When May I Shoot a Student? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/when-may-i-shoot-a-student.html <comment><USER2> This article was obviously full of snark, but if the professor is really looking for an answer to his question, he can read up on the relevant law in his state and take a concealed carry class from a licensed instructor, where that information will be covered in great detail.

<comment><USER3> This is full on satire.

<comment><USER4> Indeed. Poorly done, uninsightful satire.

<comment><USER3> How should it have been done?

<comment><USER4> In a way that actually highlights problems with the proposed policy change, rather than have me scratching my head about what scantron cheating has to do with this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Concealed carry is already legal on several dozen college campuses in the US, some of them for more than a decade. There hasn't been a single instance of someone threatening to shoot or shooting someone else. It has been a non- issue.

Not to mention the author doesn't even seem to know the circumstances in which someone can obtain a permit to carry. He says colleges are "densely packed concentrations of young people who are away from home for the first time, and are coincidentally the age associated with alcohol and drug experimentation, and the commission of felonies." Which is true. And none of those people can legally carry a firearm, as the minimum age to carry is 21.

Carry permit holders commit violent crimes at a staggeringly low rate. If you disregard anecdotes (as someone will inevitably bring up Zimmerman, etc), you are safer in the company of a permit holder than a non-permit holder.

</comment><comment><USER6> Simple answer: _under the same conditions you may shoot anybody else_.

Too much practicality for the academic class, I fear.

<comment><USER7> Is this an attempt at humour or did you really miss the entire point of the article?

<comment><USER8> Kinda hard to when you've exhausted your quota of 10 article a month.

But from the opening paragraph (all I can see for more than a couple of seconds) it's clearly an anti-gun, anti-concealed carry attack, for which excusing its verbal brutality as "humor" doesn't work in the least. From someone who's likely grossly ignorant of the relevant details, including at least a couple of nearby states, Utah and Colorado, that allow concealed carry in public universities without any incidents of note.

Heck, when Colorado flipped hard-core anti-gun in the legislature and executive last year, a law to eliminate that was the only gun-grabbing measure to fail.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Most professors will not carry guns, but knowing that some may be armed could deter massacres like the ones at Virgina Tech or Sandy Hook.

<comment><USER10> Do people seriously believe that?

Do you really think that the sort of people who would shoot up a classroom will have second thoughts if they think someone else might have a gun?

<comment><USER2> Yes, per my comment above. They will go places where they won't face interference with their plans - they will choose a restaurant with a "No Guns" sign rather than a police station.

You assume there is no rationality behind the suicidal, but there is. Consider the Kamikaze.

<comment><USER11> I'd say that is wishful thinking. The number of college shooting perpetrators that expected to get away without being killed is most likely zero.

Here in Germany there are very few guns. Nonetheless, one of the typical places to go on a rampage is the court house, where you have a 100% likelyhood of armed guards.

Also: Didn't the Kamikaze try to crash into heavily armed ships?

<comment><USER8> " _Here in Germany there are very few guns_ "

Not even close. Official, legally registered guns? Perhaps. But memories are long. Per the Small Arms Survey, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) you're in 15th place, tied with Iceland, in a cluster of countries at around 30 per 100 residents also including Uruguay, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, and Austria.

For that matter, as of late Western Europe has been suffering more and worse such incidents than the US, and that includes German school shootings in Winnenden in 2009, Emsdetten in 2006, Rötz in 2005, Coburg in 2003 and Erfurt in 2002 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe)). 3 of these incidents were small scale, but 2 resulted in 16 and 17 dead respectively, and another miraculously ended with only the shooter killing himself, but 37 injured, 4 students shot, etc.

I always find it ... amusing when Germans try to lecture Americans on this topic.

Ah, have you stopped institutionizing your seriously mentally ill like the US did starting in the early-mid '60s?

<comment><USER11> Uh huh. Do you know when I last time have seen a gun here in Germany, not carried by a police officer?

Never.

I have never seen a non-official handle a weapon, except on Television. In my life.

Oh by the way. Memories are long, sure. I recently read of a big weapons find, in the village next go mine. They found a lot of handguns and military rifles that somebody stashed in a hidden room of an official building at the end of the war. Do you know where those weapons went?

Straight to the trash. I don't even know if you can still use a weapon that has just been lying around for seventy years.

And what has the mentally ill thing to do with anything? I've been to America. Your mentally ill live in the street. How is that better?

<comment><USER8> Your first point reinforces the point of the Small Arms Survey as I recall, that most German guns are not in legal circulation. But the numerous shootings I listed, which you completely ignored, show they all aren't stashed away.

" _I don 't even know if you can still use a weapon that has just been lying around for seventy years._"

If it was cleaned properly before putting it away, and in a moderately dry place, yes. Back then corrosive primers were common, so that was an essential and inescapable part of owning a gun (counter-examples are the round the Swiss adopted in 1911 (!) and the US M1 Carbine, a short rifle for officers and others who weren't front line infantry). For that matter WWII ammo is still generally just fine, modulo your having to much more thoroughly clean your gun afterwords.

ADDED: I have used/owned two military rifles manufactured in WWII, a Springfield 03A3 and a Garand. Basically, I'd consider myself well equipped if I had most any originally military rifle starting with the Mauser 1898. Yes, more than a century old....

And the fact that you haven't deinstitutionalized your mentally ill like we insanely (so to speak) have puts a different complexion on your crime, including "gun crime" statistics and incidents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> An armed classroom is a polite classroom.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> FTFA: "Some of my colleagues are concerned that you are encouraging firearms within a densely packed concentration of young people who are away from home for the first time, and are coincidentally the age associated with alcohol and drug experimentation, and the commission of felonies."

Not only that, but the college years tend to be the age when a number of mental illnesses start to swing into high gear. Schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder come to mind.

<comment><USER8> The first point is rather diminished by the fact that the people actually (legally) carrying will be over 21 years of age.

I'm not sure how to address your second point, e.g. is that an argument for denying the enumerated constitutional right to bear arms to those in that higher risk age zone?

