To solve problems caused by sitting, learn to squat (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/quartzy/1121077/to-solve-problems-caused-by-sitting-learn-to-squat/ <comment><USER2> For people who want to improve their bodyweight squat:

1) Heels should be firmly planted on the ground. This can seem impossible: many people will feel like they can't even get to parallel, let alone ass to ground. My favored solution to this is adding elevation to the heels. A plank or two can add an inch or more to heel height. This gives your foot the support it needs in a squat and helps form good habits. When you rise from the squat, most of the force should be being applied through the heel. Over time you will decrease the heel elevation.

2) Body weight distribution can add to the difficulty of it if you're "back heavy." For my body fat distribution, losing weight enabled me to balance over my heels, while before I would fall backwards.

3) Practice every day, even if it's just a set or two of squats.

4) Hip flexion and ankle dorsiflexion are the key components to a squat. I find the former easier to improve than the latter. The supplementary exercises I've found most useful are Cossack squats, horse stance, and training my pancake split. For the pancake, you want all the folding to come from the hips and not from the lower or upper back. This transfers well to working on squats, because folding from the hips instead of the back brings your center of mass forward more effectively.

<comment><USER3> To add to this, there are a slate of classic mistakes noobs make while squatting that impact depth and cause pain:

1\. Your feet should not be pointing straight ahead while squatting, regardless of stance width. This is by far and away the biggest noob mistake. Most people never hit depth / develop knee pain because they squat with their feet straight forward. You should set up with your feet rotated ~30 degrees outwards from parallel (ie your feet should be forming a V with the vertex behind you).

2\. When you are squatting down, you should project your knees in the direction that your feet are pointing. Your knees should be out over your feet at all times. Your knees should not go straight forward.

3\. Squat (and really all other powerlifting movements) are full body exercises. Your core should be tight; your back should be tight; etc

4\. Don't squat in running shoes. If you must squat in running shoes, use a board as the OP stated. Running shoes tend to have a very squishy sole which is great for running but not so great when you are trying to establish a stable base to balance on and push off of. Try to squat in shoes with a hard sole.

<comment><USER4> This sounds consistent with the advice from my trainer when I was going to the gym. One thing you don't mention is knee position relative to your toes. I was admonished that the knees should never be allowed to go forward of the toes -- they will get excessively loaded if they do. Is that true in your experience?

<comment><USER3> That is true, but knee position relative to toes is more of a diagnostic for other form issues rather than something to try to optimize for in it's own right if that makes sense. If you are breaking at the hips (ie pushing your butt backwards to initiate the movement as opposed to sitting straight down on your ankles) and also breaking at the knees (ie pushing your knees apart to start the movement) properly, then your knees will usually not go passed your toes. If you find that your knees are going far passed your toes, you probably aren't doing at least one of those things correctly. It also usually means that the bar is not over your heels so you are moving it inefficiently.

It's similar to when people say "chest up" for squatting which actually has nothing to do with your chest directly and is instead a diagnostic for if a person's back and core are tight. If your back and core are tight then your back won't round and therefore your chest will appear "up".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From the article:

">At best, we might undertake it during Crossfit, pilates or while lifting at the gym, but only partially and often with weights (a repetitive maneuver that's hard to imagine being useful 2.5 million years ago).<"

A repetitive maneuver with weights is hard to imagine 2.5 million years ago? So they're going to bash getting yourself strong and healthy because they can't imagine anyone doing a repetitive maneuver 2.5 million years ago? Either you're supporting that people should squat more or you don't. This article wants you to squat but not in any way which will improve your strength and chances of getting off the toilet when your 95.

<comment><USER6> Maybe what they're referring to is the idea that doing a wide variety of different motions can be really useful. This is why cross-training is important for athletes who want to be their best and healthiest.

For example, if you're into running, this strengthens your legs, but it focuses on certain specific muscles and neglects others. So you want to do some other things like biking or ideally something with lateral movement like playing soccer or tennis.

And it's not just strength and endurance to consider.

The body also needs to learn to do certain motions correctly, because part of fitness is the habits your body has to activate certain muscles in certain sequences. When you walk or run, it's important how your foot lands, and it's important how your knees bend (so your muscles can absorb shock, not your joints), etc. Movement is a skill to be learned that requires practice until doing it properly becomes second nature, a lot like playing a musical instrument.

And of course there's also flexibility.

Anyway, maybe their point is that merely doing strength training is better than nothing, but it's not a substitute for including squatting into your daily life so that you do 100 different variations of squats and squat-like movements. For example, if you unloading the dishwasher by squatting down, extending your arm and leaning over to grab some forks, and then twisting around and standing up partially to put them in drawer to your other side, you're going to trigger different muscles than if you do squats in the gym.

<comment><USER7> This comment is like the exercise equivalent of bikeshedding.

Someone who can squat twice their bodyweight is not going to have any problems doing any of the things you mentioned.

The strength and mobility required to do so with good form will still be available to you for more varied everyday movements which are generally unweighted.

(And it'll definitely be more effective at building leg strength than any kind of running. That's why high level sprinters all do strength training including squats and cleans.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So, about 10 years ago, I'd seen a few articles on the prevalence of the "squat-down-to-your-feet" stance in Asia, and the ease with which this stance could be reached by those who'd been doing it their whole lives, and its benefits as a low-energy sitting-position where chairs are unavailable & the ground is unappealing. But, I could get nowhere close without extreme ankle- knee-hip tightness & then, if I pushed, pain.

I thought, well, maybe I can gradually get that range-of-motion back for my adult body, with occasional tries/stretching.

After a few weeks of trying squats for a couple minutes most days, I was playing a typical game of basketball with friends, and landing from an unremarkable jump for a rebound, when my knee ACL snapped.

Quite possibly a coincidence! But even now, long after the recovery from ACL- replacement surgery, I can't muster any interest in trying those particular exercises again. And I wonder if ACL injury rates vary based on people/cultures where this stance is prevalent. (I could believe that actually _achieving_ such squats involves longer ACLs, which might in the end be either positive or negative for sports-related ACL tears.)

<comment><USER9> I think you may be overthinking it - basketball is to blame for your ACL misfortune.

I can't find any details regarding the 3rd world squat, but here's an article on ACL force during a regular squat:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11528346](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11528346)

My wife doesn't have an ACL in one of her knees, and has no difficulty with any of those motions. The ACL is there to stop when something goes funky (sudden sheer forces), not when it's running through it's usual range of motion.

This article says that the forces on ACL are greatest when you're just starting the squat movement, not at the end of the range of motion:

[https://squatuniversity.com/2016/01/22/debunking-squat- myths...](https://squatuniversity.com/2016/01/22/debunking-squat-myths-are- deep-squats-bad-for-the-knees/)

<comment><USER8> I suspect there are some differences between the exercise deep-squat, and the sit-squat where, at the end, you're essentially sitting on your heels, with little-to-no ongoing exertion.

Obviously, a basketball action was the key and triggering event. But I'd been playing similar basketball on similar concrete courts for 25 year before the injury, and plenty since. My games aren't that intense. Yet that's the most serious injury I've had. (Others were milder ankle & foot injuries.)

<comment><USER10> it's still probably due to basketball, where ACL tears are one of the most common injuries (after ankle sprains of course). many tendon and ligaments can't easily repair themselves (and where they can, it's slow), so the tears accumulate over time.

the ACL is absolutely crucial (ha!) to stabilizing the knee (especially front- back motion on the horizontal plane) and keeping it from falling apart (hyperextending along the tibiofemoral axis).

(took a dissection class in grad school, where we cut an ACL to see how it affects motion and stability.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Time for a squatting desk?

<comment><USER12> I've been using a self-built prototype floor-sitting desk for the last month. I can sit cross-legged, on my heels, or with my legs to one side, as well as squatting.

It's 2 shelves: one about a foot off the ground for the mouse and keyboard and another a little more than a foot above the first for the laptop to sit on. I look directly into the screen.

An improvement would be better adjustability and possibly taller supports so that it could be used while standing as well.

Either way, I'm very happy with sitting on the floor. Now, when I sit in chairs I notice misalignments arising quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Furniture in general is detrimental to people's general fitness. I'm convinced its primary purpose is class signaling and generating unnecessary business for the economy. Sells bigger homes and office spaces, you need to haul all this junk around whenever you buy it or move it, and it needs to be manufactured and bought in the first place.

If you think about what furniture actually does, it's pretty obvious. It deprives you of an entire range of natural movements and postures a life without furniture forces you to experience regularly.

I've lived without furniture or even a bed for over a decade, and am now middle-aged, and the difference is very obvious when I socialize with folks especially when we're playing board games on a floor or hanging around a campfire.

My flexibility and comfort at squatting and sitting indian style or really any position on the floor is equivalent to that of a child. Most american adults I know can't comfortably sit indian style if they can even get into the position at all, and often need help getting up from the floor or at least let out quite a grunt in struggling to get back up.

In any given day I'm getting up and down from the floor dozens of times. Go do some burpees and see how significant that can be vs. using a chair. I leap up from the ground like it's nothing at all because it's the normal.

Another thing I've learned from one of those investigations of regions with the most oldest living people is many of them have cultures without furniture, where everyone uses the floor primarily and preserves the ability to squat and get up from the floor independently into old age.

<comment><USER14> I get your point, but "furniture in general" might be too broad. For example, I can't see how bookshelves nor kitchen cabinets are detrimental. I think the point of most furniture is to enable people to take better advantage of the vertical space they have available.

