <AUTHOR> http://ooomf.com/

<comment><USER2> Hey Mike. I think you've picked a great problem to solve. People are definitely willing to pay a monthly subscription for this type of service. (@nickmjones and I run <http://limelightapp.com/> . $10/mo is our most popular plan, but we have folks at the high-end too.) I also think that everyone we know of in the space is just scratching the surface of what developers will respond to and pay for.

Love the simplicity of your clean templates, but also like the direction you're going in with the photo background and the hand model.

Looking forward to seeing how your service evolves! Best of luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot for the comments. I agree, there are tons of problems that need solving in the mobile app space. Best of luck to you as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think that this kind of app have a strong potential to make people discover great applications! The idea is not new maybe, but the thing i not to simply have it, but how great and interesting you gonna make the concept… You guys have good ideas and i'm damn confident that it is gonna be a great product!

</comment><comment><USER4> Hey guys, this looks seriously good. I am a friend of Rafa, I was in Montreal when Ooomf was at its early stages and it is such pleasant surprise to see it evolve into this. Make sure you keep working on Android, too. Kudos for such fine work!

</comment><comment><USER5> I like it. Something to note - the confirmation e-mail has a from name of "hi", which went straight into my spam folder. You should think about changing that to something a little more descriptive.

<comment><AUTHOR> Noted. Thanks for the heads up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It looks great, but why target iPhone's specifically? Any plans to support Android in the future?

Edit: Not just Android, but WP7, iPad, Android tablets, etc?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. Thanks for the comment. We're already working on supporting Android, tablet, and other mobile devices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> How does this compare with <http://app.net/>?

<comment><AUTHOR> We make mobile app landing pages to drive interest/downloads for apps before and after they launch. Our designs are optimized for all devices (mobile, tablet, desktop), are easier to setup, and include built-in email collection, sharing mechanisms, and text to download (all for free).

<comment><USER8> most important. they are beautiful designs

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I like it. It reminds me of launchrock but targeted precisely at iOS apps.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! We're also looking to build our product out to service all types of mobile devices as soon as we can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Superb idea! Definitely keeping an eye out for this. Oompf me up!

</comment><comment><USER11> It is a great idea with lots of creative and vision. Way to go!

</comment><comment><USER12> I love the idea, you guys have a great thing going here.

</comment><comment><USER13> I like the clean design and choice of color. #builtinmtl

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Love the simplicity and the creativity!

</comment><comment><USER15> Great product by a smart team. Watch out for those guys!

</comment><comment><USER16> looks like a cool product! thanks</comment>