I'd prefer we counter-reform our mental health system; back in saner days, most of these shooters, like the Virginia Tech one, who was adjudicated by a judge, would have been controlled in one way or another so they weren't dangers. The introduction in the '50s of miraculously effective anti-psychotic drugs---something witnessed by my mother the nurse---allow solutions short of simple warehousing, but that wasn't enough for the powers that be, especially since there were more effective ways to buy votes.

<comment><AUTHOR> The first point really isn't diminished. How many people do you know did things under the legal age limit in college?

As for the second point - "is that an argument for denying the enumerated constitutional right to bear arms to those in that higher risk age zone?" \- well, you're stuffing straw into my comment.

I was adding to the author's point that this is a particularly volatile age. Sure we need to address mental health issues, Newtown etc, but I think allowing guns on campus is fanning the flames. Why is this prioritized over mental health reform?

Curious, if there is agreement on an age limit to legally carrying guns, why not raise that to, say, 25? Or, lower it to 16 which is the legal age to drive cars? Why coincide with the legal age of drinking, or the age of half of all college students in the country? Isn't an age limit an argument for arbitrarily denying the enumerated constitutional right to bear arms?

<comment><USER8> " _The first point really isn 't diminished. How many people do you know did things under the legal age limit in college?_"

We're talking about Idaho allowing legal concealed carry on public campuses, right? How it illegal concealed carry germane to that???

Indeed I was stuffing straw, and you're more than encouraged to replace my best guess supposition with what you actually propose based on your observation.

" _Why is [allowing guns on campus] prioritized over mental health reform?_ "

Because we can actually do something about the former, while the latter is blocked by the ACLU and the usual suspects. In fact, "severe" deinstitutionalization has a longer history than severe national level gun control (state level gun control has a complicated history, most post- Reconstruction, around the turn of the century aimed at the new waves of non- Anglo-Saxon immigrants, or starting in the '70s), the latter starting in '68, and it's been at net rolled back starting in '86, with a nationwide sweep of shall issue laws starting with Florida in '87, now with the Federal courts getting in the act soon to cover 90% of the population.

There have been a very few slight wins WRT to mental health counter-reform, but nothing at all like the RKBA reforms. So while we continue to beat our head against a brick wall in the former, pushing the latter is merely reinforcing success, a sound tactical and strategic principle.

And one check against the public dangers of deinstitutionalization. Not that most of the severely mentally ill are anything but a danger to themselves, but we can't help but notice the solid correlations of severe mental illness and these shootings, and as noted elsewhere, for a long time, except for one, a correlation with "Gun Free Zones". Decreasing those may not help at net, but it will help those in areas where effective self-defense and its deterrent effects are allowed once again. And that's part of why it was the one Colorado gun-grabbing measure to fail last year.

As for your last point, we've been litigating that, going for age 18, and just lost a few days ago with the Supremes. Obviously any line is arbitrary, but it's a well and long established principle that "children" don't have the full constitutional rights of adults, that their parents stand in for them there. And for some time, that the ages of 18 to 21 are where we draw these boundaries; are you old enough to remember the ratification of the 26th Amendment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty- sixth_Amendment_to_the_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty- sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution))?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Pretty Pictures: Ray tracing in Lisp - <AUTHOR> http://random-state.net/log/3467117369.html

<comment><USER2> I'm puzzled why the author released one-time "snapshot" of the current development state instead of placing the code in a world-readable repository (errr...github?)

<comment><USER3> I think that placing it in github or something like it would suggest a continued involvement or a state of maintenance. This is a 'fire and forget' way of open sourcing something.

Takes 10 seconds and the effect is much the same, you get the source, what else could you ask for ? Nicer wrapping paper ?</comment></comment>


RIPE's DNSSEC signer migration - <AUTHOR> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/anandb/dnssec-signer-migration <comment><USER2> _The private keys for DNSSEC signing must be stored safely. It is common to use a hardware security module (HSM) for this. However, this is not the only way to store keys safely. Keys can be generated and stored on encrypted disks, and if access to a server is restricted and limited to only certain functions, then it is acceptable to use such a setup._

What? No, those are not comparable solutions at all. Rather, the latter solution, of relying on Linux FDE, _defines the problem that HSMs solve away_.

</comment><comment><USER3> > When we introduced DNSSEC to all our zones back in 2005, we did this using > some home-grown perl scripts.

I am simultaneously cringing while nodding my head in approval.

> In 2009, we switched from these perl scripts to a signer product developed > by a company called Secure64. This is a dedicated signer solution that runs > on Secure64's SourceT operating system, on HP servers with Itanium > processors.

I'm not going to malign them for choosing a proprietary product. Back when I did DNS admin for a company, I didn't trust myself to handle all the vagaries of DNSSEC, and so I relied on our Infoblox appliances to handle it, which they did seamlessly.

Itanium, though…

> We settled on standard Knot DNS for our signing solution…

Interesting! I haven't heard of this before, and it looks interesting. Will keep in in mind if I ever end up needing to choose an authoritative DNS.

> …and we have found the support from CZ.NIC to be really good.

Very important. Helps keep the product alive.

> …use of an HSM might actually be overkill. We have therefore decided to keep > our setup simple, by adopting a design that uses a regular Linux server > running Knot DNS, with keys on an encrypted disk partition.

Hmmmmm, I wonder how they set that up!

Just as a fun thing, I experimented with using a chain of systemd units to handle the unlocking and mounting of an encrypted EBS volume. It went like this:

1\. A oneshot service which attached an EBS volume on start, and detached it on stop. 2\. A mount unit that mounted the filesystem that contained the encrypted (wrapped) key. 3\. A oneshot service which called KMS to "unwrap" the key into a RAM-based filesystem, and then call LUKS to unlock the encrypted filesystem. 4\. A mount unit that mounted the unlocked filesystem.

(Note that AWS Secrets Manager didn't exist at the time, so I couldn't use it. Also, I didn't want to rely on external infrastructure like a Vault.)

It all worked because, instead of putting entries into `/etc/fstab`, systemd lets you create `mount` units with that can have the same dependency relationship as services.

