The real use of money is to buy freedom - <AUTHOR> http://paraschopra.com/blog/personal/money-buys-freedom.htm <comment><USER2> Tim O'Reilly on money:

 _It's easy to get caught up in the heady buzz of making money. You should regard money as fuel for what you really want to do, not as a goal in and of itself. Money is like gas in the car — you need to pay attention or you'll end up on the side of the road — but a well-lived life is not a tour of gas stations!_

Source: [http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/01/work-on-stuff-that- matters-...](http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/01/work-on-stuff-that-matters- fir.html)

<comment><USER3> > The real use of money is to buy freedom

The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else.

Inequality (wealth-based) means nothing else than domination. If you are richer, then you dominate the poorer people. And richer countries dominate poorer countries.

This is the most basic and fundamental injustice [0] we seem to accept in our Western culture. Because we are those who dominate.

[0] If you remember that we keep telling ourselves the nice little story how every life has the exact same value.

<comment><USER4> _The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else._

This assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game, so it can be traded around but not created.

It's hard to reconcile that view with the fact that standards-of-living have been growing, more or less worldwide , for the two centuries.

<comment><USER5> Is the standard of living really growing for _everyone_? Or are there more people now (%wise) in poverty ?

This is an honest question as several people have mentioned the standard of living argument before on HN. I've read however that the rich-poor divide is growing and thus am just wondering about this..

<comment><USER6> Both can be true at once. The richest are farther ahead than the richest were, in monetary terms, but the poor have made huge strides in absolute wealth as well: it's possible to live a 1950s upper middle class lifestyle on almost the same dollar amount in 2013. Our idea of what a middle-class lifestyle entails, though, is now far above that.

<comment><USER7> A 1950's upper middle class lifestyle involved owning a relatively large house, and sane working hours with in many cases only one wage earner.

It's simply false that you can live this way today on the same dollar amount.

<comment><USER8> Well, definitions have changed, completely. The average home size in 1950 was ~1000 square feet, while the average home size in 2004 is ~2400 square feet.

Similarly, the 'sane working hours' you mention, generally speaking, were 48 hours a week or more. In the 'upper' middle class, more hours were spent at the office as well. Today, the average worker works ~37 hours.

Assuming job accessibility (which I have no idea if there's a guarantee of or not), and more reasonable home purchasing, I think it's not "simply false" that one can live the same way as they did in the 50s on the equivalent working wage, one simply has to make more apt comparisons to see that the goal posts have shifted.

The average 1950s family only owned one car, while the average family of today owns more than one (likely, to support the second job). If each of us bought houses half the size of what we're currently buying, and half the cars, we'd likely be in greater parity with our 1950s brethren. Also, they had to pay less than half of what we did for college, and they also likely didn't borrow in order to afford it, which factors in even further in measuring debt load.

Anyway, I think your comparison is somewhat rose-colored.

<comment><USER9> The average worker works 37 hours these days, because of a big shift to part- time no-benefits jobs. So, you've got people working 30 hours to make ends meet, and you've got people working 50 because 'that's what's expected if you want to go anywhere.'

<comment><USER8> To be fair, I probably misstated. The average of working hours is ~37, which doesn't necessarily mean that the average worker works that at all. It could be the averages are between 40 hour weeks and 20 hour weeks, and that's where it falls. Honestly, I don't know, nor was I attempting to ascribe motivation to the numbers, except to point out that stated premise was factually incorrect -- workers in the 50s did not work fewer hours, nor did they have larger houses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Everybody just loves the word "freedom," like it's some magical super-juice which is the be-all and end-all of the American experience.

We will all be free of obligation, pain, responsibility, and any other positive or negative thing soon enough. Instead of the pursuit of freedom, we should dedicate ourselves to obligations that honor ourselves and others.

You don't really want "freedom," you want an obligation that you're excited about, you want a responsibility you're eager to take on, you want a job you love doing, you want a relationship that resonates with your values.

Everyone shorthands this to "freedom," and sooner or later that becomes the goal instead of the individual obligations you're now able to pursue.

<comment><USER11> _Instead of the pursuit of freedom, we should dedicate ourselves to obligations that honor ourselves and others_

Says you. I appreciate the freedom to sit at home and play a video game on a Saturday without feeling compelled to meet the needs of others.

<comment><USER10> Sounds like you're honoring yourself. Carry on.

<comment><USER11> Sounds like you have issues where you feel the need to control others.

<comment><USER10> Sounds like you have issues where you project a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is a really great article in _The Atlantic_ (from 2011) called "Secret Fears of the Super-Rich" on this topic:

Excerpt: _The respondents turn out to be a generally dissatisfied lot, whose money has contributed to deep anxieties involving love, work, and family. Indeed, they are frequently dissatisfied even with their sizable fortunes. Most of them still do not consider themselves financially secure; for that, they say, they would require on average one-quarter more wealth than they currently possess. (Remember: this is a population with assets in the tens of millions of dollars and above.)_

Link: [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-f...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret- fears-of-the-super-rich/308419/?single_page=true)

<comment><USER13> I recall a colleague once (~10 years ago) telling me that some people he knew felt that 5k GBP would be enough to solve all of their (money) worries.

I thought it absurd, i.e. too low given things like planning for old age. I guess there are people who would think my estimate too low if I said I needed 5m for the same purpose. (not saying 5m is the right number for me or anyone else.)

<comment><AUTHOR> One of the projects I want to do is to map living expenses, inflation and life expectancy to know exactly how much money is "enough". My problem is that we forget that we tomorrow should be more valuable to us than today and by the time we get this realization, we might have lost many years (of adulthood).

<comment><USER14> Based on the following research, I guess $75K?

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/07/129703291/new- stud...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/07/129703291/new-study-high- incomes-don-t-bring-you-happiness)

<comment><USER15> For me personally I know it's way more than $75k but less than $200k. I have expensive hobbies and like to to travel without blowing my savings.

<comment><USER16> Of course expensive hobbies require more money. However the point of that article is (vaguely and generally across the people they studied) your expensive hobbies and traveling do not increase your happiness as much as the pursuit of the extra money decreases it. In other words, you get some combination of diminishing returns on happiness per dollar, and increasing cost of happiness per dollar. $75k is the proposed sweet-spot, where happiness gained per dollar spent is still high and happiness lost per dollar earned is still low to moderate.

<comment><USER17> The study says no such thing. It only makes claims about averages, not about individuals, just like every other study.

<comment><USER16> Right, the study does not say exactly those things about individuals; I'm loosely extending those conclusions to the individual poster, to help my parent understand what the study means and why it suggests $75k is more happy than $200k. After all, it is not immediately obvious why $200k wouldn't be more happy than $75k- isn't $200k more money? Doesn't more money always make you happier?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> >>A life spent mostly hoarding money and possessions is a wasted life

Having seen the kind of advantage some of my friends born in rich families enjoy, I would love to hoard and posses tons of wealth even if its purely to give away in inheritance.

Rich kids enjoy privileges and advantage poor kids can't even dream of. The biggest of which is attitude of course. Rich kids are born with an assumption they are supposed to remain rich forever, become leaders and are free to act as unfair as they want given the their 'natural selection' in becoming rich.

No matter how hard you work, you will never be able to truly compete with a rich kid. He will get all the resources, tutions, fee and expenses taken care of to establish a more deeply entrenched position of advantage.

The only real way is for you to exactly do what their parents did, and hope your kids will be better off.

>>Then why do we run after money?

Which brings me to the point, why did you start a company?

Speaking purely from a philosophical point. There have been people in India, especially wandering monks who shown you can find all the bliss in life even on bare minimal survival gear. And there is no way you can match their freedom.

<comment><USER15> I think you've missed the point. The point is there is some amount of money that affords you the ability to do what you want.

Possessions have the effect of tying you down. Buying a house, assuming you get a mortgage, is a huge expense requiring you to work to pay for it. It ties you to one geographical area and puts stress from having to make the payments. You could spend the downpayment on a house as a down payment of yourself. Find somewhere or something you'd rather do.

<comment><USER19> | Possessions have the effect of tying you down.

This is getting to be a little off topic, but I see comments like this often from people who imagine a mortgage as a massive amount of debt hanging over your head. While I agree that home ownership is not the right move for everyone, and it's definitely true that you can't just up and leave, you can sell your house. It will probably take longer than the 30 or 60 days notice you would have to give to a landlord, but it's not as if you are signing a contract to live there for the next 30 years.

| Buying a house, assuming you get a mortgage, is a huge expense requiring you to work to pay for it.

Doesn't rent fit that description too? Unless you are crashing on someone's couch or living with your parents, housing is going to cost something. In my experience, first+last+deposit was the standard amount due upon moving in. At the end of the day you at least get to keep some of the money paid on a mortgage. Plus, if you do make it to the end of the loan, you could be paying the same monthly payment that you locked in 30 years ago, whereas rent will probably rise over time.

<comment><USER20> If you're moving, it's likely because the house you live in has become less desirable for some reason, like "all the jobs are gone". So in most cases, if you want to move you're also likely to have trouble selling your house.

As far as investment value goes, it goes against every rule of investment to hold a highly leveraged position in a single, undiversified asset. If you can own several houses you might be okay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A few years ago, after spending most of my adult life in voluntary-ish poverty I decided to spend a few years earning proper money. By which I mean, significantly more than my first world country's average salary but still peanuts in HN terms. The main differences it's made to me are:

1) I can afford to buy a home, which I expect to remove a large amount of bullshit from my life and makes me feel more secure about my future.