Your comment makes a good point of chairs, beds, and other furniture you can sit on, but I don't think it applies to all furniture in general.

<comment><USER13> You're right, I tend to not include cabinets and bookshelves in my mental model of furniture, just elevated objects people sit/rest on/at.

Though one can argue even those forms of furniture are problematic, using vertical storage space more efficiently can encourage hoarding of unnecessary junk. I'm certainly guilty of hoarding books I rarely touch, but it doesn't seem as harmful to one's health/fitness.

<comment><USER15> Without furniture, how exactly do you propose that I use a computer workstation with 3 large monitors? Sit it all on the floor? That sounds like an ergonomics nightmare.

Some of the furniture we have now is because pre-technological humans simply didn't do many things we do now.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, saying no furniture kind of distracts from their point, which is that not getting frequently up and down from the floor probably causes our loss to easily do so as we get older.

As to being able to have a computer workstation that lets you work as you're sitting on the floor, the japanese seem to have many options[1]. I imagine newnewpdro is not against furniture like this. You can have good posture while sitting on the floor, too.

[1] [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=japanese+floor+computer+desk&t=ffa...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=japanese+floor+computer+desk&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've actually mostly lost my ability to squat now which I kind of regret. A lot of places, especially China despite its breakneck speed growth, still use squat toilets. When you have an upset stomach from that breakfast stall you last ate, it then becomes a matter of survival. Not being able to squat is a weakness

<comment><USER17> > I've actually mostly lost my ability to squat now which I kind of regret.

How? In what manner?

<comment><USER18> The article said:

> "Every joint in our body has synovial fluid in it. This is the oil in our > body that provides nutrition to the cartilage," Jam says. "Two things are > required to produce that fluid: movement and compression. So if a joint > doesn't go through its full range—if the hips and knees never go past 90 > degrees—the body says 'I'm not being used' and starts to degenerate and > stops the production of synovial fluid."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> From the article:

" >These positions—which, in addition to a deep passive squat with the feet flat on the floor, include sitting cross legged and _kneeling on one's knees and heels_ —are not just good for us, but "deeply embedded into the way our bodies are built.<"

But several of my friends suffered heart attacks (embolism) after long periods of kneeling to worship and/or to garden.

I conjecture that, contrary to the article, kneeling on one's knees is not only not "good for us" but bad, as it may inhibit blood flow in the legs, promoting the formation of clots which are later released upon standing and moving around.

<comment><USER20> Maybe you should conduct a study into you garden/worship hypothetis and test if it can be replicated.

[https://geriatrictoolkit.missouri.edu/srff/deBrito-Floor- Ris...](https://geriatrictoolkit.missouri.edu/srff/deBrito-Floor-Rise- Mortality-2012..pdf)

<comment><USER21> ability to sit and rise from floor does not mean you should focus on sitting and rising from the floor in a regimented manner in hopes of a long capable life. Grip strength is also correlated with a capable old age. Does that mean you should start doing grip strengthening exercises? Not really. It's an external indication of something else going on.

Too much of anything is bound to cause complications.

<comment><USER22> Actually low squatting accidentally helped me with some back problems I had in the past. Accidentally in this case is because I was just trying different body positions that I don't normally use. My general rule of thumb is to gain back lost mobility for a better health.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Tangentially related...I know it may not be for everybody but I recently started skateboarding at age 36 while looking for something to do during the PG&E blackouts last fall and haven't stopped since.

It's definitely been a great way to get out and just explore around town while also building up my leg and core muscles.

Because I've been wanting to improve as much as possible I've started doing squats and calf raises as well and it has been helping a lot with my overall control and balance on the board.

</comment><comment><USER24> Discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16471215](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16471215)

</comment><comment><USER25> Want to do something for your fitness but full squats scare you? Start doing quarter squats while brushing teeth, 2x couple minutes every day. Simple, easy to do, doesnt steal time from other activities, and you will feel the difference.

</comment><comment><USER26> I played basketball for almost 20 years and my knees can't handle this type of position anymore. Also I am basically 2 meters tall so its a long way down and up.

<comment><USER27> B.S. I'm the same height and have no problem getting down to parallel. Unless you have major structural issues with your knee, which you should be fixed regardless, your knees can't handle the position because you don't get in the position.

Get a pair of 7mm knee sleeves that are kind of hard to put on, because they are tight, and start squatting. The sleeves will keep the knee warm and provide some additional support until you get the surrounding structure of the knee stronger.

I would highly recommend either Starting Strength or Strong Lifts 5x5.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> > "But if you go to the restroom once or twice a day for a bowel movement and > five times a day for bladder function, that's five or six times a day you've > squatted."

Ancient man squatted to take a leak? That's not what I do in the forest...

<comment><USER17> I've tried squatting (a la home-made squatty potty type thing) at home, and while it works ok with #2, #1 while sitting... nope. It reorients my plumbing to not point in the right direction for capture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Old people in the developing world often have knee or back problems. I don't think significant squatting is a good idea.

The article buries the fact that "there are studies to suggest that populations that spend excessive time in a deep squat (hours per day), do have a higher incidence of knee and osteoarthritis issues."

<comment><USER30> Knee and back are universal problem areas for old people.

<comment><USER18> > there are studies to suggest that populations that spend excessive time in a > deep squat (hours per day), do have a higher incidence of knee and > osteoarthritis issues.

<comment><USER30> They linked to one study. Here's the method they used:

"We recruited a random sample of Beijing residents age > or =60 years. Subjects answered questions on joint symptoms, and knee radiographs were obtained. Subjects were also asked to recall the average amount of time spent on squatting each day at youth (25 years or so)."

The full text of the paper is unavailable (404) so I can't say whether they controlled for factors such as family income, occupational history, weight issues etc. Relying on people in their 60s to remember how much they used to squat daily 30+ years ago doesn't seem like it will give necessarily accurate or reliable data (though I also can't think of other methods that don't involve time travel).

I think more studies, with better quality data, are needed to definitively state that prolonged squatting leads to knee issues. And in the Western world, many can't even do a full-depth squat, let alone prolonged squatting, so maybe start with that before worrying about knee issues.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apache Spark: RDD, DataFrame or Dataset? - <AUTHOR> http://www.agildata.com/apache-spark-rdd-vs-dataframe-vs-dataset/ <comment><USER2> Great summary to provide to those new to Spark.

I'm looking forward to your future blog posts on the DataSet API.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice. It will be interesting to see how the Dataset API matures over time.</comment>


Privacy Hackathon (Info and Looking-for-Group) - <AUTHOR> http://legalhackers.org/privacyhack2014/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm happy to be the lawyer of a group. I have some small developing experience, mostly just html/css/js-jquery/xquery.</comment>


Ask HN: is Google down? - <AUTHOR>

6:30PM San Francisco. Google appears down. <comment><USER2> <http://www.isup.me/www.google.com>

Although it's working for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> 6:38pm Irvine, CA: Down for me too.

</comment><comment><USER4> It is up for me.

</comment><comment><USER5> No. It's you.

</comment><comment><USER6> Daisy, Daisy,

give me your

answer,

do</comment>


Has Silicon Valley Peaked? - <AUTHOR> http://www.parapundit.com/archives/006359.html

<comment><USER2> The article is correct that the Valley peaked just before the dot-com bubble, only to sustain a significant shrinkage during the burst. But it makes no mention of trends (growth vs. stagnation or decline) after the burst and recovery, that's just too bad.

Also, quoting outsourcing as taking jobs and money away from research and development is a sad joke. The projects that get outsourced are big budget, low on actual research, just run-of-the-mill bullet-point engineering behemoths more often than not. Not ones to be done by innovative startups anyway. If anything, outsourcing those away from the Valley should sped up actual research and development.

</comment><comment><USER3> San Jose was one of the fastest growing cities during the late 1990s. Does it really matter if Silicon Valley got a little richer/smaller?</comment>


Do I need privacy policy or TOC for Landing page? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Generally you might need a Privacy Policy as you may be collecting personal data through the landing page: email address, first and last name, and so on. The Privacy Policy is required by law [1].

However, depending on your type of landing page you might not need the policy:

\- If the page is just a click-through page (i.e. the user would click through to reach another part of your website), you don't collect data from users directly. \- If the page is a lead generation page, then you're most likely collecting data from users directly (i.e. web forms) and you'll need the policy.

Keep in mind that regardless of the landing page if you use analytics tools (like Google Analytics) or you have the remarketing code added (Google Analytics remarketing, Facebook pixel etc.) you'll need the policy.

The Terms & Conditions is not usually required by law but it's useful to add it when users are submitting personal data to you.

Look at the "clickwrap" implementation methods as well.