> Our old Secure64 signers do not export their private keys. This means that > in order to migrate to the new signers, we will have to perform a KSK roll- > over. Therefore, we will pre-publish DS records of KSKs from our new > signers.

A KSK rollover? That's always 'fun', and I wish them luck! Although, it'll be alot easier for them, compared to (for example) rolling over the root's KSK: See [https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/apnic- services/dnssec/keyrol...](https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/apnic- services/dnssec/keyroll) and [https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-09-27-en](https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-09-27-en) and [https://www.icann.org/resources/press- material/release-2018-...](https://www.icann.org/resources/press- material/release-2018-09-18-en) which OMG just came out today (/me goes to post it).</comment>


The multicore crises: Scala vs. Erlang - <AUTHOR> http://www.infoq.com/news/2008/06/scala-vs-erlang <comment><USER3> The first Thinking Machines computer had tens of thousands of very dumb/slow processors. Their second system had far fewer processrs but they were significantly more capable.

Almost everyone at the time thought that the second machine was far more useable. Were they wrong? If so, why?

<comment><USER4> No, they weren't wrong. People like Hillis and now Patterson are thinking hardware-centric; the most efficient thing to build is many small cores. But users don't want that. If people bought hardware efficiency, we'd all be using Transputers, Alphas, and Cells. The real challenge is to figure out the most efficient design that customers will actually buy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "and there are trends that suggests that will have thousands of cores before we know it. But each core will be very slow compared to todays cores."

Yeah I don't buy that personally.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm guessing the reasoning behind that statement is the power consumption. The higher the clock rate of a core, the more power it consumes and the more heat it dissipates. If you don't slow down each core in a crowded multicore, things might heat up too much and melt down. Until we get some other semiconductors that can withstand the heat, I'd say that's probably going to happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> this post seems misinformed. in a massively multicore world, _parallelism_ is more important than _concurrency_ , and the two are not the same. basically concurrency means the order of tasks is not known a priori. parallelism means segmenting a problem so subproblems can be solved in many places at once.

in a massively mutlicore world, i offer parallelism is the goal these people want to address. how they did not mention haskell is beyond me.

<comment><USER7> _in a massively multicore world, parallelism is more important than concurrency, and the two are not the same_

I think you're right in a technical sense - that article used the term slightly sloppily. However, the degree of parallelism in a program is limited by the ability of the human author to cope with all the concurrent interactions. So fundamentally, the two words boil down to the same problem.

One approach - that taken by Erlang and (from what I understand) Haskell - <USER2> to force people to write programs in a special way (pure message-passing or pure-functional), such that they become (almost) embarrassingly parallelisable.

Another approach - that taken by Scala, and my personal favourite, Clojure - is to keep the existing paradigm (JVM+threads in both those cases), and _encourage_ people to write large parts of their program in styles which make concurrency easier (Actors, STM, immutable values, and so on).

There's something to be said for both approaches: Erlang- or Haskell-style "purity" keeps you well-behaved, and gives you a lot more parallelism "for free". On the other hand, there are processes, tasks and other systems which are fundamentally sequential or mutable, and forcing you into conceptual backflips to cope with this can create pointless friction.

I don't mean to put one approach above the other - and I'm aware that my summary is woefully inadequate - but I do believe this article is engaging with a valid debate, and to pick it apart on sloppy use of a word is to miss the point.</comment></comment>


The Surreal, Cyborg Future of Telemarketing (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/almost-human-the-surreal-cyborg-future-of-telemarketing/282537/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Well, if it reduces the number of telemarketing jobs available, that's a win for everyone. But it would be much, much better to ban telemarketing already. It's one of the most shameful occupations ever invented. And it's not because they're annoying - that I could live with - it's because most of those calls are literally trying to defraud people. Not having that many low-paid, stressed out people forced into cheating other human beings is a start, but not cheating people in the first place is what we should be aiming for.

</comment><comment><USER3> I get these about once per month at work; I've experienced the "break in" where a person "steps in" and clarifies something that's off-script. There doesn't seem to be a "take me off your list" response; they typically hang up immediately.

What's interesting here is probably the growing data set that they -must- have by now. You could argue that Facebook's "M" is on the same spectrum of technology, leading toward a fully-automated voice response unit.

</comment><comment><USER4> The obvious solution is to fight back with bots. [https://www.reddit.com/r/itslenny/](https://www.reddit.com/r/itslenny/)</comment>


A Generative Approach to Simulating Watercolor Paints - <AUTHOR> http://www.tylerlhobbs.com/writings/watercolor <comment><USER2> I can see the fascination of this problem. There are so many ways to approach it, from addressing the physics, to higher level attempts to get the right look. Searching around, it seems to have justifiably caught the imagination of many.

Here's another approach, made interesting by its use the connection machine [1], whereby an attempt is made to simulate the diffusion of pigments though paper.

[1] [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/72ab/54ecaaf7458853bd441b94...](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/72ab/54ecaaf7458853bd441b9458ac3130526596.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Great comment! Yes, there are many other approaches that are more true to reality, to the point where they are fairly thorough simulations of physics. My approach is somewhat like a five minute figure drawing sketch compared to the equivalent of hyper-realistic 100 hour paintings. Neither is necessarily a better approach, but both are good for different goals. What I like about my approach is that it is very easy for me to understand and manipulate. I can take advantage of this to make new effects that are less like reality but still intriguing in their own way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have to say that the "sample works" look superb - I wonder what they would look like printed onto fabric? I visited quite a successful manufacturing company here in the UK and they basically had huge inkjet printers printing their designs onto fabric...

</comment><comment><USER5> Really awesome effect! If author is here, would love to hear more about the 'deformation function' mention - is it a fractal height-map type approach that splits each line of polygon and deflects?

<comment><USER3> Author here. Thank you! Yes, I think you have the basic gist of it. Split each line, then move an endpoint. There's nothing too complicated about the algorithm, the trick is really around fine tuning all of the possible parameters. If it's not obvious, my approach is purely going after aesthetic effects.