2) When my computer / bicycle / phone / printer / washing machine etc fails I can get the problem fixed without significant disruption to my life. This is probably a much bigger deal than anybody who's always been able to find money for these things realises.

4) It feels good to know I have earning ability if I put the effort in.

5) It's nice to be able to buy stuff, occasionally.

<comment><USER22> I went a similar road (from $50 a month in an underground windowless garage with no utilities whatsoever, to a 200m2 penthouse).

I'd put an accent on your point #2 - it really makes a huge difference to just shoot up some money into trivialities and mundane annoyances in your life just to make them magically go away. Because there's so many of them, most cannot afford that.

I'd like to add a point though, maybe the most important in my list.

6) increased appeal to other sex.

And as far as buying stuff goes, all my wordly posessions fit in one box less than in this picture [https://www.dropbox.com/s/us8bavsdjldd029/2013-08-16%2005.42...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/us8bavsdjldd029/2013-08-16%2005.42.28.jpg)

<comment><USER23> Was #6 because of how you dressed, or because you could host events at your new place, or some other factors?

I'm curious since I have some acquaintances who are morbidly afraid of having members of the opposite sex approach them for their substantial wealth. They go out of their way to mask their material status.

<comment><USER24> There's a difference between _having_ money, which appeals only to the most shallow, and _making_ money, which is a proxy for a range of universally desirable attributes (motivation, confidence, tenacity, intelligence, etc).

<comment><USER21> In my case making money correlated only with my willingness to be a capitalist drone for a few years. The attributes you mention surely correlate with success at most things. Admittedly money is quite popular, so assuming that its pursuit is a primary goal for everybody is probably not a terrible approximation of reality.

<comment><USER24> Sure, it's just a proxy signal. But don't discount "willingness to be a capitalist drone for a few years". For many people, taking on a multi-year commitment and seeing it through is beyond them. Such a signal would be attractive to someone who wanted kids, for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Freedom has been my main goal for money. As my business has grown I'm happier, but I can see the monetary goalposts shifting as I go.

I started two years ago. My initial goal was to build recurring income. I wanted enough to cover expenses, as an initial goal.

Achieved that. But I saw I was vulnerable to sudden expenses, or a temporary decline in business. So I wanted an emergency fund.

Achieved that. But then I realized I had student loan debt that I would soon have to pay interest on, as I was earning more money and wouldn't qualify for debt relief in the near future.

Had a really good autumn and achieved that. Then I noticed that I might have to pay more taxes, because my previous tuition tax credits may run out in 2013.

Achieved that, which brings me to the present. I only achieved much of that savings through tutoring. I charge a high rate, but it's not scaleable. So now my current goal is increasingly recurring revenue so that I don't have to sell my time directly.

Why am I writing this? At each one of these stages, I had the feeling "If I just achieve this goal, I'll have enough". It was a silly belief in retrospect – it would have been obvious to an outsider that I still had challenges to overcome.

Yet presently, I have the feeling "if I double my recurring income, I'll have enough". But I'm certain that once I achieve this goal, I'll see another reason I ought to earn more. Probably the next goal will be "if I just achieve X, I can make work optional by age 33" or "if I just earn X, I won't have to worry about the cost of airfare for trips".

I can attest that life IS better now that I've met the goals I listed above. I remember having lots of worries about money that have mostly dissipated. I haven't increased my lifestyle, and have been trying to keep "freedom" as the main goal for earning more money.

But the whole process feels shockingly short-sighted. It's as though I'm incapable of imagining how I will feel if I am earning $X or have saved $X.

<comment><USER26> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The importance of money is a matter of perspective. Anyone that has the author's attitude toward money has never been poor. Ask a homeless person, or any of the 50% of the US population that has a net worth of zero or less what their opinion on money is, and it will be markedly different than the author's. The opinion that money doesn't matter is a luxury that only the wealthy can afford.

<comment><USER28> The author is from India. Based on that fact, there is a 95% chance that he lived most of his life in poverty comparable to the bottom 5% of Americans.

See figure 7: [http://www- wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServ...](http://www- wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2012/11/06/000158349_20121106085546/Rendered/PDF/wps6259.pdf)

It's also worth noting that he's writing this from the perspective of a far more materialistic and status-based society than the US.

<comment><USER27> He actually mentioned in the article that he grew up "middle class". I am aware that middle class in India may be different than in the US, but it is clear that he was never poor - going to bed hungry etc.

<comment><USER28> "Middle class" in India does not mean what you seem to think. The vast majority of middle class Indians are poorer than most Americans living in poverty.

Read my link - 95% of Indians are poorer than the bottom 5% of Americans. Unless the author defines "middle class" as "top 2%", the fact that he grew up "middle class" is meaningless when comparing his lifestyle to an American one.

A stat to illustrate the point - 1.8% of India (circa 2009) owns a car, likely one that would be too dangerous to sell in the US. For comparison, 25% of American households below the poverty line own _2 cars_ and 75% own one.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_p...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita)

[http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf](http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf)

The bottom 50% of America you described, or even the bottom 5%, also does not go to bed hungry.

<comment> guard-of-terra "Poorer" doesn't mean much. First of all, you should factor in purchasing power; second, constant expenses which are the killer.

In most countries, especially poorer ones, you don't have to own a car to be in the middle class. Neither you have to pay for gas, car itself and parking/garage. You can realistically move by foot and/or mass transit.

Disclaimer: I think I'm in top 5% in my country, probably earn more than USA median and I never had a car.

<comment><USER28> Clearly you still haven't read the link I provided, which provides numbers _after adjusting for purchasing power_.

I'd provide you with more statistics showing how wealthy poor Americans are ([http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf](http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf)), but clearly you aren't going to read any numbers.

So instead, go watch about 4 minutes of Delhi Belly (good movie, BTW, vastly better than typical Bollywood crap) which always confuses first world types:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrJS6R-FT-o](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrJS6R-FT-o)

(Sorry, couldn't find the whole scene in one video)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3dkCVXcAVg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3dkCVXcAVg)

That's life for middle class professionals. (Admittedly, a group of non- misfits would have filled the buckets.)

<comment> guard-of-terra What's so terribly wrong about those scenes? After applying cinema discount.

They don't drink your juice in the USA?

I will pick middle-class Indian over poor American every day, because: you won't get shot, you won't land in prison, you won't have to work three jobs for funny money, you'll have a real family and your children won't do drugs.

Instead you'll be raking in some respect.

<comment><USER29> I live in Iowa; those things you mention are the comic-book version of America. Nobody is shooting anybody around here; only college students end up in jail, overnight, when they leave the bars at 2AM and wander in the streets and might hurt themselves.

<comment> guard-of-terra Comic book or statistics?

I guess that mainland states' countryside is one thing and urban poverty in large cities is another thing. One more reason to take income rankings with a grain of salt. As a preedictor of lifestyle.

<comment><USER29> Oh, and a guy got arrested yesterday when he waved a gun around trying to steal a pair of gloves from a local farm store. Since its -14 degrees F this morning, I have some sympathy for the poor guy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Yeah, I think I largely agree with this.

A few years ago, my grandmother died and left me a healthy pile of money. Enough that I don't have to have a day job for several years yet, even if I hadn't invested a bunch of it.

I live alone in a two-bedroom apartment in a very walkable part of Seattle. I don't own a car, I don't have kids. I spend my days mostly drawing comics, without troubling myself much with deadlines, or whether they're "what the market wants" \- I'm two years into a complex and ambitious comic about a lesbian robot lady with reality problems because it's a story I want to tell.

I have the freedom to do this instead of grinding out commissions, working as a minor cog in animation or games, or doing weird web-dev things in the intersection of "good artist, half-assed programmer". And I have this freedom because of money. I can afford to travel to several comic book conventions every year and make enough to at least cover my costs, and not stress when a new con turns out to have sales so shitty that I walk away from the last day to hit the beach instead.

It is fucking awesome and I really hope I can continue to enjoy this freedom for a very long time.

<comment><USER31> Sounds like an amazing lifestyle, I'd love to see some of your work

<comment><USER30> It's pretty much all available free here: [http://egypt.urnash.com](http://egypt.urnash.com)

And yeah, it's a pretty good life if you can get lucky enough to have the money to do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> When you know self made millionaires you learn one thing:

"Money is not wealth". Almost nobody that understands wealth holds money, money is a tool for exchanging things and its value decreases with time.

They hold real state, they hold precious metals, they hold stock, they travel, they know people.

The people that made money usually like making wealth and don't fear losing it so much, they learn all their life to handle risk with positive results. It is their children or grandchildren who fear it, because they don't.

The good thing about being rich is that you could be poor whenever you want. You could also help lots of people in your life, which feels amazing.

<comment><USER33> The one thing I learned from working with a couple of very rich people was that _all they think about is how to get money_.

Which is why I'm never going to be super-rich, because I don't really care about it obsessionally like those two did.

Edit: I should say these were self-made millionaires. I have also worked with people who were millionaires just by being in the right place at the right time, and they were completely different and rather careless with money.

<comment><USER34> This is true. The self-made multimillionaires that I've met and worked with don't just "turn it off" because they've made it. The habits and practices that got them there are something that they carry with them.