[1] We have a presentation on this requirement here: [https://www.slideshare.net/termsfeed/privacy-policies-are- ma...](https://www.slideshare.net/termsfeed/privacy-policies-are-mandatory-by- law)</comment>


1971 – Before the Pentagon Papers a break in exposed FBI surveillance [PBS] - <AUTHOR> http://video.pbs.org/video/2365475451/

<comment><AUTHOR> The trailer for the documentary:

[http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/1971/](http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/1971/)

The Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI wiki page:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Inve...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Investigate_the_FBI)</comment>


Making django fast - <AUTHOR> https://syerram.silvrback.com/make-django-fasssst

<comment><AUTHOR> This is my 1st blog post as tech co-founder. English isn't my best asset, so apologies before hand. I would love to know your feedback. Also, the landing page site [http://kipinhall.com](http://kipinhall.com) is done in wordpress without any optimizations. our users never hit that.</comment>


Warren Buffet's 2015 summary to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2015ltr.pdf <comment><USER2> Elitist view:

"It's an election year, and candidates can't stop speaking about our country's problems (which, of course, only they can solve). As a result of this negative drumbeat, many Americans now believe that their children will not live as well as they themselves do. That view is dead wrong: The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history. American GDP per capita is now about $56,000. As I mentioned last year that – in real terms – is a staggering six times the amount in 1930, the year I was born, a leap far beyond the wildest dreams of my parents or their contemporaries. U.S. citizens are not intrinsically more intelligent today, nor do they work harder than did Americans in 1930. Rather, they work far more efficiently and thereby produce far more. This all-powerful trend is certain to continue: America's economic magic remains alive and well. Some commentators bemoan our current 2% per year growth in real GDP – and, yes, we would all like to see a higher rate. But let's do some simple math using the much-lamented 2% figure. That rate, we will see, delivers astounding gains."

Middle class is suffering. Averages always look good on paper.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you get video games 'stuck' in you head?  (see them when close eyes) - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I used to, but I've since played so many games that I tend to get pastiches of them stuck. In particular my dreams almost always have game-like elements and mechanics in them, which can be fun, or a bit exhausting depending on the scope. Inventory management in a dream is inevitably a very confusing and frustrating experience, since everything changes when you stop paying direct attention to it.

</comment><comment><USER3> What you're referring to is called "The Tetris Effect" and it seems to be a widely recognised phenomenon: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris_effect)

</comment><comment><USER4> I used to try using this as a way to design games as I try to sleep by 'playing' them in my head, since the game you see in your mind's eye is rarely exactly the game in reality, or at least, not in mine.

It hasn't exactly worked out, though. Mostly because I stuck at the part where I have to actually _make_ the thing.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> What do you suppose this effect is?

I suppose the brain has been wired to process the games rule system ( and/or physics ), so then your brain still has this primed.. Thoughts?

</comment><comment><USER5> This used to happen to me a lot when I played video games (Halo 3). Mostly just the HUD, not really any details about the game itself.</comment>


People are taller in the morning than at night - <AUTHOR> http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9139/are-people-taller-in-the-morning-than-at-night

<comment><USER2> TIL is over at reddit.</comment>


What's going on with Bruce Schneier's Blog? - <AUTHOR>

Since Monday, Bruce Schneier's blog has come to resemble a security-oriented BuzzFeed, with titles like "NSA Employee Flees to Hong Kong -- You Won't Believe What Happens Next."
Is this a social experiment? A joke? A serious attempt to expand readership?
https://www.schneier.com/ <comment><USER2> I think that Hong Kong title is meant to be sarcastic. He was probably feeling ornery that day.

Honestly, the only difference I notice is a new look.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable: [https://www.schneier.com/](https://www.schneier.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Ironic, since he's bashed articles in the past for titles that employed these exact tactics

</comment><comment><USER4> SEO at it's finest. Bruce has bills to pay ya know.

</comment><comment><USER5> he's very clearly having a bit of fun by mocking buzzfeed and its ilk. nothing wrong with that.</comment>


Piracetam -- A nootropic for cognitive and memory enhancement - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracetam Anyone have any experience with this? <comment><USER2> I have used it since high school (stopped when I moved to the US since it's somewhat difficult to find in this country, I don't miss it at all, I usually go with coffee). Basically it helped me go thought college and my first years as a software developer. I don't think it's that powerful as other *cetams or sulbutiamine (or not that effective).

Ask me anything if interested.

</comment><comment><USER3> I took it for several months with acetyl-choline, didn't notice anything. Conventional cognitive enhancers are much more effective in the median case.</comment>


Interview with PCH Founder Liam Casey - <AUTHOR> http://pi.co/liam-casey/ <comment><USER2> If Liam is reading (or anyone else who can answer), I'd like to know how he plans to release hardware quickly and stay in compliance with the FCC. Seems like this is a pretty big stumbling block in between the steps of creating a prototype and then later shipping / selling that hardware.

Breaking down this wall would bring hardware prototyping significantly closer to how web development is done with iteration.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is the guy who bought Fab.com. The interview is really great and it will be interesting to see if his background is going to make this successful.</comment>


Apple's New Era Has Begun - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danrunkevicius/2020/08/10/apple-new-era-has-begun/#3ad4e9b34072 <comment><USER2> Of all the "eras" possible this is a disappointing article, I thought it would be about the risk to apple from deteriorating US China relations.

I'm pretty sure that will have a bigger effect that services vs phone prices.

</comment><comment><USER3> My understanding has been that Apple's orientation toward protecting privacy has been rooted in the fact that it makes most of its money from hardware sales, and therefore doesn't need to track people for ads, or to sell data (at least not to the same degree as companies whose profits are based mostly on such things). But if Apple starts selling phones at a low price, how will its motivations be different from, say, Google's? Maybe it can have the simple model of selling App Store access and other services, without resorting to the "your users are your product" model. But it seems like the the line will be thinner and the temptation greater. In the end, Apple's behavior will probably be determined purely by how much marketplace advantages it gives them to be able to tout such advantages. And my impression is that the average person really doesn't care that much, even if HN readers do.

<comment><USER4> Apple sells tons of subscription-based services: Music, News, TV, Games, Storage, etc. (+ their slice of App sales). If this keeps up, they don't have an incentive to track their users and sell that data. (They could still track them to find out what's "hot" and what genre(s) they should produce next, like Netflix did)

<comment><USER3> But Google sells services too. If Apple is not making most of its money on hardware, then what differentiates Apple's incentives from Google's? Do you think they'll simply decide, "We will not track people for targeting ads, and we won't sell their data"? But what if they find that that perspective doesn't actually help them sell their services, because the vast majority of consumers just don't know or care about these issues like HN users do? It didn't cost them much to have that perspective when most of their income was from hardware, but once it's coming from online services, it may turn out that they're leaving a lot of money on the table, which would be very easily made, by being less purist about the privacy issue. Not that they're super-purist now, from what I've heard...

<comment><USER5> Apple is pushing the privacy narrative because it's an area in which Google, and hence Android, cannot compete. Google/Android can't compete because the vast majority of Google's revenue comes from ads, which cannot work well with privacy.

Apple is spending lots of money to make privacy become important to the average smartphone user. It's spending that money not just to make itself look good, it's spending it to make Google/Android look bad, and thereby cause more users to switch to iPhone.

<comment><USER3> But is there evidence that enough consumers care about privacy, so that we can have confidence that this approach will pay off for Apple? Because, if not enough consumers care that their privacy orientation is rewarded from a purely financial point of view, I have little faith that Apple will stick to it purely as a matter of principle. Do you?

<comment><USER6> It's not a matter of users picking privacy vs no privacy. It's just one point in the package Apple are offering. For some people it's a major point, and for some people it's not. But it's still a point, and it's one nobody can compete in so it's particularly strong. They are just leveraging a competitive advantage, but it's not the only one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Rah-rah cheerleading about Apple based on an uncorroborated rumor of future low prices?

We can do better than this.

</comment><comment><USER8> I feel like even if Forbes makes good reports on Apple, they should overall be ignored on any matter pertaining to Apple. If you do a Google search for popular headlines, you'll see that Forbes has been recycling Apple articles for years with tiny variations in headlines.

[https://www.google.com/search?&q=ios+%22nasty+surprise%22+si...](https://www.google.com/search?&q=ios+%22nasty+surprise%22+site%3Aforbes.com)

<comment><USER9> fyi, this is a "Forbes Contributor" article, so basically like attributing to Medium something that someone posted on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Privacy and long term support converted me from Android to iOS in 2019.

I'd say the narrative is working :)

Try and find an alternative device that has the same level of privacy and updates for 5 years.

You can do it if you flash a rom on your android device - but that's not currently realistic for most of the current user base.

</comment><comment><USER11> The new era seems to involve just as many frivolous lawsuits against small companies as the old one. They need to shape up ethically, not just modify business strategy to get a "new era"

</comment><comment><USER12> $549 iPhone 12? Count me in!

<comment><USER13> That would indeed a be a nice price! £550 for a modern iPhone would be great.

I don't see it happening to have a iPhone 11 for that price, though

<comment><USER14> The iPhone SE 2, which has the same processor as the iPhone 11, is 400 USD currently.

<comment><USER13> If I remember correctly, it doesn't have the OLED display and the cameras. I think those £1000+ phones is just a bit too much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Are all the headlines on Forbes generated by an algorithm optimized for click baitingness? Why link to a paywalled site most people here don't seem to care much about?

</comment><comment><USER16> Maybe it's just competition? Reviews for the Google Pixel 4a at $349 are claiming that it's just as good as a premium priced phone.

Or perhaps it's convergent evolution: both Google & Apple decided at the same time for the same reasons to concentrate on cheap phones again.</comment>


Top books to inspire CIOs and IT professionals in 2017 - <AUTHOR> https://toptalkedbooks.com/articles/D05QRA/top-10-books-to-inspire-cios <comment><USER2> That is a sad collection. Science fiction would provide more value.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. Prechewed "big idea" books, plus some token Civil War history? Sad indeed.</comment></comment>


Scientists warn of rapid melting of Antarctica's 'Doomsday glacier' - <AUTHOR> https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/thwaites-glacier-antarctic-melting-doomsday-climate-a9616966.html <comment><USER2> > The Thwaites glacier is 74,000 square miles, roughly the size of the UK.