<comment><USER5> Thank you, this is great, I may try this approach out for a personal painting app I've been toying with

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was mind blown when I read how much algorithmic skills were applied to drawing software back in the days.</comment>


Releasing Dgraph 1.0: Production-Ready Graph Database - <AUTHOR> https://blog.dgraph.io/post/releasing-v1.0/ <comment><USER2> Also at: [https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/19/dgraph-raises-3m-for- its-o...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/19/dgraph-raises-3m-for-its-open- source-distributed-graph-database-hits-1-0-release/)

</comment><comment><USER3> The DGraph team have done some very interesting work. The recent addition of transactions is an extremely impressive technical accomplishment, and a very good long term move. Excellent to see a production-ready 1.0 release.</comment>


The Complexity of Human Computation: A Concrete Model [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1707/1707.01204.pdf <comment><USER2> Maybe change the url to:

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01204](https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01204)

(this could be automatic for arxiv)

</comment><comment><USER3> > 3.Short-term read-write memory is fast but tiny, typically storing 2 or 3 > chunks, each chunk being a pointer to some item such as a digit or number, a > character or word, an image or music clip. In our model, unlike anything we > find in the psychological literature, a chunk is a well-defined object, a > pointer into memory.

they missed the 4 additional 5 bit registers - fingers and toes.

<comment><USER4> Add another bit for males, although state changes are slow enough that it might not be too useful on most computations. Tongues and eyelids can also provide some storage.</comment></comment>


The Economist's Books of the Year - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/17626972 <comment><USER2> The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine is a very good book on the crisis. The Economist calls it "One of the best books on the recent crisis". I very much agree with this assessment. It's written by the former investment banker Michael Lewis who is the author of Liar's Poker and Moneyball.

</comment><comment><USER3> I just finished reading Bill Carter's The War for Late Night. The book recaps the Leno/Conan saga. I thought it was excellent. Lots of little lessons in there too, believe it or not. Not on the list, but highly recommended.

</comment><comment><USER4> somehow a book is missing that would explain why the 'Economist' (sic!) had no idea of the upcoming financial crisis and completely failed to understand the catastrophic effects of economic politics that were promoted by the Economist, which lead to the crisis.

<comment><USER5> Huh? The Economist magazine has been going on about the housing and asset bubbles continually since about 2000-2004 (and is still saying that housing is way over-priced in the UK, which it is).

<comment><USER4> from 2008, the Economist:

'This is a black week. Those of us who have supported financial capitalism are open to the charge that the system we championed has merely enabled a few spivs to get rich. But it helped produce healthy economic growth and low inflation for a generation. It would take a very big recession indeed to wipe out those gains. Do not forget that in the debate ahead.'</comment></comment></comment>


A 4-Day Workweek? A Test Run Shows a Surprising Result - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workweek-new-zealand.html <comment><USER4> Discussed two days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17569391](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17569391)

</comment><comment><USER5> The UK tried an experiment in 1974 with a 3 day work week, rigidly enforced, for everyone.

At the start of 1974 there was a national miner's strike. In order to preserve coal and power all commercial users were limited to 3 _specified_ days electricity consumption in every 7. That lasted 2 or 3 months, and came right after the oil crisis.

At home there were regular power cuts and houses were freezing places illuminated by candle. This is when the UK became very interested in central heating.

From the government's own figures, a 40% reduction in working hours caused just a 4% drop in productivity.

I am surprised there haven't been studies to try and validate that experience outside of of strikes and crises. The government's own study and the result seems to have been silently forgotten.

<comment><USER6> > From the government's own figures, a 40% reduction in working hours caused > just a 4% drop in productivity.

and

> That lasted 2 or 3 months,

It's quite possible that people 'pulled together' to get through the crisis, similar to how people managed in the war with the 'Dunkirk Spirit'. Just because we seemingly did well through a three month crisis does not mean that is a long term sustainable plan.

<comment><USER7> > Just because we seemingly did well through a three month crisis does not > mean that is a long term sustainable plan.

It would be interesting to know more about the effects of that crisis. Presumably many companies kept afloat by methods such as using accumulated stock or putting things on back order and such like. If I was ordered to go down to 3 days rather than 5, I'd be running long days if possible, or doing all the things that took a lot of energy on those days. These things are obviously unsustainable but how much did they come into it?

<comment><USER5> Longer days were prohibited. Continuous users of electric had a 65% of usual consumption limit imposed. :)

Broadcast TV shutdown at 1030pm, a 50mph speed limit was introduced as was a low max temperature for offices (63F).

Hospitals, food shops and newspapers were exempt. Power cuts were often - <USER2> because of the regulations you knew when they were due. My parents collected a selection of camping lamps, a good supply of candles, and a single gas ring to connect to the mains gas point by hose as we had an electric cooker.

I remember much sitting in candle light wearing coats and blankets in the house.

This from a Conservative govt. The dispute and three day week ended when they lost the election to Labour.

A little more here: [http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.natio...](http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2005/nyo/politics.htm)

<comment><USER6> > This from a Conservative govt. The dispute and three day week ended when > they lost the election to Labour.

I don't want to get too embroiled in historical politics here but reading [http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/6/...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/6/newsid_2538000/2538623.stm) gives :-

> 1972: Pay and price freeze aims to curb inflation. The Conservative > Government has frozen pay and prices in an attempt to halt spiralling > inflation.

and

> Wages and prices had started to spiral out of control after the collapse of > agreements between the previous Labour Government and the unions.

> The Conservative Government's moratorium on price and wage increases passed > into law as the Counter-Inflation bill.

As tends to be the case one change of Government tries to fix an inherited problem and that generates it's own set of problems.

<comment><USER5> It only rated mention as being surprising rather than anything party political. The details were so far removed from what we might expect from the Conservatives. Well, any modern party really.

> moratorium on price and wage increases

Economically the seventies were rather a mess. A wage freeze would be challenging with double digit inflation. I remember power cuts at other times throughout the decade, I think up until the Thatcher govt came in to push back the unions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I noticed a big boost in quality of life when I dropped down to 4 day weeks.

Working a full time job, I had gone from my usual "doctor visit every 10 years" to "doctor visit at least once a year", with an added flu or something each year on top of that. So when kid #2 came along, I used the excuse to drop down to 4 day weeks, and once the family was ticking away on all cylinders again I started using that extra day for climbing, cycling, and other "selfish" things. The idea being that this was "my day" and not just an extra day to do errands.