Now, of course, they structure their lives so that they work when they want, where they want, and build in a lot of time and space for enjoying the things they enjoy (Superbowl tickets? Vacation with family on the water? Of course.) But they also work a _lot_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This article and the bulk of the comments strike me as shortsighted. Money is the driver of industry. The more you have, the more you can direct resources towards productive activity.

The idea of money being freedom is a great comparison, which I make myself often. The OP and others here however largely limit their notions to hedonistic freedoms and critiquing buying "things."

What about building that school or the playground in the neighborhood that can't afford it? What about funding fundamental research that is under funded right now? What about starting a job training program for the under employed.

No, there is no such thing as too much money because there is no end to the things that need to be done in the world. So the whole conversation about enough is baffling.

<comment><USER29> Enough for an individual and enough for a community are different. I as an individual am not building any schools, because it would take many times my lifetime income and dominate my entire existence. Some people are born industrialists; the rest of us want our weekends and family.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> After working very hard on things to 'make money' (no goal attached, just making money, boy I was naive) doing stuff I really didn't like to do (building large EJB based systems for banks/insurance and we had entity beans back then!), I had some realisation that actually, this sucks. I alienated my gf at the time, my friends, my family. I worked, 200+ people under me and it sucked. I thought about it a few days, sold off some stock to make sure I could have freedom.

Which I also believe is the main goal of having money. No loans/mortgages, being able to do what you want. And then I started making companies again, doing about the same thing (without the entity beans, or beans at all :), but now it's fun. If it goes badly (the current crisis almost bankrupted one of my companies) I handle it like you are supposed to handle it; in a calculated, company-first, manner. And pull through stronger than before. If you don't have that freedom, you make decisions which often don't reflect the best interest of the company because, well, you cannot pay the rent or feed your family.

I always believed in lots of interests and hobbies (my twitter feed must seem rather ADD, but I actually have a planned working day in which I get to do those things) as I think the biggest waste of life you can have is boredom and now I actually get to make companies around those things. Money in the bank gives you the balls and the contacts to do that while as before that wasn't even an option without right-out prostituting yourself. And the freedom to say no to something which would before have been (or have seemed like) a brilliant opportunity because you just don't want to.

Freedom usually (unless there are health issues in your family/close friends) also buys you no stress which already comes from the above. But having my own fruit/vegetable garden and having the time to prune the trees and prepare nice food from it etc is very far removed from shit in styrofoam containers and not even tasting it during a client conference call.

Edit: I forgot my new-found pet peeve with getting older; people get _way_ to serious over 30. Life's a game and a short ride; money allows you to live it like that.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm surprised nobody has quoted Jean-Jacques Rousseau on money:

 _I love liberty, and I loathe constraint, dependence, and all their kindred annoyances. As long as my purse contains money it secures my independence, and exempts me from the trouble of seeking other money, a trouble of which I have always had a perfect horror; and the dread of seeing the end of my independence, makes me proportionately unwilling to part with my money.

The money that we possess is the instrument of liberty, that which we lack and strive to obtain is the instrument of slavery._

He did not have a blog, but he did know how to say a lot with just a few words!

</comment><comment><USER38> By corollary, individual debt is fractional, voluntary slavery.

Or possibly it goes the other way. By being wealthy the truest freedom you enjoy is not having to worry about owing anyone anything.

</comment><comment><USER39> "Money is coined freedom" \- Fyodor Dostoevsky.

</comment><comment><USER40> Another perspective I read recently is that 'time is the ultimate form of wealth.' Meaning that if you have a lot of money, you don't need to spend your time on things which do not interest you.

</comment><comment><USER41> The entire basis of money is a Pareto Optimality, thus I would amend that statement to be "The real use of money is to buy freedom at someone else's expense."

Now it's also possibly that if we view money through the lens of a Nash equilibrium, that in the long term we are doing what is best for all of us by constantly seeking greater productivity. Therefore, "On a long enough time scale, the real use of money is to buy freedom for every one as money is traded with those that can achieve the greatest productivity." Money is the lubricant that permits the human machine to find the most efficient means of production.

<comment><USER38> you should read Debt: the first 5000 years, and you will find that you are wrong; the entire basis of money is NOT Pareto Optimality. The author of this book I think makes a criticism that the economic just-so story of money exists to self-justify economics as a field (while conveniently ignoring that he's doing the same thing for anthropology) but the book is nonetheless an excellent treatment of the muddled history of money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great post Paras. However, I wish you would have addressed what you do with your new found financial freedom. I suppose running your business takes up most of your time. That's fine as long as it's enjoyable I guess.

The question here is, if something, what would you have done differently ? Or, going forward, what are you going to do differently ?

Also, the modern economy is poised against us in terms of preserving the value of our wealth. Because of this, I disagree with your final conclusion (the sweating over investments bit..). The hard part about money is making it, but it's also hard to keep it. Inflation eats away at what you have, furthermore, depending on your country (India in this case..) you don't have 250 years of documented economic history to make your investment decisions.

If you've reached your financial goal, mine is 25x of annual expenses then yes, maybe you are truly financially independent and now free. You have literally bought freedom. You're right, materialistic pursuits will probably never lead to happiness. However, for some the road to financial independence is longer than others. And yes, many people lose the plot along the way ;)

Maybe a more apt title for your post would be: "Having a successful business and a good amount of money buys you freedom" ? :)

<comment><AUTHOR> There's an interesting thread on Quora titled 'What does it feel like to be a self-made millionaire under the age of 25?' [http://www.quora.com/Becoming-a- Millionaire/What-does-it-fee...](http://www.quora.com/Becoming-a- Millionaire/What-does-it-feel-like-to-be-a-self-made-millionaire-under-the- age-of-25?share=1)

As you will read through it, terms like insecurity, worry, surprise on unchanged happiness levels would be quite common among the answers.

I have been thinking a lot about investments and have concluded that my main criteria is minimum management. If an investment requires active maintenance and management, it's not for me (unless I'm doing it for charity). This excludes many common investments such real estate and stocks. With others (say fixed deposits, metals, etc.) the post-tax returns are less than inflation so it may not be wise. Right now I have decided to invest mostly in mutual funds.

I'm okay with the risk because the biggest asset I have is myself. The insecurity about future never leaves us, but as long as I believe that I would be employable in future, I can always jump back.

EDIT: added ?share=1 to the URL. Thanks Casseres.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for your response, the Quora thread is very interesting.

Another question, and this is a little more personal. Also, I don't mean to be accusatory at all or anything of that sort so please don't take it that way.

Do you feel any new found desire to help those less fortunate than you ? I don't mean by providing employment, etc. I'm sure you do plenty of that through your business.

I just know plenty of fairly rich people who feel like they're not 'rich enough' to help those that are less fortunate (even people whose net worth is in the tens of millions!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Paras,

I enjoyed your article. I too grew up in a middle class family, much the same as you. I was taught to work hard and to use good motives when working.

I remember early on, deciding not to take part in activities because I just focused on the money, I was 16 years old. I consider it unfortunate that I repeated that decision many times until my late 30's.

Looking back I missed out on many of the experiences that later brought me much joy.

So now what?

I try to focus on the experiences, instead of just getting the money. I have experimented with less money, and the joy was still there. However I still need money, I still want and work to be comfortable. " I work with many that just focus on the money and point out that "with so much money you can do good for others." I think you can do good for others before you get 'the big pot at the end of the rainbow.'

Keep sharing.

</comment><comment><USER43> The parable of the fisherman and the investment banker.

[http://popculturemeetspsychology.blogspot.com/2011/06/invest...](http://popculturemeetspsychology.blogspot.com/2011/06/investment- banker-fisherman-parable.html)

</comment><comment><USER44> > And, although it might be true that certain people just get kicks out of > making money, science definitely tells us that certain things make us > predictably more happy than others. So people who are irrationally attracted > to hoard are just victims of uninformed biases.

While the statement on science is accurate, those kinds of results are statistical. So, it's incorrect to extend that result to every individual. While people who chase money may be statistically likely to be "victims of uninformed biases", not everyone will be.

</comment><comment><USER45> I liked this article because unlike many on this topic the author's viewpoint was fairly nuanced. However I still think the author goes too far in his claims of how useless money is.

First, raising children is very expensive, and to put 2 or 3 kids through college requires a lot of money. And most single people would like to have a family at some point, so they need no excuse for saving money.

Second, money (and conspicuous consumption) is a social signal, and demonstrates your ability to earn that money, which not everyone can do.

<comment><USER46> I can only just barely imagine the things you're talking about as real things that really happen. Surely they can only happen to other people - to another class of people. My parents didn't put any of us through college. I don't have a family and don't expect to. Sometimes I forget these things are real for some people. I think of them the same way most people think of fame and riches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> The real use of money is to pay taxes.

</comment><comment><USER48> I thought deeply about this when I read something that Bill Gates said answering a question a while ago. At some point he said that he could understand that people wants to be millionaire because the freedom that brings, but after a threshold the burger is the same for everybody.

Freedom in that context is a weird concept, specially when you see a lot of rich people that are slaves of money. I guess it depends on the personality.

<comment><USER49> That quote made a big impressions to me also. It was from a Q&A session at UW from late 2011. Here is a video: [http://www.geekwire.com/2011/its-hamburger- insights-bill-gat...](http://www.geekwire.com/2011/its-hamburger-insights- bill-gates/)

<comment><USER48> Thanks! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do." \- Bob Dylan

</comment><comment><USER51> Overall, I agree with the post.