> Its collapse would raise global sea levels by more than half a metre on its > own

Its size alone is staggering. I'd be interested to find out the scale of the changes we would need to enact to stop it `teetering` over the edge.

</comment><comment><USER3> And at the same time we have populist leaders of more and more countries flat out calling climate change a hoax. This is a dangerous combination. At the point where the general public finally accepts that imminent change is required to avoid disaster it may already be too late for that change to have enough impact.

<comment><USER4> Sticking point is usually man made or not.

Climate always changes. We are coming out of an ice age.

Hot Question is how much is industrial activity contributing.

Even shutting everything down today will not stop climate change. But what would happen to the rate of change?

Solutions can run into trillions, for unclear results.

<comment><USER3> Sure, but in the public debate "climate change" means "man made climate change" because the non-man made part is tiny compared to the man made part.</comment></comment></comment>


URL is the new MP3 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/cubic-fm-stories/url-is-the-new-mp3-9d3182e3b063

<comment><USER2> "We are SUPER EXCITED to share this thing with you that you can't access because it's in private beta! If you're as excited about this as we are, we'd love to welcome you aboard! Aboard, I must stress this again, this thing we don't allow you to access."

<comment><AUTHOR> hey galonk, I'd love to give you a direct access. Please drop me an email firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER3> You should post your to Show HN, it sounds like a something that HN community might like. But make it available, people in here will want to test it immediately.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you reply to an email inquiry... - <AUTHOR>

Especially if you are a freelancer or startup mentor?
I have approached freelancers, startup community mentors and others who either claim they are for hire or available to "assist" with startup related questions.
In each case I send an email or a tweet requesting specific advice but I stress that I do not want to be a pest so they should only reply if they are truly interested or have the time. Like clockwork, I get a response along the lines of "hey, thanks for reaching out, I'd be happy to help…"
I reply with thanks and gratitude and proceed to explain my situation. It is precisely after this that the conversation drops dead. No replies or response. Zero. Why does this happen and am I doing something wrong? The reason I reach out to these people is really just so they can point me in the right direction. Is it spammy for me to reach out in this fashion? I would appreciate your feedback. <comment><USER2> I think it has something to do with the question you're posing in your second email. Are you asking them to commit time or resources without compensation? What is your question?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am asking for direction on finding a front end developer to add to my team. I offer equity but cannot offer compensation at this time. Do you think I should approach this differently and present it as a job opening or contract to hire type of position? We can pay (not a lot) but we were taking the approach that we wanted to add a founding member to the team. We just need someone to build a user interface without bankrupting us. Suggestions on this? Thanks for reply by the way.

<comment><USER3> Having done quite a bit of freelancing, I can tell you that the offer of equity is not very enticing. Regardless of how brilliant any idea might sound on paper, when it comes to execution, start-ups generally take a long long time before (if at all) that promised equity is realized.

If you are looking to add a founding member in return for equity, you are better off having that conversation face to face.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It seems like in your initial email you come across asking them for advice (flattering), but follow up with request for their contacts? Is that right? If so, maybe be upfront the first time about what you really need from them. Keep it short if you can.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. My intention is not to solicit their contacts but to have a dialogue about the best way to secure a developer. I'll take your feedback and that of other HN'ers and rethink how I am approaching people with my inquiry. Thanks everyone.</comment></comment>


I quit working full-time years ago–here's why I recommend it highly - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/241043/i-quit-working-full-time-years-ago-heres-why-i-recommend-it-highly/ <comment><USER3> Where is the value in this article? The author tells us he likes to relax and so doesn't work full-time, therefore no one should.

Beyond stating the obvious of having more free time, he never really states any benefits of working part time. And he doesn't mention the hardships the undoubtedly come with it like lower salary and how they might be abated.

Overall, just feels like a brag about how great he is.

<comment><USER4> I might be the odd one here but I don't think this article was about the practicality of working part-time but rather a motivator. Here is the key point:

> When we were done, they took me to chai, and asked me about my life in the > mountains, my time in theater. "I can also say 'I want to go and live in the > mountains.' But who will let me?" one of them asked.

> "Remember this," I laughed, "you need no one's permission to be yourself." > When I got back, I read The Top Regret again—"I wish I'd had the courage to > live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me."

It is a weird coincidence that this is the exact debate I'm having with my wife right now. I make more than enough for us to live well and I'm trying to show her how wonderful her life can be if she goes part-time or quits her job. I've told her that she can finally do all the things she really wants to do - more time to spend with our newborn, joining mommy groups, more time to exercise, cook/eat healthier, time for hobbies etc.

She keeps coming back with her worries of future career prospects, financial problems in case I can't work, her prestige in her line of work etc. I counter with the fact that she was the valedictorian of her medical masters class with numerous open job offers with no expiration date, how we can buy sufficient life/disability insurance, how she can continue to work part-time or teach an advanced class or two if she wants to remain involved in her profession without a lapse.

For me, this would be the dream. I'd love to work half as much as I do but I can't because of finances. She CAN work half as much without worrying about finances but she is still afraid of the major change. Frankly, it is just too alien of a concept for her. I would never force her to pick a specific path so all I can do until she makes up her mind is to offer her suggestions and paint a picture of what life could be if she picked the unconventional path.

<comment><USER5> Hmmm. You're writing this as if being a stay-at-home mom is pure bliss. It's not. It _is_ completely wonderful to spend a lot of time with your children. But it also has a huge cost in adult self-actualization and development. Some of that is completely silly (the way our culture values people who work more than those who don't, or who are experts at projecting a sense of workplace- type competence). But some is completely legit: striving and succeeding in the adult work world can also be rewarding and exciting. From our experience, looking after a kid leaves _very_ little time for hobbies.

That finances thing is a pain... same situation here :-)

<comment><USER4> Of course it isn't. I've been consulting from home for past 5 years myself and there is good and bad in any option you pick. I keep bringing up part-time because of the self-actualization reasons. I am just saying look into non- full-time possibilities because being away from the baby all day is already stressing her too much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Here's Carlos Slim, the world's second richest man: "We should be working > only 3 days a week."

So... why doesn't Carlos Slim, as chairman of several large companies, restructure them to be 3 day work-week environments? Surely as someone who is about the richest man on the planet would be able to have some influence in the companies he owns/manages?

<comment><USER7> The author linked to an article in his story:

"To a certain degree, Slim has been applying this train of thought to his own businesses. According to the Financial Times, Slim's phone company Telmex has implemented a system where workers on a collective labor contract who joined the company in their late teens can retire before they reach 50, and can continue to work for full pay four days per week."

While he could probably be doing more, he is working on it.

<comment><USER8> Working for three decades continuously for one company in the prime of your life to "retire" (scare quotes intended) at 80% hours for normal pay is a pretty half-arsed attempt at addressing the spirit of the concept.

<comment><USER9> It's hard enough to explain to people that we should only be working 5hrs/day, can't just dive into it right away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Coming up next: "I quit being poor - here's why I recommend it highly"

<comment><USER11> These are radical ideas. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

<comment><USER12> "I was born into favorable circumstances. 10/10 would be born into these circumstances again, highly recommend."

</comment></comment></comment><comment> ux-app I've been working part time for just over 4 years now. It is the single best thing I have done for my mental health in the last 10 years. I have a mid-week weekend (Wed and most of Thu off) and it is awesome. I have no plan to go back to full-time. I've also convinced my wife to do the same next year.

Of course there is less money coming in. I've decided to reduce my rate of consumption to compensate for this. Eating out was a huge money sink in the past. $100+ restaurant visits are out of the question now, which is fine because I'm living a semi-retired life, and cooking is less a hassle and more a slow pleasure :)

I got tired of trading the best hours of the day and the best years of my life away for what amounted to trinkets. I've decided to optimize time over money. It helps that my material needs are modest.

<comment><USER13> Do you have a flexible employer or do you work for yourself? How do you balance the career opportunities that would have come your way if you were a 5-day-a-weeker versus the gain in time and mental health?

<comment> ux-app I'm an ex programmer now working as a high school teacher. I wont pretend that the flexibility possible in a school environment applies universally.

In regard to career advancement, I'm a realist. The primary effect of going part time is reduced pay. The secondary effect is slower career advancement. I'm OK with this.

Another way to frame this is to imagine how great your career advancement would be if you were a 7-day-a-weeker. Most people draw the line at 5 days. I decided to draw the line at 3.5. It's a personal decision that I haven't regretted for a minute.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Lots of mocking going on in the comments, and I'm not sure why.

If you're a software developer in the first-world, you're making, what, $75k/year or more? If you spend wisely, you can live quite comfortably on $30k/year, at least before housing costs.

Personally, my plan is to work full-time for the next ~10 years, putting every dime above the $30k/year mark into my mortgage and my retirement fund, and cut back to part time after that---I'll own my house, and with a couple decades of compound interest, my retirement fund will be set, too.

Most people in our position won't do this, though---they choose a higher standard of living (a new car every three years, a house at the very highest end of what they can afford, etc.) over working less. If that's what you want to do, that's fine---but don't pretend it would be _impossible_ for you to cut back.

 _That 's_ what I get from the article: the author's suggesting you do whatever it takes (including living on less money) to work less.

<comment><USER15> What makes you think the only other option to your lifestyle is choosing a higher standard of living? I have 4 children from two different marriages. I didn't choose a higher standard of living.

Living off of $30k/year here in Oregon is a fucking pipedream for a family of 4.