Boy what a difference it made. I haven't had more than a case of the sniffles since. I'm healthier, happier, and get to spend more time with the family.

I've since packed in the job entirely (to live off my business stuff full time) but if I do ever take another full time job, I'll be sure to negotiate 4 (or even 3) day weeks in to the contract. It's just night and day.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if anyone at the company had ever heard of the Hawthorn Effect [0].

0\. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect)

<comment><USER10> You right, productivity boost can caused by knowing that your productivity is tracked and surveyed...

However, here in New Zealand one of the most important is the work life balance. Everything is about being happy and enjoy your life.

For this reason, it is quite common the 37 hours workweeks, flexible hours, working from home at least one day a week and go for coffee or lunch when you want...

super cool country actually ;)

<comment><USER11> Sweden is similar. A desk job at a big company in IT means a very relaxed atmosphere with no problems leaving early or working from home. Nobody cares.

It's actually a bit annoying if you care about some project though. If you do, you get quite frustrated by the people who don't care (the majority) and you have to work with them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I found this quite enlightened:

> He said the results of Perpetual Guardian's trial showed that when hiring > staff, supervisors should negotiate tasks to be performed, rather than > basing contracts on hours new employees spent in the office.

> "Otherwise you're saying, 'I'm too lazy to figure out what I want from you, > so I'm just going to pay you for showing up,'" Mr. Barnes said.

> "A contract should be about an agreed level of productivity," he added. "If > you deliver that in less time, why should I cut your pay?"

The times I've seen managers worry about time spent it's tended to be someone non-technical. They can't really tell whether the goods have been delivered, so their best proxy is whether the staff are in their seats. Now of course you can sit in your seat and not deliver...

<comment><USER13> >>> supervisors should negotiate tasks to be performed, rather than basing contracts on hours

Ok, then a part of my salary should be proportional to the quality of the ideas I bring to the table when I work (which is just as hard to estimate than it is for "tasks to be performed" if you look at our kind of creative industry)

<comment><USER12> Ultimately in software the quality of your work is dependent on the opinions of others. If your boss thinks you never come up with anything useful, he too will decide not to pay you for your hours.

And that's also why some people get paid a lot more than others in this industry. It's impossible to put in more than 168 hours a week, but undoubtedly there are people who make more than 4x the average full time salary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> No, not a surprising result. A perfectly expected result.

Working 40 hours a week is too much. "Working" 50 hours a week is absurd. Occasional crunches are ok of course, but as a constant minimum, those are just idiotic numbers, and people who support this sort of work ethic should be deeply ashamed and possibly fired.

<comment><USER15> _> Working 40 hours a week is too much. "Working" 50 hours a week is absurd. Occasional crunches are ok of course, but as a constant minimum, those are just idiotic numbers, and people who support this sort of work ethic should be deeply ashamed and possibly fired._

Really? What makes 40 hours the magic number? What number of hours a week isn't too much? 30? 20? 10? 1? A few minutes?

How many hours of work is required depends on the job. To say that anyone who supports working 40 hours a week "should be deeply ashamed and possibly fired" is way, way, way too strong a statement. How the heck do you know what is required by every single job?

<comment><USER16> The average work week in the 1920s was about 50 hours. The 40 hour work week was only standardised in the 30s, mainly as a response to huge increases in productivity.

We've had decade upon decade of substantial increases in productivity since then. Why hasn't our weekly working hours since the 30s ever been reduced?

<comment><USER7> > The average work week in the 1920s was about 50 hours.

Apply that to a household and the average family didn't have 2 parents working 100 hours in paid labour. The typical breakdown was likely a male in paid labour and a female mostly doing household chores. There was about 60 hours per week of household chores in 1900, and that was down to just under 8-15 by the 1980s [1, 2].

The number of hours that are spent at work would appear to have declined for males and females, through when unpaid work is factored in, a household consisting of a male and a female shows a much less dramatic decline. This brings us to a household work week total back at somewhere around 100 hours. Sort of what you said, but sort of not.

[1] Table 7. [https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s- history/](https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/)

[2] [https://ourworldindata.org/working- hours](https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder what the effects would be of having 4-day weeks widely implemented in society. It may just not scale.

My theory is that all perceived advantages will disappear once we all expect 3-day weekends, ie increased weekend travel lenght/ frequency or intensified efforts at our hobbies could end up draining more of our energy.

For instance a 3-day "work weekend" could make starting and running a separate company or working a 2nd job much more doable. A 4 to 3 proportion in days can easily fit a 32h + 32h double workweek in one. Once that becomes the norm, retribution economics may reflect that, in a way that one-jobers would lose buying power due to an inflated 2-job workers economy.

I feel productivity and work-life balance could be a zero-sum game.

<comment><USER18> You're describing a smaller minority than you think.

Currently, there's 168 hours in the week in which one could almost theoretically work. Plenty of people do double-job but in reality they tend to be more low-income jobs where people are struggling to get by and need the 2nd to make ends meet. In reality, the majority don't overexert to make more money if their current income is sufficient; only an exceptional minority will do this.

> _one-jobers would lose buying power due to an inflated 2-job workers > economy_

I find this conclusion odd, as I'm not sure what you feel is the issue here. We currently have wealth inequality anyway: it's not ideal/desirable but it's what we have. This wouldn't be a disimprovement (but won't happen anyway as I really don't think being a 2-jobber is as desirable as you make out: there's quite a lot of research to the contrary).

<comment><USER17> I think the desirability/need for a 2nd job increases as the number of job work hours decrease.

Imagine you had a 2-day/wk job that pays half of what you make in a 40h/wk job. Would you mind having a 2nd job that pays the other half?

Anyway, my point is that having more free hours will change how society behaves and colaborate and how the underlying economics work, therefore eliminating some of perceived advantages of a shorter work week.

<comment><USER18> > _Imagine you had a 2-day /wk job that pays ["half of what you make in a > 40h/wk job"]. Would you mind having a 2nd job that pays the other half?_

Where "half of what you make in a 40h/wk job" ~= (a) enough, OR (b) not enough.