> The freedom to do whatever one wants, wherever one wants (within moral > limits, I hope).

This overreaches. You cannot do "whatever," "wherever". This implies complete control over one's circumstances, which is obviously absurd.

More precisely, money buys increased control over your circumstances and life. This is very valuable and empowering, but it is clearly limited.

</comment><comment><USER52> >A life spent mostly hoarding money and possessions is a wasted life

I find it interesting that an article whose tone is one of optimism is so judgmental.

<comment><USER5> I think the takeaway is that life would be best spent finding out what it is that truly makes you happy and then pursuing that. A lot of people think 'more money' is the answer to that.

More money is just a way to be able to pursue whatever you think will truly make you happy. Whether that's kayaking, kung-fu, dancing, golfing, getting laid, going out for dinner, going on vacation, etc.

A means, not the end.

Some people just lose the plot on the way and continue down the more money path forever. Those are the people who end up living to work and not working to live.

<comment><USER53> > A lot of people think 'more money' is the answer to that.

I'm don't believe this is true, at least directly. I believe people start out thinking that they just need to make X amount of money to fulfil their dreams. The problem is once they start earning money they start changing their lifestyle to match it. Once they are in this situation it is hard to give up the restaurants, cars and houses to chase their dream. As such they decide they want fancier restaurants, fancier cars and even bigger houses which requires more money. It's sad, but people who are comfortable are unlikely to change much, even if the result would make them a lot happier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I really like the idea of money as freedom. I'll take it a step further though, and that is the ability to generate at least somewhat passive income whether from a business or from investments. Not having to make money right now is key to freedom.

</comment><comment><USER55> _We don't make movies to make money, we make money to make more movies_

\- Walt Disney

<comment><USER56> Heh. Not anymore: Disney implements a "vault", where they stop selling movies for a certain amount of time in order to drive new sales when they re-release.

<comment><USER57> Disney was doing that with theatrical re-releases long before there was such a thing as a VCR--much less a DVD.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Although I'm nowhere near financial freedom, I've been wondering lately what "freedom" means in a strictly material sense. Inflation, bad investments, etc. can eat away at a bank account. But material objects seem to be more secure. The problem, of course, is balancing this need for reliable physical possessions with my (and many other's) minimalistic tendencies and general dislike of "stuff".

Here's what I've got so far:

\- a nice house in a nice neighborhood, tricked out with the best in security, fitness, intellectual and entertainment devices. Add in renewable energy sources via windmills/solar panels/ etc to truly be self-sufficient.

\- enough canned food and rice to last multiple lifetimes.

</comment><comment><USER59> buy freedom? from whom are you going to buy it? who has a freedom for sale? do they have excess supply of it? or would they build a one for you? or are they going to sale you their own one?

</comment><comment><USER60> The "real" use of money is dominance. Between you and the things you need or want, money is a proxy controlling access to those things. Control the money, control the people.

</comment><comment><USER61> If you need money to buy it, it's not freedom, it's power.

</comment><comment><USER62> Disagree. Money does not equal freedom. I know plenty of poor people who live freely and plenty of wealthy people who feel trapped. What money really is is a placeholder for time.

</comment><comment><USER63> It's possible to go to Antarctica with someone else's money. That's the satisfying thing. Make it a win-win arrangement (I'm not talking about freeloading).

<comment><USER45> What are you talking about then?

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> There are two scarce resources: human lifetime, and mineral resources. Money lets you assign the disposition of some of those.

</comment><comment><USER65> "money only buys you choices" I lived nearly homeless for a year. never felt more free, didnt cost a dime.

</comment><comment><USER66> strange that here's such a hype around this article. Money is a tool. That's it. Use that tool. If you begin to worship a hammer, you're fucked. If you see people who are fucked, help them for the first time. If you see that they like being fucked, then these people are tool. Use that tool.

</comment><comment><USER67> The real use of money is to fund your next startup!

</comment><comment><USER68> I'm kind of disappointed, I was hoping for a bit more than a "rich people get obsessed with getting richer" type of story (still a good piece).

Freedom is indeed bought with money, but not in the way that most people think. There's a shell game going on right now for the lowest class worker.

At the time the US economy had it's "oh shit" moment around 2007-2008, I was working at a marketing research company. At the time I was working from home being paid by the hour, but there wasn't a lot of work coming in. I was broke most times after paying bills, so I had to find a quick patch job.

I began working at a McDonald's. At this point I was staying available online for most of the day until the afternoon, at which I would go to McDonald's and work all night. I found a bartender gig and started to work that on my off days of McDonald's.

At that point, I was making good money, but there wasn't any time I had to myself. I ended up quitting the marketing research job, as I was making more from McDonald's alone.

Now I was making OK money, but still not having a single day off. The bartender gig was getting more and more violent (I worked at a rough R&B club getting paid under the table). I eventually left the bartending job (there was a shooting there less than a week later). I don't think I need to explain what life was like working only at McDonald's, even if I was being paid more than most non-managers.

It's a bit hard to communicate what was exactly wrong with this picture. As a low wage worker, it was impossible for me to both have time and money, or leverage either of them to get myself into a better position.

When I had money, I had no time to leverage it. I couldn't finish a degree, I couldn't even keep a girlfriend. It was easy to slip into depression and substance abuse. I drank a lot. When I did get the chance to go out and have fun, it was to the extreme.

When I didn't have money but I had time, it was equally as bad. I couldn't go out to bars, I barely could keep up on bills. I couldn't take time off to go to the doctor. I couldn't afford to lose hours, nor afford the doctor's visit. When I had to go to the emergency room, I had to take the hit to my credit. I couldn't go across town or go to the show, I was behind on either electric or gas most months. And electric people have no qualms in shutting off your power and then laughing in your face when you say you can't even cook food.

It's interesting to me that when you're in that trap, it's almost impossible to pull yourself out. On one end of the spectrum, if you have the money to better yourself, you don't have the time to do so. You can't leverage the three jobs on resumes, nor is that a replacement for a degree.

On the other end, if you work one or two jobs, you don't have money enough to get a degree, or take a vacation, or take sick days, or go to the doctor, or change cities, or go to a concert, or have a night on the town, or even (sometimes) keeping internet.

So yes, I would argue that the real use of money is to buy freedom. It's just that most don't realize it, until they are stuck at the very bottom wondering how the hell they can get out. I'm not saying I did everything perfect, but I don't feel I did anything horribly wrong either.

And I'm doing fine now. I ended up getting with a start up doing Node.js and frontend JS work, which was enough to jump start my career.

EDIT: And yes, technically I'm falling into a logical fallacy here: [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal)

<comment><USER69> I did some analysis of the basic costs of living in Austin, TX for a minimum wage worker and found if fairly good decisions are made about $2000 a year can be saved at 40 hours of work a week 50 weeks a year.

How much money were you spending on alcohol and the few times you went out "crazy"? Substance abuse sounds like a few beers a night - costing $20 a week or so? That's two hours of free time (closer to three) a week.

I would really like to see a breakdown of your expenses during that period of your life.

<comment><USER68> And I really couldn't give one, at least in this setting. And really I've yet to see a good estimate for cost of living. Full time in minimum wage-land is 35 scheduled hours, less if you are let go early. Getting behind on bills also constitutes additional fees.

As far as what I remember, I ended up having about $100-150 left after bills per pay period. There are other factors here as well, bad roommate, car accident, that I'm not going into.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> "the pieces of green paper have value because everybody thinks they have value."

Freedom is fallacy.

<comment><USER71> Those two statements don't really connect.

Money has value because people think it does, but also because it represents economic value. Once you can buy enough economic output to sit at the top of maslow's triangle then you're free to pursue whatever arbitrary things you please.

It's not an abstract concept, it's a cold hard fact that's held true for centuries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> totally agree

</comment><comment><USER73> quite agree

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra My take: I really need to own a good apartment. Half commute time is a life changer; not having to cough up rent every month is a life changer; being able to rent it out and move to Southeast Asia and/or get unlimited run time for project/business/startup is a life changer.

Once this is accomplished I never strictly 'need' to work unless I need something extravagant or more savings or family :) In theory anyway.

</comment><comment><USER74> Good post, but what i don't find to get is the assumption that having or not money fall in some sort of polarity context: "Having money is bad or good?", Neither is something that is needed just that.

</comment><comment><USER75> Money is an enormous source of suffering. Worldly life and the pursuit of money is a hamster wheel. Poverty and service is the only freedom. I'm not kidding.</comment>


Countdown of Life: How much time do you have left? - <AUTHOR> http://iamexec.com/blog/countdown-of-life-how-much-time-do-you-have-left-infographic

<comment><USER2> I get the point of the infographic - "carpe diem" - but I don't agree that time doing things like sleeping, studying, working, eating are not times that you own.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think it makes a good point on how much time people spend on certain activities.

Domestic cleaning/yardwork and Commute times are non-trivial portions of our life you get a hearty time benefit by eliminating/paying to eliminate.

</comment><comment><USER4> The chart is wrong. I got 18 years to do whatever i want.

<comment><USER5> Its not a chart for your life. Everyone's chart is going to be a little different, but that is besides the point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great if you're cash rich but time poor.