<comment><USER16> I definitely don't know the circumstances that lead you to having 4 children from two different marriages, but was it someone else's choice to do that? I'm sure you wouldn't change bringing your kids into the world. I just had one and despite my costs and life priorities changing a lot, I can't imagine not having her! If your priority before having kids was financial independence, you probably would have made different decisions and held off on the kids and possibly the marriages, no?

<comment><USER15> No, having children was my choice. I'm speaking more about the assumption that the OP had with living a higher standard as the alternative to what s/he was doing and that you could live comfortably off of $30k/year.

I feel like most of the statements about how much someone can live off of, should be preceded by whether they're single and what part of the world they're living in..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting to watch how quickly people are dismissing this as something you need to be ultra-rich to pull off. You don't. If you're reading this, chances are you can do it.

That's right. _You_ can do this.

I think my bill rate is pretty realistic for a developer, and I can more than sustain my family working four 8-hour days (so I do). You only need to make 25% more than the average joe to pull that off. And seriously, if you're a developer and you're not making >100% more than the average joe, you really need to go have a talk with your employer about the current state of the market. So yeah, all of us make enough to do this.

No need to scrimp. No need to be the CEO. The math just plain works out.

Incidentally, the author is right. Even taking one extra day off per week has had a huge effect on my quality of life and overall health. I get outside a lot more, play with the kids a lot more, don't seem to get sick at all anymore, and come in to each week completely fresh and actually missing work a bit. It's cool.

I still kick around the idea of dropping down from my current 4 day weeks to 3 or even 2 day weeks.

</comment><comment><USER18> Wow this article is annoying.

> rising productivity would make part-time work an option for all of mankind. > We haven't got there yet

Yes we have but corporations are not passing this on. Plus the other side of the coin is land prices are set by income after food/heating/clothing so any rise in productivity is immediately captured by land owners.

If LA became 20% more productive and it were passed on to workers it would be passed on to landlords. We need full land reform.

I agree we should work less but this guy should spend less time dreaming and some time acquainting himself with Henry George.

<comment><USER19> > We need full land reform.

What does this mean to you?

<comment><USER18> Land value tax so that productivity gains do not go to the land owners. And with this an end to a tax on labour. This way lies true freedom.

<comment><USER19> You seem to have stated the goals but not the means. How do we achieve such a system? Higher property taxes? How will they be distributed?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is one of the shitty things about capitalism. Super rich people. They are free riders who get so unrealistically rich that they no longer need to contribute anything to the economy. They just sit on their asses, "grow" their wealth and develop perverted philosophies on life.

No single man on earth has the strength or intelligence to create an economic contribution that justifies this sort of wealth. The super rich achieve their wealth off the backs others.

<comment><USER21> It depends on the location.

Here's a different point of view: Carlos Slim has so far been relatively unable to compete in the US. Some people argue that he does well in countries like Mexico because in those places, he can run a monopoly (like his telecom company) or oligopoly with price fixing power, generating large margin at the expense of his customers (who don't have much of a choice in the matter). Thus, his business has plenty of reserves for things like 3 day workweeks - <USER2> the expense of the population, in exactly the zero sum game you describe.

But when you look at modern American billionaires like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, they made their fortune by working intensely hard and smart in very competitive markets, and inventing or making available to the mass-market products that created billions of dollars in value. It can definitely be argued that a single individual can create billions of dollars of new wealth, and not on the "back" of others - there's a lot of very wealthy early Microsoft and Apple employees out there, and billions of dollars of value created for its customers over the last couple decades.

<comment><USER22> Not disputing the hard work, but at key points in Microsoft's history, they've held and exercised tremendous monopoly power, generating large margin at the expense of their customers.. Just like Slim's companies in some respects.

<comment><USER21> Right, but the difference is that their monopoly was in a created market, vs Slim's which is the definition of a bad monopoly (sole supplier of a utility). Their margin was the reward for the creation of something new, not taking a cut on a natural resource. But I agree that it's not black and white - companies lie all over the spectrum (you could argue that Slim is getting paid for the effort of putting out a telecom network in Mexico).

A clearer example is Google: it has an effective monopoly on search, but it's not because it has lobbied Washington to stop people from using other search results, it's because it was the best search engine, spread like wildfire, and kept the market ever since. People use Google not because there's no other (legal) search provider available, but because it's still the best way to find things on the internet.

Because of this instinctive understanding of the value created, it's much rarer to see Brin and Page criticized for their wealth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This article felt like the "Rich Friend Who Travels All the Time" CollegeHumor video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZk1WHJ_fwo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZk1WHJ_fwo)

</comment><comment><USER24> Regardless of the money aspect: I've found that for (semi?) introverted people like myself, working is essential in avoiding becoming a shut-in.

Part-time work would be ideal, but there are few interesting part-time positions available...

<comment><USER25> Try more drinking, social sports or travel, especially long distance cycling which forces you to meet many people from in-between places you'd normally never see.

<comment><USER26> Coming from a former super introvert, as sad as it may be, drinking is how I finally learned to be social. It totally forces you to meet and interact with people you otherwise would not. However, I still have my days where I'm 100% done with all of humanity. But, who doesn't?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> One consistent counterpoint and life motto that I like to strive for is: don't spend valuable time doing work you don't like. There's plenty of happiness to be had working, and that passion can bring great joy. One doesn't have to lounge around or act on a whim to find comfort.

In particular, my wife works a "normal" 45+ hour work week at a job she loves. Every evening is filled with stories of her day, and she exudes happiness when she tells them. She also gets to challenge herself with real-world problem solving. She's always moving and thinking.

Now, do our jobs take us away from our other passions? Of course! We'd both rather be climbing mountains that sitting indoors. But, there are comforts of life that we've chosen to give ourselves. Those comforts come at a cost, either in time, location or money.

I'd argue that it's better to find what makes you happy and determine what the cost of that happiness is.

<comment><USER28> what kind of job does your wife have?

<comment><USER27> Physical therapist with special needs children.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> So much negativity on this thread! I'd rather figure out what this guy did right and take steps to implement some of those things into my life. It's easy to take pot-shots at people and harder to admit that someone might have found a better/more interesting way to live than you.

<comment><USER20> Nobody likes negativity, especially on HN. But rather then explicitly condemn the negativity and be excessively positive for no reason, why not analyze why people feel negative?

Believe it or not, negativity can be justified. And although wealth is a controversial topic I believe that an innate feeling of unfairness that most people feel towards the super rich exists because it actually is unfair. This feeling of discontent has toppled empires and changed entire economic systems. It is worth it to explore this negativity rather than suppress it.

>I'd rather figure out what this guy did right and take steps to implement some of those things into my life.

It is not physically possible for everyone to live this way. No single man has the intelligence or strength to contribute enough GDP to the economy to justify such wealth. If you want to live like him you must exploit the labor of others. In short to be rich sometimes you must do things that will promote feelings of negativity in other people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> BRB telling my boss I'm not working full time anymore

<comment> ux-app Not sure if you're being facetious or not. If you're really interested in working part time then just ask. The worst your boss can do is say no. I've been part time on and off for 4 years and I've made the permanent move to PT 6 months ago, and I'm positive that I'll never go back to full time work. I was also unsure of how the conversation would go with my boss. It went something like this.

Me: Hi boss can I work part time?

Boss: OK.

If he said "no" then life would go on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Listening to Dave Matthews sounds like work to me. You'd have to pay me to do it.

</comment><comment><USER32> _" Here's Carlos Slim, the world's second richest man: "We should be working only 3 days a week.""_

Why does everyone omit the number of hours Carlos is suggesting? Hint: it's not 8-9 hours.

Anyway, it's all cool, as long as he doesn't want to use any of the tax-payer funded public services.

<comment><USER33> 3 days for 12-14 hours a day would be nice - does he think those should be M/W/F or T/W/Th ?

<comment><USER34> Speak for yourself, I'm tapped out at 8. I can work on side-projects for an additional 2 or 3 some times, but that's not work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Wow, why such negativity here? I'd guess it's because it's a rich person saying it, which I get.

Do we really need to cite the benefits of working less?

<comment><USER36> Why assume he's rich? Maybe living in the mountains is cheap. Maybe he saved before moving there. There is some choice between working/consuming less and working/consuming more. He's advocating the former.

<comment><USER37> Well, he took a year long honey moon which he spontaneously decided to extend into 6 years. I don't think your average person could pull that off, regardless of how cheap it is to live there.

Also the fact that he literally doesn't address how he can afford to to this, which is the __first __thing on most peoples mind, also indicates that he is so wealthy he is out of touch with reality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Did I miss the part where he explains how he makes a living and provides for his family?

<comment><USER39> Seriously. I have very similar feelings as him- that as a father I want to be home with my wife and kids as much as possible. Right now my work week is pretty close to 40 hours, and I consider that a big success compared to most people I know. But my career goal is working towards more flexible working hours, and hopefully less total hours with higher profitability. But it's a dream, and I'm not sure how realistic a dream it is.

"No one is stopping you from living in the mountains!" sounds like it's trying to be empowering, but how do you afford it? Then how do you come back into the job market ~5 years later and look attractive to potential employers?

<comment><USER15> It's because having money (being _rich_ if you will) alters your brain sufficiently enough to forget the common plight of plebs.

There are quite a few things that are stopping me from living in the mountains: rent, food, gas, car payment, insurance, to name just a few.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Next up: feeling hungry? I highly recommend you eat something.

and: Low on cash? Simply win the lottery.