If the answer is (a), then yes, I would mind. I would stick to 2 days.

That answer is not only true for me, research has shown it to be true for the majority of people for a US value of "enough" = $75,000/household (possibly could be updated for inflation/cost of living but the point stands).

You might be in the minority who wouldn't mind—in fact I suspect a disproportionate number of HNers may fall into that particular minority—but it's not true for most of the population.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder whether the productivity gains would continue if this experiment would last a year or more.

I have a feeling that employee motivation went up because of the fact that something changed - working 32 hours instead of 40, and only 4 days - <USER3> than the actual new reality which they were placed in.

We tend to enjoy changes all around, especially if they are for our own benefit. And I do think a shorter work week is a step in the right direction. But how long would it take for those employees to get used to the new reality of a 4 day work week, and going back to old habits of working more slowly during those days?

Ideally an experiment would be made with young adults who just started their first job and will land straight into a day work week, and comparing those to the same age group but with a 5 day work week.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think 37signals tried this about a decade ago. It's neither new or surprising.

<comment><USER21> The state of Utah did it in a massive way, it was a huge success, saved some money, improved employee morale, and productivity, so naturally they switched back shortly after[0].

The biggest issue was that people didn't like government services closed on Fridays. But instead of doing shifting or trying anything to mitigate that, they simply gave up.

The depressing thing is that this pattern happens over and over, be it remote work, work hours, work days, work dress, or a million other things. Society just "pins" normality arbitrarily then keeps returning to that.

[0] [https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102938...](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102938615)

<comment><USER22> It is in fact massively inconvenient when government and/or financial services are closed while other people are trying to get work done. After all, they are the backbone that supports all other economic activity. A couple of hours of discrepancy at the end of the day is tolerable (and sometimes even desirable), but a whole day of downtime is too much.

We need to automate a lot more of the public and financial sectors than we currently do. As long as a significant portion of work needs to be done face- to-face, there will be pressure to synchronize everyone's working days and hours.

<comment><USER23> As grandparent said, shifting would be enough to mitigate that. Some work Mo/Tue/We/Thu, while others work Tue/We/Thu/Fr, others Mo/Tue/Thu/Fr... etc.

<comment><USER22> A government office is not a supermarket. The clerks at the front might be interchangeable to some extent, but most of the people in the back office aren't.

In order to utilize shifting in a typical government office, you will need to train a lot of people to perform many different tasks involving many different laws, and come up with new procedures to assign clear chains of responsibility. Especially if the shifts are as complex as you describe. Utah might have decided that it's not worth the hassle.

Besides, if you could simplify and streamline a task so much that any on-duty employee can handle it, you might as well automate it all the way. In other words, tasks that are well suited for shifting also tend to be well suited for automation. The only exceptions are 24/7 jobs such as the police and emergency services.

<comment><USER23> Your argument is reasonable and well thought out, but I don't think this could not be overcome. Eg people get sick every once in a while, and go on holidays, and seminars etc., and offices have to deal with this one way or another. Look at it this way - office workers are now available max 40h per week, out of 168 available hours per week, so how big a difference can 8 hours less make? Dependents would eventually get used to this, just like they have to work around the fact that offices are mostly closed on weekends.

I agree that shifts are often not possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It sounded like they cut out a lot of the BS from the job and these are presumably jobs that are productive. I would be curious how this could possibly play out in jobs that are mostly BS as described by David Graeber's recent book.

I am most curious about the meeting reduction. Were the previously longer meetings containing inefficient communications that were replaced with efficient ones? long debates that no one had the desire for anymore? wandering conversations that were curtailed? completely pointless stuff that simply vanished? How did the meeting runners handle their diminished role?

</comment><comment><USER25> Given the way software is run these days, I've been thinking that it might make sense for developers to be working a split shift, so we have people in the office seven hours a day, seven days a week. A 32 hour week of 4 7 hour days and a 4 hour day. Your days should probably be contiguous and everyone would probably have to work at least a half day on the weekend.

This would take a ton of process maturity, but I've seen that level of maturity a couple of times. I think it could be done.

</comment><comment><USER26> This and the Nike article make me wonder about the possible emergence of higher-standards news media like the NYT into even more of a science & research-fostering-performing role. The possible benefits, the opportunities, the risks. Journalistic standards are very closely related to what we expect of science in many ways. Could "vetted media organization" be used in addition to "professional peer" in formal publishing guidelines, because things already seem to benefit from the additional filtering.

</comment><comment><USER27> If you truly love what you do number of hours worked becomes inconsequential.

<comment><USER28> I don't know if you're being sarcastic but this is a very dangerous way of looking at it. You absolutely can burnout and overexhaust yourself doing something you love. People need to learn to take breaks and time off more than the other way around imo.

<comment><USER29> working long hours does not mean you dont take regular breaks. its like marathons, you dont run at full speed when you know you will run for a long time.

<comment><USER30> I get what he is saying though. It's like how companies offer unlimited vacation and all these cool perks to make you love working and love staying at work.

"You haven't taken vacation? Nah I can take it whenever! It's not big deal! My team needs me and I love my job!"

I believe he was referring to it can be dangerous to view your work as something you love. Make sure to give space for your loved ones and your own free time and be conscientious of that. Naturally, your company will do it's best so that you do love your work, but understand there is more to life than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Surprising? To whom, exactly? The 40 hour work week was created and optimized for a world in which the dominant work was repetitive physical labor. They determined at that time that around 40 hours was optimal for average peoples capacity for that type of work. That type of work has been greatly reduced, and been replaced with mental work. Human beings have radically different capacities for mental exertion compared to prolonged physical exertion.