But when you're cash poor and time rich, guess you're just gonna be the serf for awhile.</comment>


Skynet, a decentralized CDN and file sharing platform - <AUTHOR> http://siasky.net <comment><USER2> To me, the most impressive feature is that files uploaded to Skynet are available with the same link/hash on every other portal.

Data is virtually almost uncensurable, as even if every known portal becomes attacked or puts down the link, you can still spin up your own portal (public or private) to access the files with the same link.

</comment><comment><USER3> Appears that this solution renders DDoS attacks useless. Great tech!</comment>


iFixit Pulls Galaxy Fold Teardown at Samsung's Request - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/25/18516875/ifixit-takedown-samsung-galaxy-fold-teardown <comment><USER2> For those of you wondering why ifixit is being so "kind" to Samsung with the takedown, here's my opinion (I have worked in silicon valley smart phone supply chain).

Most likely the person who provided ifixit the phone did not think Samsung would request them back. Samsung did request it back and now they are in a jam, risking losing access to future devices. Ifixit doesn't want to lose their source of prerelease devices or burn their partner.

</comment><comment><USER3> Anyone have a mirror of the original teardown? I really wanted to see the hinge...

<comment><USER4> Web archive link of the ifixit teardown.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20190425075411/https://www.ifixi...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190425075411/https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Samsung+Galaxy+Fold+Teardown/122600)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Braindump, a simple note platform to organize your life - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/levlaz/braindump <comment><USER2> This looks very similar to the app I blogged about in a series of "Saturday morning hacks" posts. That app did notes, tags, to do lists, email reminders, and used sqlites full text search extension to provide high quality search. Also used markdown and oembed for rich media magic!

[http://charlesleifer.com/blog/saturday-morning-hack-a- little...](http://charlesleifer.com/blog/saturday-morning-hack-a-little-note- taking-app-with-flask/)

<comment><USER3> what happened to said app? are you still using it or developing for it; or was it just a side project for a few weekends?

<comment><USER2> I use it all the time, something like 3000 notes now! I integrated a bookmarking app with it (search for bookmarking on my blog if you're curious) so it's a mix of bookmarked pages, notes, to do lists, reminders, and recently I've been tracking my dreams with it. Fun stuff!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Some feedback.

If the first word is eg: <seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee> Lines are not broken but run over. should have the appropriate markup in the preview imo. Lists show up on a single line of text. Not sure if there is a better way to present that though.

Is standard Markdown used? I noticed that a new line can show up as a list item if a hanging '*' exists

Hitting enter multiple times keeps the editor indented. Not sure if that's what I expect to see.

The link to the article should exist on the text in the overview imo - I don't want to have to click the title to see the note.

<comment><USER5> incidentally, and in a maybe interesting analogy, the comment a/b line-break behaviour itself just demonstrated that the same behavior occurs in hn comments on mobile: have to side scroll to read all comments on this entry

<comment><USER6> Well. It also happens on Firefox Desktop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think that you should put the pictures you've placed in Github on your front page. I feel hesitant to sign up for something when I don't see any pictures.

<comment><AUTHOR> I made a demo account if you want to check it out:

firstname.lastname@example.com/demo

<comment><USER8> you misspelled "test" as "tets" on the sign in page

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Fixing now :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> levlaz, could you say a little bit about what makes this different from other note apps? What are the pros/cons?

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now not much, just basic functionality.

But I have this vision in my mind of what a note platform is supposed to be and unfortunately I have not found it yet. My favorite note tool was emacs org-mode so a lot of the things that I working on now draw from that.

Mainly:

1\. Full Markdown Support 2\. Easy way to make TODOS (and track them across notes) 3\. Easy way to take meeting nots from a calendar invite. 4\. Native Clients that actually work and sync, you should be able to see, edit, and make notes anywhere you are. 5\. Open Source :)

# 2 -- will be implemented soon. # 3 -- will be implemented soon and should work with ANY calendar provider.

Right now Braindump is just a basic framework that I hope to use to accomplish all of those goals.

<comment><USER10> What did you miss in org-mode that your tool is going to have? I can't think of anything, so I don't really know what benefits your tool provides compared to org-mode.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great point, org-mode is perfect. But a lot of the world is missing out of org-mode because they dont know about emacs and don't want to learn. :)

<comment><USER11> I love org-mode, but I've just declared org-mode bankruptcy for my personal to-do lists and life projects. With my life being as busy as it is, I'm now rarely in front of a full computer with a keyboard when I'm at home, so keeping my home projects in emacs is not as appealing as it was 10 years ago.

I've tried running emacs on android -- too much friction for simple tasks that should be quick.

I've tried mobile-org; the workflow is painful.

I've tried orgzly. It's almost workable. Maybe when it gets folding, and I can simplify my syncing scenario.

For the time being, I've dumped stuff into Mirakel and ownCloud Notes...will see how it goes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is there a way to try it without registration?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the best way would be to run it locally. :/

I _should_ set up a demo site. Thanks for the feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I look forward to replacing Evernote with something, and I find the idea of Emacs org-mode for dummies great.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, glad I am not the only one :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Great work! keep it up.

The screenshot in the git repo would look better with real usage instead of test posts. And notebooks should show how many are inside without having to click through first.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks so much for the feedback, noted!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can you please comment on the UX ? Which libraries / frameworks u r using ?

The design looks slick and professional

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, thanks for the compliment -- the Ui is still very much a work in progress.

There is nothing too special going on right now, its basic bootstrap with a little bit of customization thrown in here:

[https://github.com/levlaz/braindump/tree/master/app/static/c...](https://github.com/levlaz/braindump/tree/master/app/static/css)

Some JS libraries of note are:

Ace - the Editor Marked - for Markdown Rendering Bootstrap-Tagsinput - for the tags

UPDATE:

Most importantly :) -- all of the icons are Glyphicons that can be found here: [http://getbootstrap.com/components/#glyphicons](http://getbootstrap.com/components/#glyphicons)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Anyone looking for a decent note platform, just use google keep, it works like a charm :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I like google keep, but Markdown is a must for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Don't set up a demo site. Make it so that I can use the app with data backed by LocalStorage until I decide to sign up.

<comment><USER17> Dangerous idea; you lower the motivation for users to register, and when one accidentally clears their history they may become so disappointed they won't restart using your app.

Doesn't matter who's to blame--they're still sad.

Everything has its pros and cons, this idea is not self-evidently better.

<comment><USER16> Yep, I agree. You can elevate that risk but making it clear in the UI that your data is not being saved on the server.

If you are the kind of person who clears their LocalStorage often, I think you know what the risks are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Trello, anyone?

<comment><USER19> I'm not really sure what you mean by that. The interface is very different from Trello, as is the UX, and this is open source self-hosted.

Sure, Trello is great for organising yourself, but it's not the be all and end all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Not sure if I am missing something here, but this is the kind of thing that could be created in a few hours from scratch. There are multiple UX bugs/errors and the UI is nothing to write home about either.

Not trying to be snarky or bitchy; honestly wondering why this is on first page HN?

<comment><USER3> > this is the kind of thing that could be created in a few hours from scratch

Yes and no. There is opinion that needs to drive the design and feature set; if this was using stock bootstrap I would be much more inclined to agree with you, but there is definitely some thought and care put into whats there and why. I don't agree with all of it, but it's not haphazard or careless, and is not something i found myself scoffing at for being overly simple or boring.

Second, it was submitted for feedback and the author has been receptive to it; not everything on HN needs to be a major news headline. The author also started a development blog for it, and as a project it can hit close to home in one way or another for many HN'ers. Building things is hard, and I think we do well as a community to support people who share what they're up to.

As someone who's not afraid to flag, I didn't find this unreasonable or unworthy of HN. But, you are welcome to feel differently.

<comment><AUTHOR> This made my day, thank you for the awesome comment. :)</comment></comment></comment>


What I learned from suffering my first and last XSS attack - <AUTHOR> https://livesshattack.net/blog/2016-02-28/what-i-learned-from-suffering-my-first-and-last-xss-attack <comment><USER2> Some modern tools to mitigate XSS/make XSS virtually impossible:

\- Content-Security-Policy [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Security/CSP/In...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Security/CSP/Introducing_Content_Security_Policy)

\- The sandbox attribute on iframes: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/HTML/Element/ifram...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/HTML/Element/iframe#Attributes)

XSS is one of the hardest things to keep under control at scale.

<comment><USER3> A _much_ better way to mitigate XSS/HTML injections is not using string functions to generate HTML.

CSP prevents an attacker from executing scripts, but the attacker can still corrupt your HTML.

<comment><USER4> Yep. XSS isn't at all hard to prevent if you're using tools that are safe by default. Unfortunately, popular ones like jQuery aren't. (This, more than any other, is a reason to prefer the DOM API.)

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure the DOM API is safer. innerHtml vs html()

<comment><USER6> If you're assigning untrusted text to a property called `innerHTML`, you shouldn't be surprised to learn that you're vulnerable to XSS.

APIs like jQuery are worse because you end up treating strings as HTML without even realizing it. Example from the article:

      $("#tail-here").prepend(newlines);

There's no hint on that line that the `newlines` variable is interpreted as HTML instead of text.