</comment><comment><USER41> I'm a freelance software developer. I work "part time" in the sense that I work only 20 hours a week on paying projects. I could work 40 hours a week, or more even, but I choose to work only 20 hours so I can work on other things of my own design. I do _not_ spend the time "in leisure", though I enjoy the work so much that it's practically the same thing for me.

The Bill Watterson quote drives me up a wall. I can't imagine doing nothing.

I live in Washington DC with my wife. I make slightly more than she does (though with taxes and her benefits it probably comes out even), and she made enough before meeting me to buy her own condo here in one of the most expensive areas of the country. I charge only about half of what other consultants with my experience and skill set charge. Neither of us makes six figures. Just shy, but not quite. Combined, our AGI was just under 200k.

By almost all accounts, we're "rich". We went on three international trips last year. We went on three other mini-vacations that were only possible because I can work from anywhere. I'm working two 40 hour weeks here this week and next, just so I can have a big chunk of extra cash that I can play with--I think of it as reverse-vacation, I get to choose to work more for spells of time. I'm buying a gaming laptop with it, and some parts for my desktop. I could afford it without the "overtime", but this way I don't even have to think about the budget. We also put in quite a bit of money to our retirement funds, and have excellent health insurance.

How is this possible? I know couples making $500k between the two of them that don't get to go to all the amazing places we go to, because they're constantly worrying about money. It's because, for the rest of the year, we live in our means. Three international trips _was_ in our means. Computers and electronic toys whenever we want them are in our means. If they weren't, we wouldn't have done them. We pay ourselves first (retirement funds). We don't have a house larger than we need. We don't have multiple cars (I don't need a car, so we have only one. Our great credit has meant that it's nearly paid off after two years, at an APR that has been less than inflation). We aren't fashionistas, so we don't drop money on clothing all the time.

Long story short, we just don't go into debt. The only real debt we have is the mortgage on the condo. We work her travel mileage card, so most of our flights are "free", in a sense. We just don't overspend on recurring expenses.

A $350/mo car payment doesn't sound like that much more than a $300/mo car payment, but it adds up! That's $600 in one year that you could have spent on a graphics card, or on a longish flight, or on a nicer hotel, or on a rental car instead of buses.

A $2800/mo apartment rental doesn't sound like that much more than a $2500/mo apartment, but it's $3600 a year! That's a brand new, uber powerful gaming computer every year. And you don't even need to buy it every year.

The recurring expenses in your life are a lot more expensive than you think they are. They are a hell of a lot more expensive than most of the expensive, one-time purchases you'll want to have in your life. Who needs a large house? Who needs 4 cars in a household of 2 drivers? Who needs a gigantic minivan or SUV for _one_ kid? My parents drove my sister and me around in a coupe for most of our lives, making us squeeze past the front passenger seat to get in the back.

Even if you're living alone, you could get a roommate, or an efficiency apartment. You don't need a lot of stuff. I'd like to get rid of some of my stuff, and I don't actually have a lot. What do you use on a daily or weekly basis? I submit that there is nothing you'd use on a monthly or yearly basis that you can't rent more cheaply than own.

Don't chase after high-paying jobs if they require you to drive somewhere. Cars are expensive, gasoline is expensive. So many people here drive an hour one-way to get to work. It beats up their cars so they replace them every 5 years. They feel like they have an image to maintain so they buy BMWs and Lexuses. Every 5 years, another 45 - 60k for the car, probably 10k in gasoline, probably another 10k in maintenance. Call it an extra 13k a year, to drive to work. No job is offering 13k more to come to the office. I make slightly more now, part-time, than I ever did full-time driving into office. I could be charging twice as much as I am now, and I could be working twice as much. But I choose not to, because it's easy.

We'd have even more if I could convince her to move out of DC. I'm thinking we move to Pittsburgh, get a place _slightly_ larger than our tiny condo, she quits her job, rent out the condo, sell the car, and we have more take-home than we did before.

Everything is so easy when you don't have debt. Yes, we are "rich", but for the types of skills that people on HN have, you should easily be able to achieve our sort of rich. Because our sort of rich happened because we first lived within our means and got out of debt. Once we got out of debt, it was easy to start holding out for the darling opportunities. When you don't have debt, you aren't desperate. You don't have to take just any job that comes your way. And when you don't _have_ to take just any job, you don't _have_ to move into a new place right away, you don't _have_ to buy a new car right away. It's all connected. Poor decisions in one place explode into bad debt in lots of other places.

<comment><USER42> > Everything is so easy when you don't have debt.

A couple of days ago the current President of my country was asked what should one do if he had a hard time finding a job, finally got rather low paying job, but he'd still like to start a family. He answered without a shred of hesitation that such people should borrow money from somewhere, effectively becoming indebted to some bank for the rest of their lives.

It's a very common mindset, people are being trained to believe that living with a huge debt is a perfectly normal thing. It isn't. Just as you say all you need to do is to live within your means and rationalize your spendings a bit. It's surprising how many things can be "within your means", even with very little income, if you're willing to do some work on your own.

I was way poorer than I'm now for most of my life, but I was never indebted to anyone. Instead of borrowing money I've learned to live making around $200 a month. That's of course another country, another currency and another economy, but to put things in perspective: that's less than one tenth of average income here. I learned to fix things that broke, learned to make things of my own, learned to recognize when something is worth its price and when it's not. I'm almost 30 now; I earn twice the average salary now, but I still make (some) furniture of my own, I still repair things around the house myself and I still don't buy the most expensive things "just because".

I don't know about economy and such, maybe it really is beneficial for most people in the economy to borrow money and live way above their current means, but on a personal level taking on a debt looks like an economic suicide.

<comment><USER43> Debt is a tool--a really powerful one. Leaving it out of your financial toolbox can be quite limiting and make it harder to achieve financial stability. Most people do so out of a vague unease about it, rather than a full accounting for their risks and opportunities.

Yes, taking on debt is a risk, but it is far from the worst financial risk you can face, because it is predictable and often tax-advantaged. If taken on for the right reasons, it can provide leverage to achieve returns that would otherwise be unavailable.

For example, using mortgage to purchase property when you are young provides more time for compound appreciation of your property. And at least in the U.S., people who earn college degrees when they are young have average lifetime earnings improvements well in excess of the typical student loan costs.

<comment><USER41> >> If taken on for the right reasons...

Most people don't take it for the right reasons. They take it because they've been told to. And they aren't doing anything towards enhancing their understanding of debt.

For example, lots of people will go into debt to go on international trips. We structure our travel on our credit card and pay it off right away because it pays us to fly again! But most people don't have that system in place, they run up the credit card debt and then take 6 months to pay it off. I just plain hate the idea of paying for something today that I used up yesterday.

And I don't think the emotional impact can be overlooked. Even if you can make an argument to me that it would be "smart" to carry a transient purchase as debt (and I know you're not going to try to, I'm just making a hypothetical), I'd still feel bad about it, and that bad feeling is going to have a real impact on my quality of life.

Before I was finally out of debt, I paid off my student loans before I paid off my car (when I had a car) because even though the APR was higher on the car, I could pay off the student loans sooner. It's a snowballing effect. It felt like an accomplishment and it helped me maintain my frugality.

Telling someone with $30k in credit card debt (I know several people like this, it's not that uncommon these days) that they shouldn't run a balance on their credit cards isn't helping them. You've not told them anything they don't already know.

But maybe they don't already know that they don't have to have a big house. That's the intention of my story, to try to jolt people out of their half- waking state. People aren't perfectly rational beings and it's probably stupid to expect them to be so. But there are simple rules of thumb that I think people can take to heart that will improve their overall outcome much better than telling them "you need to consider and be careful with the debt". People work much better with all-or-nothing measures, rather than measures that rely on subtlety and restraint.

It's probably why no-carb diets work out better than calorie counting. It's not because carbs are particularly unhealthy, it's that people can't constrain themselves to the small portions necessary to count calories while eating complex carbohydrates. I know I can't. So what makes more sense? To repeatedly fail at exercising restraint? Or to succeed at a slightly less efficient plan?

Even taking on a mortgage is most of the time a bad call for most people. They live in the house for 5 to 10 years, then move before they get even close to realizing the potential of the property. Then, instead of getting a similar- sized place, they get something larger, something that fits inside their paycheck. Even if they sold their previous house for a net profit, they just roll that over into the new house. The net effect is that they are constantly renting from the bank.

That only makes sense if the mortgage costs less than rent for a similar place. If it doesn't, it's smarter to rent a place and sink the difference into a fund for buying a place when it does make sense to buy. But most people aren't going to keep track of their finances like that.

<comment><USER43> The general form of the problem is poor understanding of personal finance. I just think that reflexively avoiding debt is more of a symptom of that problem than a solution.

For example, the idea that "taking on a mortgage is most of the time a bad call for most people" is just not supported by the data. About 65% of the homes in the U.S. are owned, and most of those are households that are financially stable. Even in the depths of the financial crisis, well under 10% of homes entered foreclosure each year (i.e. 90+% were stable). And there are national correlations between homeownership and positive things like income, academic achievement, lower crime, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Carlos already made his money and now he just wants to enjoy it. There's nothing wrong with that. But that reality is not true for most people.

I am truly jealous of the people that have enough just to get by, spending most of their time outdoors, traveling and getting to know new people and cultures.

</comment><comment><USER45> You know, I would probably choose to work half time for half my pay, but very few interesting jobs allow for that. I don't know if it is cultural or what, but employers expect people to work 40+ hours per week and don't really make provision for other schedules.

</comment><comment><USER46> When you are starting your career, it's quite hard to work part time because of the lower wages and the peer pressure. With more experience, it's really worth reconsidering the balance between work and money.