Most businesses are run in a very 'cargo cult' manner, where the managers and executives still read books written by manufacturing magnates and then turn around and apply the same practices (or close facsimiles like tribespeople crafting 'headphones' with coconut halves) to their own companies. There is vanishingly little actual thought that goes into it, or consideration of the constraints and principles. Manufacturers found it beneficial to makes as much of their process routine and checklist-driven as possible, so modern companies blindly try to do that too. They don't realize that with mental work (whether something like software development, marketing, sales or art creation or much else that now dominates) this is actively destructive. No one pays a company to do simple checklist-driven routine thinking for them. When it comes to mental work, customers want novel solutions to problems. They want something that hasn't been done before. Every time. If you do manage to reduce your product to the outcome of a checklist performed by disposable workers... you've successfully destroyed the entire value of your product.

When a company is built, they hire workers. Workers are human. This places restrictions on the company. They have to install bathroom facilities. They have to offer breaks for lunch. These aren't just legal requirements, they're necessary to get good performance out of human workers. Being annoyed with the restrictions born in human nature and seeking to squeeze workers at those points is counter-productive. And humans have limitations to their mental capacity as well. These aren't rigidly defined and understood yet, and there will certainly be further development of our understanding as we go on, but we do know a good bit already. Extended periods of mental exertion are counter- productive. Given the cost of poor performance in most mental work, it would be wise to guard against this. Humans can not multitask mentally, as our brains facilities for attention simply do not permit it. Mental work suffers in environments where people are subjected to interruptions, and where they are continuously concerned with preserving social status and similar factors.

Socially we have a long history with notions of endurance and vigorous exertion being identified with virtue. That was very socially useful when dealing with physical labor. It is, however, very destructive when dealing with mental labor. Likewise, extroversion was very socially useful when dealing with collaborative physical labor projects, while introversion is far more useful when dealing with mental labor projects because significant portions simply can not be collaborative. (A systems design might well be collaboratively created, but once decomposed into manageable portions it becomes counter-productive to pile many people on a single manageable portion. They end up spending most of their time trying to synchronize everyones mental model of the same thing.)

What would surprise me is if experiments like the one described in this article actually resulted in any significant change to most companies. We literally have over 1,000 studies establishing the productivity-destroying nature of open floor plan offices, for instance, but they continue being used. Different excuses are always proffered (reduced expense, some people wrongly guess it would make them more productive in defiance of all research, etc) but they never compensate for the costs. In reality most of it is done because 'everyone else is doing it' or 'this is how its been done before.' So, research is great but implementing it is an entirely different story. Few are courageous enough to defy social convention and stick their neck out trying something new that is not intuitively obvious (from an intuition developed out of a manufacturing-driven working world).</comment>


Caudit – Java Easy performance monitoring - <AUTHOR> http://cetsoft.github.io/caudit/

<comment><USER2> I found this library very promising. Really, there is no other library that logs the performance.</comment>


HTML5 drawing application for Chrome - whats next? - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lackkieddhpmioebogincgkkcagabhgm

<comment><USER2> Based on the actual drawing process and brushes available, this looks like it's based heavily on this work from "Mr. Doob", which I use quite frequently.

<http://mrdoob.com/projects/harmony/> Update: They do give credit in the ABOUT on the page/extension, happy to see that. :)

I like that they've added an undo, but I wish it was unlimited. 1 undo just isn't enough. This is a seriously cool drawing app to play with though.

</comment><comment><USER3> What do you mean by 'what's next' ?</comment>


Leaked BEAST paper and Proof of Concept (attack on SSL) - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/kplw3/break_ssl_in_2mins_paper_and_poc/

<comment><AUTHOR>
      * Looks like an early draft PDF (sections missing)
      * The attack is more serious than some of us thought
      * The PoC uses HTML5 WebSocket API, Java URLConnection API,
        and Silverlight WebClient API</comment>


Ask HN: Who Celebrated Quit Facebook Day? - <AUTHOR>

I held off deleting my never-used account just so I could do it today.
How about you?
Does anyone have good statistics on how many have quit today, and what percentage of people who committed to quit on quitfacebookday.com actually did so? <comment><USER2> I pre-emptively never joined Facebook.</comment>


Airbnb to halt all marketing, most hiring as losses mount - <AUTHOR> https://www.theinformation.com/articles/airbnb-to-halt-all-marketing-most-hiring-as-losses-mount?pu=hackernewsju49op&utm_source=hackernews&utm_medium=unlock <comment><USER2> AirBnB started out as a great service for travelers. The quality of the lodging and the prices were, in the beginning, lower than hotels, and had nicer amenities. Over the years it has gotten worse, to the point hotels are almost always a better bet in most locales if you value cleanliness or convenience. Not to mention the negative effects AirBnB has had on the local economies it operates in.

I'm sure they were already in a tight situation financially and this is the nail in the coffin. Personally, I'd be happy to see them go. Seems like an experiment that isn't worth continuing to me.

<comment><USER3> I _hate_ using AirBnB. We used it once during an extended stay in Milan and the apartment was horribly dusty (I have allergies), the maid practically worthless and the "host" in no way matched the persona presented on the site (a pleasant looking woman vs the angry man we actually talked to).

But one thing I don't hear complained about enough: Having to share your home with AirBnB guests.

We live in a luxury condo in a major metro. A number of the owners in our building are absentee (probably not even in country) and they AirBnB. Nothing like paying a small fortune for a home and facilities and then having to share your pool with a bunch of obnoxious travelers who think they're in a fucking hotel.

We've tried to work with the company that manages our building but it's nearly impossible to stop, short of policing all of the residents. And it's _illegal_ where we live! AirBnB doesn't give a shit. The offending owners (technically our neighbors) don't give a shit.

Honestly, I'd love to see them tank.

<comment><USER4> > A number of the owners in our building are absentee (probably not even in > country) and they AirBnB. Nothing like paying a small fortune for a home and > facilities and then having to share your pool with a bunch of obnoxious > travelers who think they're in a fucking hotel.

In many jurisdictions it's illegal to operate residential properties as hotels for these and other reasons.

<comment><USER5> So what? If AirBnB or the property owners are not held accountable, the law doesn't matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It would be good if they expanded their COVID-19 response to more trips booked in advance of the pandemic. I had something booked way in advance, starting April 15, and they still want me to be on the hook for a stay in a country no one can legally enter.

<comment><USER7> In fairness, I doubt Booking or any hotel would either.