<comment><USER7> Pfft. Straight from the documentation of the method:

      content
      Type: >>htmlString<< or Element or Array or jQuery

You could argue that the API is bad for allowing HTML strings as arguments, but it's not really surprising that a function does what it is documented to do. Especially since these are _DOM manipulation_ , not string manipulation functions.

<comment><USER4> > You could argue that the API is bad for allowing HTML strings as arguments

That is _exactly_ what I'm arguing, yes.

> but it's not really surprising that a function does what it is documented to > do

It doesn't have to be surprising or undocumented to be stupid.

<comment><USER8>
      > You could argue that the API is bad for allowing HTML strings as arguments
      That is exactly what I'm arguing, yes.

And how native DOM helps there?

<comment><USER9> There are relatively few DOM APIs which take a trusted string. innerHTML and outerHTML are two and clearly state that they take _HTML_ so it's no surprise for the stuff you give them to be interpreted thus. But if you use e.g. textContent or createTextNode to insert text into your document, they will correctly sanitise it.

jQuery has text()[0], but because most of its API takes strings to start with, it's very convenient to do the wrong thing and shove untrusted strings into unsafe methods.

[0] [http://api.jquery.com/text/#text2](http://api.jquery.com/text/#text2)

<comment><USER8> yes, API takes strings, but it calls native DOM at the end anyway, so I still don't get what's your point.

<comment><USER9> > yes, API takes strings, but it calls native DOM at the end anyway

jQuery calls _unsafe API_ which should only be handled _trusted strings_ but makes it easy and convenient to give them _untrusted string_ and thus introduce _exploit vectors_.

Furthermore it's also significantly more difficult to _audit the code_ , using the regular DOM there are only a pair of attributes to check, whereas pretty much _any jQuery method call_ is a potential security hole.

tldr: jQuery makes doing things wrong very easy, much easier than doing things right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The HTML framework I created for personal projects has a special string type that cannot be output (nor even compiled) without specifically selecting which format you want the string encoded as (eg HTML, URL, plain text, etc). While this does produce some arguably uglier code and creates a little additional development overhead (ie code fails to compile by default), it has caught numerous instances where I would have accidentally left myself open to this kind of attack. So I've found it to be highly effective in the long run.

<comment><USER11> Python's Jinja templating language has the concept of "safe" and "unsafe" strings. By default all strings are unsafe (meaning they will be escaped wherever they are rendered) and you need to explicitly mark them as safe in order to be able to treat them as HTML.

React and Angular (and maybe Ember too?) similarly auto-escape any strings to be rendered and only provide very explicit ways to circumvent that (in React it's even called "dangerouslySetInnerHTML" and takes an object with a property called "__html" rather than a string[0]).

You can avoid XSS in dynamically typed languages. You just need to make it easier to do the safe thing than the difficult thing.

[0]: I really like React's approach to naming APIs you should think twice about using. For legacy reasons ReactDOM is still bundled as part of React and exposed with a property but the name of that property is "__SECRET_DOM_DO_NOT_USE_OR_YOU_WILL_BE_FIRED" (presumably to prevent React maintainers / Facebook employees from using it).

<comment><USER10> I wasn't implying dynamically typed languages were worse that statically typed languages. I was just discussing the approach I used to mitigate human error when building web UIs in hope it might inspire other people (or other people might offer additional feedback that inspire improvements in my own framework).

It is interesting to see that other frameworks are using similar ideas to my own though. Maybe not surprising; but at least reassuring to know that my own quirky API design isn't as leftfield as it felt when I was developing it.

<comment><USER11> The "dynamic typing" remark was directed more at the sibling comment than yours directly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have always been nervous about clicking on links to sites that say 'we were hacked, but we're safe now.' When that link also includes the hubristic 'and we'll never be hacked again,' which paints a target on you big enough for the entire darknet to see... I'm sorry but I'm not clicking on that link.

<comment><USER13> The site's giving me a 503 Bad Gateway now, so you might be onto something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is there a tool that tries XSS and other common attacks on a web page?

Similar to how Google Page Speed Insights and SEO tools which detect errors such as "You haven't minified your CSS", "You haven't set a title and description for your page" etc.

<comment><USER15> Vulnerability scanners are usually premium (paid) products. Some offer free trials such as Qualys: [https://www.qualys.com/forms/freescan/](https://www.qualys.com/forms/freescan/)

Other famous tools are nessus, and accunetix: [https://www.tenable.com/products/nessus-vulnerability- scanne...](https://www.tenable.com/products/nessus-vulnerability-scanner), [http://www.acunetix.com/vulnerability- scanner/](http://www.acunetix.com/vulnerability-scanner/)

These scanners are usually used by security consultants to test a complete internal network of a client.

For a full list, some of which are open source, check this link: [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:Vulnerability_Scann...](https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:Vulnerability_Scanning_Tools)

<comment><USER14> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What is that tool you used for realtime traffic monitoring?

<comment><AUTHOR> Google analytics?

<comment><USER16> Thanks. I never really programmed for the web

<comment><AUTHOR> You're welcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Anyone know of static analysis tools that find potential XSS/etc issues in your frontend (such as the innerHtml message) and backend code?</comment>


FBI used PayPal verification history to track cybercriminal - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1688427/fbi-used-paypal-verification-history-to-track-cybercriminal/ <comment><USER2> Such a big shame how ceo is handling this...

<comment><USER3> what do you mean?</comment></comment>


Ruby 2.1.5 Released - <AUTHOR> https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2014/11/13/ruby-2-1-5-is-released/

<comment><USER2> If you're still running a Ruby 2.1.0, 2.1.1, or 2.1.2 (i.e. less than 2.1.3) you're missing out on some killer memory optimizations. I saw huge savings in my production app when i bumped from 2.1.2 to 2.1.3.

Also 2.1.5 is available on Heroku: [https://devcenter.heroku.com/changelog](https://devcenter.heroku.com/changelog)

Think HN is loosing its touch. It's been on Reddit for over 24 hours: [http://www.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/2m6p6n/ruby_215_is_rel...](http://www.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/2m6p6n/ruby_215_is_released/). Anywhoo, glad for the publicity, please upgrade your Rubies.

<comment><USER3> From experience expect to see a lot of heroku memory errors if you're using anything above 2.0.0.

Heroku supports these newer ruby versions but they trigger memory errors like it's nobodies business.

2.0.0 means no memory errors.

<comment><USER2> > 2.0.0 means no memory errors

2.1 has a totally new GC setup (generational GC). It is guaranteed to use more memory (expect 3~5%), but be MUCH MUCH MUCH faster. Typically you can trade off running one less Puma worker to decrease memory usage, and the increase in speed may make up for it. Alternatively you can bump up to 2x dynos, and cut the number of dynos you have in half. If you haven't tried 2.1.3 or above do yourself a favor and revisit. The 2.1.3 patch means memory grows much more slowly.

Also if you didn't see my post on memory profiling: [http://www.schneems.com/2014/11/07/i-ram-what-i- ram.html](http://www.schneems.com/2014/11/07/i-ram-what-i-ram.html) (It got over 40 upvotes on reddit, and like 3 on HN, again...HN what is going on? I've had much less substantial posts make it front page). That post shows you how to remove ~30% starting RAM (by bumping mail version to 2.6.3+) and shows you can profile and remove libraries that are using a ton of memory in your app.

You can also use something like puma_worker_killer (or unicorn_worker_killer) to tame your memory growth if it only balloons over 512mb after a while, but ultimately those two solutions are bandaids.

Ruby 2.0 isn't going to be supported forever and the generational GC is definitely here to stay. Maybe try the 2.2.0 preview (it's on Heroku), it has 3 generations (total) which means much less retained memory and you still get speed performance improvements.

I see most of the bigger production apps using 2.1+ fwiw.

<comment><USER3> I agree with everything you said, but until Heroku offers larger dynos by default it's better to use 2.0.0 -if- you typically only use a dyno or two.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For anyone interested, DEB and RPM packages are available at [https://packager.io/gh/pkgr/rubies](https://packager.io/gh/pkgr/rubies) for various distributions. For instance for ubuntu 14.04: [https://packager.io/gh/pkgr/rubies/install?bid=28#ubuntu-14-...](https://packager.io/gh/pkgr/rubies/install?bid=28#ubuntu-14-04-ruby-2-1)

<comment><USER5> Wouldn't one rather want to use rvm?

<comment><USER6> RVM/rbenv/chruby are generally discouraged on production servers.

<comment><USER7> Not for me! Being able to easily swap rubies in production gives a lot of flexibility. I've found that Chruby in production has been very reliable and easy to manage.

<comment><USER8> Yep, there are also significant performance benefits in compiling ruby for your machine if you're running on bare metal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My interest in Ruby wanes a bit every time there is a new Ruby release, but no corresponding Windows installer on rubyinstaller.org

I really like the language and used to reach for it as a first instinct, but nowadays it almost lost its mindshare with me.

I understand that there are open bugs that are tricky, but I get the very serious impression that the core Ruby devs simply don't care about Windows at all (a bit like it used to be with git). Bad move, I think.

<comment><USER10> You seem a little entitled. This may not be politically correct, but frankly, Ruby is __nix style software, Windows support seems like its just a courtesy.

Perhaps I'm living in a linux-nerd bubble, but why would anyone even use ruby when targeting the Windows platform? Seems like .NET would be a more appropriate choice across the board (be it for web or Windows application development).