The problem is that money is currently the universal standard for measuring success. There are many more dimensions to success and in fact, everyone should build their own model of what constitutes success, including things like spending time with your family, reading a good books and so on.

</comment><comment><USER47> Shouldn't the new technologies and inventions give us more time ? Then why do we work more despite having machines that do most of the work for us? What is the use of it?

<comment><USER8> Until people can agree to let strangers benefit from their bounty, society will demand people work for their bread.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> It is true that any well-qualified specialist, at least any developer, could work 4-day 8-hour workweeks if they'd wanted. And do that while keeping a high standard of living. You might need to choose the city and area to live though, but that's all.

</comment><comment><USER49> From the article I understood they guy lived 6 years in Himalayas without any money?

<comment><USER50> He never said 'without any money', from the tone of the article we can assume that he has already made all of the money he will need to continue his present lifestyle. This is simply another one of those articles promoting the idea that there's enough room for everyone in the top 1%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> smug git

</comment><comment><USER52> is this a satire?</comment>


'Software Development Languages' vs. 'Programming Languages' - <AUTHOR> https://www.fosskers.ca/en/blog/software-dev-langs <comment><AUTHOR> I have recently become aware of the difference between a 'Software Development Language' and a 'Programming Language'. This post is the first of a series that describes this difference and analyses a few languages through this lens. Next week I'll analyse Rust, Haskell the week after that, and we'll see what comes after.</comment>


The making of Winston Churchill : The New Yorker - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/08/30/100830crat_atlarge_gopnik <comment><USER2> Good article. One bone to pick though - Orwell's criticism was in the context of writing, whereas the article quotes Churchill's speeches. Good oratory has a great component of theater and drama.</comment>


Specially for Wordpress Fans. Limited Edition Geeky WTF Tees - <AUTHOR> http://teespring.com/wtftees

<comment><USER2> Fans know it's WordPress, not Wordpress.</comment>


How to Build an A/B Testing Practice in 2 Hours - <AUTHOR> https://blog.paymill.com/ab-testing-2-hours/

<comment><USER2> I'll try this in my 2 hours lunch break ;)</comment>


Designing Websites for iPhone X - <AUTHOR> https://webkit.org/blog/7929/designing-websites-for-iphone-x/ <comment><USER2> _Out of the box, Safari displays your existing websites beautifully on the edge-to-edge display of the new iPhone X. Content is automatically inset within the display's safe area so it is not obscured by the rounded corners, or the device's sensor housing._

Default behavior is for you to do nothing to your code and Safari on the X will automatically pad around the inset and rounded corners. This is just if you _want_ to take advantage of the whole screen.

<comment><USER3> But in any case you can do that by making your website a little smaller on iphonex screens.

That's not the problem! That's one line of CSS.

The problem is that now we are expected to design for this non-rectangular screen, taking "advantage" of the little gaps at the sides, and perhaps fill them with little buttons in creative ways.

So that's the real problem.

This will cost us (developers) extra time.

Instead, I think Apple would have done a better job if they filled those corners with system icons.

<comment><USER4> _This will cost us (developers) extra time._

I just added 'viewport-fit=cover' to my project and boy am I tired! ;-)

In the words of Aaron Rogers: relax.

The CSS frameworks (Foundation, Bootstrap, etc.) will have this baked in the next time they're updated.

Compared to the drama we as web developers have dealt with in the past, this is pretty minor. Apple gives you the CSS you need:

      @supports(padding: max(0px)) {
         .post {
            padding-left: max(12px, constant(safe-area-inset-left));
            padding-right: max(12px, constant(safe-area-inset-right));
         }
      }

And if you have a recent Mac, you can test it in Xcode 9's iPhone X simulator.

We as developers have plenty of time: the iPhone X can't be preordered until October 27; the first customers won't have them until November 3rd at the earliest: [https://www.apple.com/shop/buy- iphone/iphone-x](https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-x)

I think we're going to be okay.

<comment><USER3> Just wait until everybody else starts filling those gaps with cute little icons. Your boss will come in one morning, ordering you to move the buttons from the main page to the corners, but of course _only_ for the iphonex. And before you know it, you'll be spending a day on boring CSS work, and several days in the future on maintenance and compatibility problems. You're not a technologist anymore; you've become a slave of fashion trends.

<comment><USER5> Thinking up disastrous conclusions to a cosmetic, optional, opt-in style feature affecting a very low percentage of your audience is a bit dramatic, no?

<comment><USER3> It seems like a quite realistic scenario to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Respecting the Safe Areas

> _The next step towards making our page usable again after adopting viewport- > fit=cover is to selectively apply padding to elements that contain important > content, in order to ensure that they are not obscured by the shape of the > screen._

This is taking me back to the era of TV on CRT screens. Since there was always a bit of overscan, it was never a guarantee that the content at the very edge would actually end up visible to the end users, so the industry adopted a "safe area" 80-90% in each dimension (5-10% margin on each edge). Camera operators would avoid framing content such that important items are in that zone, and title generators would account for that margin to avoid having part of a text/subtitle cut off.

We've come full circle.

<comment><USER7> Definitely so. Even though it's rarely an issue today, I cannot escape thinking of title-safe and action-safe [0] while editing.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_area_(television)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_area_\(television\))

</comment></comment><comment> dylan-m I was ready to be annoyed by this, and it is a ridiculous design, but the article is a pretty good discussion of CSS's round display extensions. Those have been sort of sitting around gathering dust as far as I can tell, but the idea seems pretty cool and potentially useful. I like that they're proposing a safe area constant, which makes a lot of sense. This is a really great way to see it all actually working and figure out what still needs to happen.

With that said, they lose the plot a bit when the iPhone X's safe area adds unnecessary padding outside of the notch, and then double down on that mistake when they talk about their brand new `min()` and `max()` functions. When you start combining math functions in CSS, you need to back up and ask what you did wrong, because you definitely did something wrong.

What you _should_ do is add some padding for the safe area, which might be 0, and then add some more padding (of your choosing) beyond that. Same way any other screen works. But it's Apple, so it will probably end with everyone forced to make the same stupid mistake and then we'll need a new standard to get rid of it all.

Anyway, grumbles aside, I think Apple deserves kudos here for pushing forward some existing standards in a mostly constructive way.

<comment><USER4> _With that said, they lose the plot a bit when the iPhone X 's safe area adds unnecessary padding outside of the notch, and then double down on that mistake when they talk about their brand new `min()` and `max()` functions._

These functions aren't Apple's and they're not new.

There was a proposal a year ago to add them back to CSS, which means they were existed in some W3C or WHATWG specification proposal before that: [https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/544](https://github.com/w3c/csswg- drafts/issues/544)

The link in the article will take you to the current specification: [https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values/#calc- notation](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values/#calc-notation)

<comment><USER8> min() and max() are actually super useful beyond handling the iPhone X safe areas, here's a Tweet with some examples of other ways to use it: [https://twitter.com/iamvdo/status/910074435159420928](https://twitter.com/iamvdo/status/910074435159420928)

In brief, it lets you replace the "CSS locks" pattern which is a super awkward way to apply clamping to a flexible size. min()/max() makes it much easier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'll just leave this here:

"I think I've fixed the notch issue in landscape #iphoneX"

[https://twitter.com/vojtastavik/status/907911237983449088](https://twitter.com/vojtastavik/status/907911237983449088)

<comment><USER10> And if you rotate it 180 degrees, you get this: [https://twitter.com/ZevEisenberg/status/908148886363103232](https://twitter.com/ZevEisenberg/status/908148886363103232)

<comment><USER11> Ha, good god. What a disaster this thing is.

<comment><USER10> Its a joke; the scroll bar doesn't really do that

<comment><USER11> Yes, I'm aware. These people are telling jokes about it for a reason.

The reason for this particular joke is that the notch occludes the scroll indicator in that orientation, which should just be unacceptable. And yet, here we are, telling each other what a joke is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What a mess. My condolences to the Apple engineers who had to implement this. The notch is probably something that marketing thinks is really important for branding reasons, but I'd guess most engineers dislike it. Yet some of them had to add all this complexity to their codebase.

<comment><USER13> I think Apple (and especially Ive) would definitely prefer if the phone was notchless and 100% display.

The issue is where you put the various sensors on the front - even with just a camera you're still going to have a notch (see the Essential phone) until we can use these sensors behind an OLED screen.

Phone manufacturers are going to be shooting for the bezelless design for the foreseeable future so this issue isn't something that's going to be isolated to Apple alone.

The alternative is an asymmetrical bezel, which is "less sexy and cool" than the (mostly) edgeless design. Defaulting to this avoids the problem, but you're no longer hip.

This is another weird case of being in a transitionary period (wireless headphones is another) of functional design. Until the kinks are worked out, we're just gonna have to deal with the weirdness because it's not going away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is horrifying. We shouldn't be encouraging device makers to create random bits of new css syntax to cover their weird viewports.

<comment><USER4> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15314778](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15314778)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Out of the box, Safari displays your existing websites beautifully on the edge-to-edge display of the new iPhone X." ... scroll down to _their_ first screen shot and it becomes clear this is just not true!

</comment><comment><USER16> The default behavior is less than great, but it's serviceable at the very least. It would be nice if they tried to be a little smarter and took the background-color of any full-width elements and stretched that out into the insets.

I frankly thought it was going to be a bit more of a mess than this so I'm pleasantly surprised.