I can't imagine the type of pain involved in deploying Ruby code into production in a Windows environment, that just seems insane. This is all to say, maybe Ruby _isn 't_ the best choice for a Windows developer. If one simply enjoys the Windows experience in general, at the very least, if I were developing Ruby in Windows, I'd expect to use a *nix VM via SSH thru cygwin or something.

<comment><USER11> > but why would anyone even use ruby when targeting the Windows platform?

Ruby presents itself as fun-to-code-in programming language.

And it is very much so. That's why a lot people like using it.

Having to setup a whole new environment just to have their fav code tool at hand or having to boot a virtual machine each time just to use it it's much more inpractical, introduces overhead (e.g. sending files on which to work on with Ruby to the VM) and basically, for reasons I am sure you know, does not feel the same than having it installed locally.

As you said the fact that you are advocating that people should not be able to use Ruby on Windows just feels a bit of a *nix nerdy-bubble biased thought.

<comment><USER10> Use the right tool for the job. I adore Ruby, but I don't think its very practical to shoehorn it into a role where it's a less optimal solution compared to the other available options.

 _> Having to setup a whole new environment just to have their fav code tool at hand or having to boot a virtual machine each time just to use it it's much more inpractical_

VMs are part of the modern developer landscape and are actually quite trivial to setup. Further, once your VM is built, it requires no further effort beyond the couple clicks it takes to boot up the VM and shell (especially because most developers avoid reboots).

 _> As you said the fact that you are advocating that people should not be able to use Ruby on Windows just feels a bit of a _nix nerdy-bubble biased thought.*

I think it's pretty obvious that I'm not advocating programmers shouldn't be able to use Ruby on Windows, they should use whatever they want, but I think they should also temper their expectations with the reality that Ruby on Windows is a pretty small niche, _especially_ for web development (likely the most common use-case for Ruby).

<comment><USER11> Ruby is a general purpose programming language. The fact that Rails made it popular for web dev is another thing. Also anyone who uses a language should be not tied to what the majority of coders do with that language or to the conception of what a "modern coder" is. A language is a tool, and I am happy when it is easily available to anyone under any condition to make of it whatever they want.

<comment><USER10> I'm not talking about what _should be_ , I'm talking about _what is_. The reality is that Ruby on Windows is a relatively tiny fraction of the Ruby community; that doesn't mean nobody should use Ruby on Windows, it just means that you can't expect a first class experience compared to the environment where most Ruby code is tested, lives and thrives. This is the same reason why very few developers target .NET in the nix world, _yes_ .NET can work on linux, but, despite the efforts of mono and Microsoft's upcoming OSS push, getting .NET to work correctly in a non-Windows environment is fraught with annoying problems and obscure compatibility edge-cases.

Except for educational purposes, if you're a _programmer_ , I just don't see a reason to fight one's tools by deploying them in an environment they just aren't optimized for _in practice_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> not a big deal here, fixed a DoS vulnerability of REXML, and some small bug fixes, textually: Sorry for the inconvenience of frequent releases.</comment>


Code Life Cycle: Every Line is Technical Debt - <AUTHOR> http://joelhughes.co.uk/code-life-cycle-every-line-is-technical-debt

<comment><USER2> nice article joel. Keep up the blogging</comment>


MariaDB 10.0 Beta launched - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mariadb.org/mariadb-10-0-beta-launched-an-important-milestone/ <comment><USER2> I've been impressed with Postgres, and still have a sour taste in my mouth over MySql's sale to Oracle. So why would I want to use MariaDB over Postgres? Is there a compelling reason to give it a look?

<comment><USER3> The main stronghold of MariaDB is the drop in replacement for MySQL. If you already have a well established web app and you are planning on get off the clutches of Oracle, MariaDB is your easy choice. You don't have to make substantial changes or worry about breaking any existing functionality. As for performance, can someone who have used both comment on it? Also anyone knows if any exciting changes coming to MYSQL? Can't believe MySQL still doesn't have support for Json.

<comment><USER4> I am pleased to see that the traditional SQL databases are still advancing. Having used various NoSQL databases, I always miss the declarative nature of SQL.

I have to agree that MariaDB's main stronghold being MySQL drop in. The other MySQL drop in out there is MemSQL, which is closed and they really keep pricing under wraps.

TokuDB is a great engine. I don't think Postgres has a storage engine that matches the benefits TokuDB brings, but other than that I don't see many benefits over Postgres for a new project, but haven't compared the replication features closely.

Migrating a big codebase to Postgres from MySQL can be kind of a pain unless everything wrapped everything in an ORM like sqlalchemy. The main pain point for me in a recent migration was how postgres handles mixed case in table/column names. Most of the function differences between the two are fairly easy to resolve.

Can anyone with experience with JSON in both Postgres and MariaDB make a comparison?

<comment><USER5> > I am pleased to see that the traditional SQL databases are still advancing. > Having used various NoSQL databases, I always miss the declarative nature of > SQL.

And I bet you haven't seen Datalog yet. ;-)

<comment><USER4> Oh I have, and I like it so much that I feel like mentioning all the time. So I was pleased with my self-restraint here ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6>
        DELETE ... RETURNING

Cool! The ability to fetch the result of a write operation without having to do a SELECT afterward is one of my favorite "minor perks" of PostgreSQL. It eliminates the need for a lot of extra queries.

With MariaDB 10.0, only DELETE statements get the RETURNING clause. But it seems that they have plans to add it to UPDATE statements soon [1], and I hope INSERT gets it as well.

[1] [https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-5092](https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-5092)

</comment><comment><USER7> Has anyone done a conversion from mysql to mariadb recently? How was the experience?

<comment><USER8> I develop a Rails 3 web app and recently moved from MySQL to MariaDB. Well actually the guys at Rails Machine did the move for me. I don't know what all they did on their end, so can't speak much for the server admin side. We ended up making the switch since I was moving to a high availability setup with multiple DB servers.

On the web app side, I am using the mysql2 gem and made zero changes to my code. Also, I frequently import SQL dumps from MariaDB into my local MySQL development with no problems.

The only issue I had was related to some nasty SQL I had in a select in a finder (yeah I know bad practice). MySQL was returning a 0 while MariaDB returned NULL. Either way, it was my fault for messy code and when I fixed the select, everything was good.

<comment><USER9> There's one silly difference I noticed. Timestamps in mariadb dumps have their size appended. Mysql doesn't like that, so you need to filter them out. Otherwise pretty much a drop-in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What is involved in changing from 5.5 to 10.x?</comment>


This Week in GTK+ – 19 - <AUTHOR> https://blog.gtk.org/2016/10/11/this-week-in-gtk-19/ <comment><USER2> How has broadway been coming along? I played around with it recently and it was incredible using my browser window to drive gedit. Nothing else really worked that well though. Imagine if webgl could be used when needed. Pretty incredible stuff.</comment>


Why You Secretly Love Commercials - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/why-you-secretly-love-commercials/

<comment><USER2> So in short...

A) Variety is the spice of live

B) Commercials put variety in your TV habits

C) Therefore, commercials are spicing up your TV watching

Perhaps the conclusion should be

C) TV makers get away with boring shows because commercials help hide it

</comment><comment><USER3> If that's the case, why aren't people flocking to plays, musicals, or concerts that have commercials interspersed? By that logic, we'd prefer that arrangement to the way things are now.</comment>


IPhone 4S surrenders U.S. crown to Galaxy S3 - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57505552-37/upset-iphone-4s-surrenders-u.s-crown-to-galaxy-s3/

<comment><USER2> I have never owned an iPhone (just played with friends' and family members') so this can't be a fair comparison, but: my wife and I have new Galaxy S IIIs and we absolutely love them. It is amazing how nice a cellphone with 1280x700 pixel resolution is (good for watching Netflix movies, etc.)

One more thing: perhaps people had held off buying iPhone 4s waiting for the new model? So, these statistics may not mean much.</comment>


Paralyzed Virginia Marine walks for first time in 33 years - <AUTHOR> http://wtvr.com/2017/03/16/paralyzed-u-s-marine-veteran-walks-for-first-time-in-33-years/ <comment><USER2> > During physical therapy at McGuire Terry was fitted with a motorized > exoskeleton.

While ultimately really cool, I was really hoping it was some sort of therapy to reverse the paralyzation , not just work around one aspect of it. :/

<comment><USER3> It turns out that just moving those limbs, even if it's under external power, is a very effective form of therapy. So don't worry, your fondest wishes are coming true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am heartened that these stories appear to becoming increasingly common. Like the frog boiling in water, good things can happen without us realizing it as well. And they're worth calling out.

</comment><comment><USER5> More info on the exoskeleton at [http://rewalk.com](http://rewalk.com).

I couldn't find pricing, battery life, or how hard it is to put on each day (I suspect that may take lots of time because one must make sure the joints of this skeleton rotate along the same axes as the knee and hip)

<comment><USER6> This may be a silly question, but I wonder why the Stair function isn't available in the US? Is it an FDA approval thing?

<comment><USER7> Seems like you're spot on: "Use on stairs is not approved by the FDA in the United States." [0]

[0]: [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1607962/000119312514...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1607962/000119312514321636/d724635df1a.htm)</comment></comment></comment>


Russia up in arms over Chinese theft of military technology - <AUTHOR> https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Russia-up-in-arms-over-Chinese-theft-of-military-technology? <comment><USER2> They too are learning the same lessons The West is learning.

Russia is wasting its time being an agitator. They could, with time, integrate with the west and coexist, but I guess the oligarchs only look at short term gains while the going is good for them and it doesn't seem the ruling class has the will to make the necessary changes.

<comment><USER3> >>Russia is wasting its time being an agitator. They could, with time, integrate with the west and coexist

That's a fundamental failure to understand the Russian character, their geographic position, and their legitimate security concerns. Caspian Report's video on the subject has a few errors but is overall a good summary.[1]

We've had bilateral military training exercises with the Russians in the past.[2] Their military used to be focused on the Caucasus and the largely- Islamic Chechen insurgency. They were restructuring their military towards a brigade-based organization to facilitate fighting those sorts of small wars. But they were faced with continual expansion of NATO eastwards, contrary to a tacit agreement (if not necessarily formalized) with the US. I think the straw that finally broke the back of Russian paranoia was the establishment of Anti- Ballistic Missile sites in Poland, to protect against non-existent Iranian missiles that would supposedly target Europe.[3] Things came to a head in 2007. [4] After that, the Russians began to re-align their military to discouraging another high-intensity war with the west -- in the past 250 years, all three of the existential threats to the Russian nation have been invasions from the west (Napoleon, WW1, WW2). All of that is why they eventually reconstituted the Guards Tank Army[5]. And all of that is why they are currently painted as an "agitator".

[1][https://youtu.be/HE6rSljTwdU](https://youtu.be/HE6rSljTwdU)

[2][https://www.stripes.com/news/u-s-russian-troops-take-a- quant...](https://www.stripes.com/news/u-s-russian-troops-take-a-quantum-jump- in-cooperation-1.34232)

[3][https://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/](https://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/)

[4][https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-russia-interests- collisi...](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-russia-interests-collision- course)

[5][https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/04/...](https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/04/russia- prepares-for-a-big-war-the-significance-of-a-tank-army.html#more)</comment></comment>


Why does fiat money seemingly work? (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-does-fiat-money-seemingly-work.html

<comment><USER2> > the shameful secret of the welfare state is that it makes irresponsible > slaves out of previously free and responsible people

> The actual producers of wealth are a very small group

So in the absence of the welfare state, what happens to the vast majority who are allegedly not producers of wealth?

> the free market tends to consistently lower the prices of goods and services > over time

Not only is this a recipe for deflation (which the article doesn't address at all), but I don't see how it could be true with growing population and diminishing resources allocated through competition.

</comment><comment><USER3> Gold : Economics :: Creationism : Biology</comment>


Easy iOS game development with GameSalad - <AUTHOR> http://gamesalad.com/products/creator

<comment><USER2> Why do they have the video set to 720p when they explicitly make the container 340px tall?

      <object width="560" height="340">...</object>

That's just annoying. And makes me drop it down so my internet connection can stream it. And _beyond_ worthless, becoming wasteful, because even 480p is more than it can display but you're draining my battery more with increased CPU use.

<comment><USER3> They probably did this expecting that many users would use the full-screen capability of the video player, and lacked either the technology in hand or the time to set up a means to have it use a different file for low- vs high- res playback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There was major uproar from apple about quality issues if they were to allow flash games as standalone apps(not browser). Meaning a major influx of low quality games or apps. I'm surprised a framework like this doesnt bring up the same concerns from apple.

<comment><USER5> Well, didn't they relent and allow the Flash-to-ObjectiveC compiler through?

<comment><USER6> Yes, they did: <http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/packagerforiphone/>

I would think the market should be responsible for judging quality, not a sole company. On the app store you can request a refund, or give a review as well.

<comment><USER7> See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983)

Nintendo revived the industry in part by exerting quality control over every game released for the NES, and this has been standard practice for console manufacturers ever since.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've toyed with doing an "easy game maker" but have always ended up leaning towards making high-powered "real" tools (whatever those are) instead.

My current goal is to make a game IDE that resembles a Smalltalk or perhaps Emacs-esque system - highly reflective, image-based, extensible, but more specifically game-focused, with the core features and main loop hardcoded, but everything else being part of the same system. The current state of the art in these tools(Game Maker, Unity, UDK) tends to stop just a little bit short of this "build tool and game very closely together" idea, but the way I see it, that's nearly the last major win for iteration times, within our current understanding of the development proces.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been tinkering with Corona <http://www.anscamobile.com/> which is not point-clicky like Gamesalad, but rather a framework/mechanism for implementing apps/games on mobile devices in Lua, with various support for physics and so on in the box. I think the idea is to be somewhere between Gamesalad and Objective C, in terms of:

* effort * amount of code you need to write * flexibility

I've no idea if it's actually good; I've just been tinkering. But it seems worth a look.

<comment><USER9> <http://jonbeebe.tumblr.com/post/1119939987/corona-sdk-review>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Very interesting. I think "No coding. Ever." is a little disingenuous, some of the screenshots sure look like coding disguised as rules systems, which I would expect to break down into an awful mess for anything complex. But I still like seeing things like this, and it does look very slick. I think things like this are a great way to get kids into game development, for one thing.

Reminds me of The Arcade Construction Set from when I was a kid. I was already programming stuff in Basic by the time I got that, but it was still a blast to drag a few things around and see instant results. You're not going to make the next Quake or Angry Birds that way, but it's a great first step.

I even hope I'm wrong and someone does make the next Angry Birds with this thing. The lower the barrier to entry on game design is, the more great games we all get to play that would've otherwise existed only in someone's head (Just as long as someone else filters out the corresponding increase in awful games before they get to me :)

<comment><USER11> Although I cannot speak for Gamesalad in particular, don't underestimate the ability of tools to be able to create some great games, even in the absence of raw programming power.

At Blizzard, rumor has it that the programming team calls it a day long before any game is released (sometimes a year in advance) because their map editors are so powerful that the game designers don't really need anything else.

There are 3rd party "maps" out there for games like Warcraft or Starcraft that implement an entirely different genre of games. I fondly remember playing a racing game inside Warcraft 3.

Rules are expressed in a manner similar to what I've seen of Gamesalad -- they can indeed be quite powerful.

<comment><USER10> Speaking as a Blizzard programmer, I can tell you there is no basis to that rumor.

Edit: just to be clear, I'm not discounting the rest of your points. It is indeed possible to do very sophisticated things with triggers, rules, or what have you, you just tend, in my experience, to wind up with something significantly harder to read and maintain than something written more traditionally. Which is probably why Blizzard's RTS's include actual scripting languages as well.

"Probably" as in I am a Blizzard programmer, but I'm not on the RTS team and haven't worked on any of those games directly other than a tiny bit of Battle.net code for SC2. It's possible, even likely, you know more about SC2/WC3 modding than I do :)

<comment><USER12> Blizzard feels like the Apple of the gaming world- slowly, but consistently dishing out great products which you can trust to be fun and exciting.

And yes, the editors are very powerful. Look no further than "DotA" which has spawned no less than THREE spinoff games:

League of Legends, Heroes of Newearth and now the main developer(IceFrog) of DotA has gone on to develop DotA 2 for Valve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For kids (likely the target audience of this), the $99 developer program fee would be quite high (let alone the fact they have to register under a parent's name) -- I don't think this will really make an impact on the App Store.

<comment><USER14> I'm 31 and it looks like something I'll definitely be trying - especially to help convert some of my Android apps for release in the App store.

<comment><USER13> Interesting. I would assume that the Mac+dev-program+testing-device combo would convince people to either go for a full-fledged port or not go through with the idea. (Do note that iOS users aren't accustomed to anything non- native, even just an alternative-styled button can throw them off, although this is less of a restriction in games.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd be more interested in something like this if it acted as training wheels for my Objective C learning experience, rather than a complete replacement.

The mechanics seem solid, and there's plenty of room to play, but I'm not sure there's room to be unique.

Are there any success stories of app store rankings or new businesses being built as a result of this engine?

<comment><USER14> It looks like, from the game library, you can be as unique as you allow your imagination to allow.

If you just jump in and tweak one of their tutorials, you won't get far, but if you take your time, design great graphics, write a fun story, etc, why couldn't you be a huge success with this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> My initial reaction was that there is no way this thing works, but over 3,000 games have been made with this thing:

<http://gamesalad.com/games>

Thats not to say anything about the quality of the games, but that is still an impressive number. Much like Game Maker, I am sure there are some gems in there.

</comment><comment><USER17> An explanation or more details of each feature that PRO differs from Basic in the pricing page would be nice. Specially the "iAd Functionality".

And the plugin is just for safari? You are ignoring a huge slice of potential users. No idea if it's worth it developing the plugin for other browsers though.

</comment><comment><USER18> They have iOS development for iOS now? Awesome. What will Apple think of next?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about that, and thanks for pointing it out. Fixed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> do we own the app after ? or should we share royalties with Gamesalad? someone knows?

</comment><comment><USER20> Building frameworks like this for game developers is similar to building handicapped escalators for people who compete in running marathons.

<comment><AUTHOR> That 14 year old Kuwaiti boy who developed Doodle Destroy over 3 days with 900K downloads and being featured on CNN would strongly disagree.

[http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/10/05/kuwait.iphone.teen...](http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/10/05/kuwait.iphone.teenager/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Cool but what about easy iOS game development for Android..?

<comment><USER22> Google App Inventor, of course...</comment></comment>