</comment><comment><USER17> Is every single part of the iPhone X screen sensitive to touch? Because I already have enough problems handling my Samsung phone without accidentally 'clicking' on things because of the small bezels. I wonder if there is an option to ignore input when touching the very edges of the screen.

<comment><USER18> I hope that palm rejection will be as good as in new Macbook Pro 15 inch with giant trackpad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Might also be worth mentioning the [CSS Round Display Level 1 spec][1]. Unusually-shaped displays aren't a problem unique to the iPhone X.

[1]: [https://www.w3.org/TR/css-round-display-1/](https://www.w3.org/TR/css- round-display-1/)

</comment><comment><USER20> There is absolutely no way I will change one bit on my website to accommodate some new device. Devices should be built with standards in mind.

<comment><USER4> They are using standards: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15315357](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15315357)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I like that the Webkit team decided to use standard features to solve this, but OTOH having to add custom safe areas for a single device goes against any common sense.

No Apple, we won't change all our websites for your new gimmick.

<comment><USER22> You don't need to. They seem to have a sensible default.

<comment><USER23> If by "sensible" you mean take a device with a larger screen and reduce it to have the same usable screen real estate as the "lesser" 8 Plus, with bonus Screen Goiters on each side, then I would have to agree with you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In the 1990s, we just needed to design for three browsers. I guess we actually had it pretty good.

</comment><comment><USER25> The default is your website gets padded so the unique design "features" don't interfere with your current design.

That's fine by me.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is mindboggling to me why Apple designers thought it would be a good idea to have that black inset in the new iPhone, any ideas what's the reason behind that product decision?

<comment><USER27> My guess: Since the bezel is thin on three sides, they didn't want to give the phone a big forehead by planting a comparatively big black bar at the top.

I think their solution is bad. The inset makes the front of the phone look busy/unclean/techie. It's lacking elegance. They should have reduced the left and right bezel to nearly zero and added a small bezel at the bottom that matches the one at the top to create symmetry. Basically, just shrunken iPhone 7 bezels on all sides and a rectangular screen.

Edit: If rumors were true and they wanted to put Touch ID below the screen, their goal might have been a phone with the same bezel thickness on all sides. But Touch ID below the screen didn't work and they had to add sensors to compensate – compromising by creating an inset.

<comment><USER28> > [they should have] added a small bezel at the bottom that matches the one at > the top to create symmetry

This is a terrible idea - you can't quickly tell which way the phone goes up. Have you used a Moto G2?

you should also try to be less arrogant when talking about the work of others ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It would be nice to also expose these CSS features for people with extra rugged cases. Frequently they can't touch the edges of the screen or even necessarily see it all.

<comment><USER30> > Let's create new CSS features for people who intentionally cover parts of > their screen

No thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> How does this work on the essential phone, with a similar inset on the front?

</comment><comment><USER32> Keep in mind that this is mostly a problem in landscape mode and roughly 90% of usage is in portrait mode.

<comment><USER33> AKA "You're holding it wrong"

<comment><USER34> Finally someone that understands! A phone should work in any orientation. I primarily use my phone with the display facing the ground, and its ridiculous that you can't see the display!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is just a poorly designed device front face, and the article attempts to hide some of the issues:

1\. The scroll bar is disappearing under the notch when it's on the other side.

2\. The chosen example has a solid color background while websites often have complex edge-to-edge ones which look even worse with the insets.

3\. The home indicator and the round corners now permanently block some content at the bottom and edges in any orientation.

4\. Objects in the vicinity of the prominent round corners will often look inharmonious, poorly clipped, etc.

</comment><comment><USER36> What a travesty this has become. If Steve was alive, he would say, "Your work is #$*&%T!"

</comment><comment><USER37> So, the standard for constant() will have a different name/syntax but they put it without any prefix? Why?

<comment><USER4> _The current consensus among browser implementors is that, on the whole, prefixed properties have hurt more than they've helped. So, WebKit's new policy is to implement experimental features unprefixed, behind a runtime flag._ : [https://webkit.org/blog/6131/updating-our-prefixing- policy/](https://webkit.org/blog/6131/updating-our-prefixing-policy/)

As the article states, prefixes have created a set of problems, which is why Apple, Google, Mozilla and Microsoft stopped using them for new features.

<comment><USER37> But the things they added aren't behind a runtime flag, but enabled by default _and_ without any prefix, yet not standardized.

<comment><USER4> Because these specs are in progress at the W3C, so they don't need to be prefixed or hidden in some way: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15314812](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15314812)

      min() and max()

Haven't been enabled in iOS 11 yet, as the article states.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> After wondering for a second how people were testing this stuff, I realized I could just fire up the Simulator from the new version of Xcode that just updated itself.

Pretty cool that it's so easy to try out! And especially that you don't have to blow $1000 on a real device if you don't want to.

(Sucks if you're not using OS X, of course...)

</comment><comment><USER39> Someone needs to make a JS lib that adds a black notch to the other side of one's website.

</comment><comment><USER40> What's the slim vertical bar by the left side of the phone (if held in portrait mode)?

<comment><USER41> That's the home indicator. It's always on the bottom of the screen (so, in portrait, it would not be on the left). It's used to show users where to swipe up in order to close the current app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> All in the name of selfies. Seriously, you can have a touch ID on the side, a speaker with beam? technology and no notch, but that would not have appealed the selfie generation.

</comment><comment><USER43> Reminds a whole lot about remembering to use prefixes in CSS when building browser compatible sites. I use a tool to automate this nowadays but this is just flat out silly.

</comment><comment><USER44> Yeah, I'm not going out of my way anytime soon to design for the X.

</comment><comment><USER45> Hahaha lmao. I can't believe this is a real thing, that we have to design for one specific device now. Really?

<comment><USER46> No, the article even says:

Out of the box, Safari displays your existing websites beautifully on the edge-to-edge display of the new iPhone X. Content is automatically inset within the display's safe area so it is not obscured by the rounded corners, or the device's sensor housing.

<comment><USER47> That is what they said, but look at the screenshot of the unmodified website. It looks terrible. They should have filled it with black.

<comment><USER27> Filling it with black would be the most sensible solution. Especially since it's an OLED display. Their current solution is to fuck with the original website design. Maybe the website devs wanted their horizontal bars to stretch from edge to edge and not be padded by whitespace? Quite brazen of Apple to interfere this prominently with other people's work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> just no.

<comment><USER49> I have to agree. This is not bringing anyone but apple further.

<comment><USER50> The best part is how all of these features are Safari/iOS 11 only -- except for the ones that aren't even part of that, and are experimental.

<comment><USER4> Other than the meta tag, the others are W3C specifications:

[https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values/#calc- notation](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values/#calc-notation) [https://github.com/w3c/csswg- drafts/issues/1693#issuecomment...](https://github.com/w3c/csswg- drafts/issues/1693#issuecomment-330909067)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Optimizing the Web for the rich minority.

<comment><USER52> The rich minority are also the people who pay money for stuff, which is typically the goal of most websites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Oh man this is uncool! Yet another thing to worry about!</comment>


10 reasons you should never get a job - <AUTHOR> https://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/07/10-reasons-you-should-never-get-a-job/ <comment><USER2> He might be making money, but he does not seem to be actually creating anything of actual value - it seems to be only by selling shit to other people who want to be like him.

Comes across like another version of the self help industry.</comment>


YC Co-Founder Jessica Livingston On The Dearth Of Women In Tech - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/26/yc-co-founder-jessica-livingston-on-the-dearth-of-women-in-tech-and-some-steps-to-fix-it/

<comment><USER2> Perhaps the Tech industry needs women more than women need the Tech industry.

</comment><comment><USER3> Slightly confused

Jessica's article is excellent but I don't see the relevance of her article to women

The comments that she makes Save money, Learn about start-ups, etc... are just as valid for women as for men

Is this (dearth of women) really the right question to be asking or should it be about the relative lack of start-ups (/students starting start-ups) and how the education system (in it's widest sense) should react?

Sorry Jessica - excellent article - but I'm not sure it got to the point

</comment><comment><USER4> This issue isn't limited to entrepreneurship; there's a dearth of women who study computer science in school.

</comment><comment><USER5> For a vivid discussion on the blog post by Jessica Livingston see also:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2144956>

</comment><comment><USER6> _If someone in your IT department is actually good, befriend them_

With that attitude, you aren't likely to make many friends in IT.</comment>


How to compete with giants with 100$ - <AUTHOR> https://crisp.im/blog/how-to-compete-with-giants-with-100/ <comment><USER2> Great article! Good job guys!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!</comment></comment>


Ask YC: Where to find the right contractors?  - <AUTHOR>

As Chron X approaches it's launch date, we've begun looking for a Flex contractor to help finish off the client.. There's always the rentacoder/elance route, but it seems like there has to be something better.
We're in the same situation when it comes to supporting the NY Sales office. I can't get up there as often as I'd like, so we need someone to help the staff on occasion with support..
I've been asking friends, both personally and on Linked in for who they'd recommend, but it seems there has to be some other way.
With Craigslist, all I'm looking at is a bunch of names without any information..
It would seem like there should be some sort of ebay-like reputation system for contractors, where we could search through people in an area, see who's left them comments and what they've done, and find someone who's a good fit.
Any ideas on where I should look? Where do you find help? <comment><USER2> look for niche blogs and job boards. find a flex blog/community and post the job to their board.

you could also try the freelanceswitch.com job board, which is free to post jobs.

also, re: the ebay-like reputation system for contractors, thats actually something i'm working on</comment>