<comment><USER8> Unless booking at a special rate, almost every hotel I've ever been at allows no-fee cancellations (typically up to 24 hours before). I typically stick to one or two hotel brands so maybe that's why?

<comment><USER9> I once accidentally entered the wrong checkout day when booking a hotel (one day too many); I immediately emailed and phoned them within minutes: they could not change the date, and had to pay one day extra.

Work was paying, but don't really like spending other people's money, and what a terrible service.

<comment><USER10> What country? I've never seen that in the US unless you booked through an SEO scam third-party drop-ship web site.

<comment><USER9> Ireland, using the hotel's own website. Jurys Inn in Cork, in case you want to avoid it :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Url changed from [https://www.theinformation.com/articles/airbnb-to-halt- all-m...](https://www.theinformation.com/articles/airbnb-to-halt-all- marketing-most-hiring-as-losses-mount), which was hard-paywalled, and which The Information has unlocked for HN readers. Thanks!

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22the%20information%22%20unlock&sort=byDate&type=comment)

</comment><comment><USER12> See the full list of which companies are freezing hiring: [https://candor.co/hiring-freezes](https://candor.co/hiring-freezes)

</comment><comment><USER13> This oncoming economic recession is going to be deep and severe and we'll be living with the repercussions of shutting down the economy for many, many years. Lots of domino effects are in play.

<comment><USER14> Its as if running an economy on margins this thin is unsustainable. Maybe we should pay the government a little more to put some extra money aside so we can avoid this in the future.

<comment><USER15> > Maybe we should pay the government a little more to put some extra money > aside so we can avoid this in the future.

Forget a rainy day fund, we're $23+ trillion in debt with $100+ trillion in future obligations.

<comment><USER16> On the plus side, US revenue / GDP figures are also pretty large so that's not too insane of an obligation. One day we'll get back level, perhaps.

Also on the plus side: at this point money is construct and it doesn't much matter how much debt you're in, provided there is not too much money to be inflationary (not gonna happen in a depression) and there isn't so little that liquidity dries up and there's a panic to withdraw what's there. So... queue the magic money machine for a bit until we can get this sorted.

<comment><USER4> > US revenue / GDP figures are also pretty large

They just got a lot smaller, and tax revenues with them.

<comment><USER17> For a few years. It also costs the US next to nothing to borrow money at the moment. Yields on 10 and 30 year t notes are on the same order as long term inflation targets.

<comment><USER10> Are those numbers pre or post pandemic?

<comment><USER17> Post-pandemic. Current yield on the ten year t-note is 0.65%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Airbnb is a cool website to connect renters and letters but I wonder if they really need 7,000 people to do that?

</comment><comment><USER19> @aaronbrethorst I think this post was caught in some sort of spam filter. Might want to post it again (or somehow contact mod?). I asked about it over here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22707640](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22707640)

Edit: Looks like @dang has replied and un-blocked it: [https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=22708065&goto=item%3Fi...](https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=22708065&goto=item%3Fid%3D22707365%2322708065)

</comment><comment><USER20> That would suck. Airbnb is great if you need housing in a weird location with no hotels (e.g. walking distance from something in Santa Clara), it's great for extra privacy (e.g. getting a TH in a quiet area in Europe away from both your loud hotel-mates and the loud tourists outside), it's great when you just want a bed on the cheap (everywhere; why pay for a hotel and its overhead when I need a place to store a backpack, shower and crash 8 hours a day). It's also great for weird places if that's your thing (I love it when they have a dog you can play with; sometimes there's house cooked meals; I actually once stayed in a house where the listing explicitly called out that a cat will likely come to your room and go into the bed :)). Oh yeah and places with assigned parking with no obnoxious valet system and parking charges are great everywhere.

The only inconvenience is usually the key hand-off, but private places usually have lock boxes these days, and shared ones have people living there.

The secret is never staying in airbnb-s that look like they are run like a hotel.

</comment><comment><USER21> As a part-time host the worst part about AirBnB handling of this is the full refunds to all guests. They have made it very clear we are in a completely one-sided relationship, and I can't be alone in my reaction to this.

<comment><USER10> There are more guests than hosts, and guests think that's the best parts. If your hotel is a legal business, you can get a bailout from the government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> What a really amazing turn-around from a few months ago. AirBnB was lauded as one of the few unicorns that were actually profitable and doing a good job justifying their valuation. With that said, they were a bad faith actor in many cities and caused rents to go up significantly [1], so I'm not sad they're taking it on the chin.

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/garybarker/2020/02/21/the- airbn...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/garybarker/2020/02/21/the-airbnb- effect-on-housing-and-rent/#22c2361f2226)

<comment><USER23> Many? Can you name a city that they didn't exploit regulations to get an edge?

They just marched in and started setting up illegal mini-hotels. When this blows up I'd love to know how that came to pass. Did every mayor in every big city really just decide not to act? There has to have been carrots and sticks here.

<comment><USER24> It increased the value of homes, and homeowners have more political power than non-homeowners in most American cities just by numbers.

<comment><USER23> Most home owners hate airbnb in their area, so I disagree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is unfortunate for the folks at AirBNB. As someone who specializes in front end, I've admired their user interface and it is clear they have talented people.

<comment><USER26> I see the continuous improvement in the frontend as well, but when I'm looking for a place to rent, trust issues are my #1 problem, not the usability of the UI.

There are lots of properties with 0 reviews, and I see that multiple properties are managed probably by the same management company. It's just a sad situation when a nice owner of a nice apartment hires a bad management company, and AirBnB can't solve this situation, as I would love to stay in that place, but I'm scared of the hidden problems.

<comment><USER27> AirBnb uses a lot of dark patterns. The price you see on the UI can be 50% lower, because cleaning fees and other taxes add up very fast. You can't even compare two listing and get an Apple to Apple comparison.

Their customer support is hopeless, I've lost money on two stays where I wouldn't get a refund because the listing was inaccurate (smelly and bad hygeine).

They have to learn from Amazon. I know Amazon has terrible practices for it's workers but as a customer, I can't think of any online company that comes as close to their customer obsession. I can buy anything with prime label, its delivered quickly and I can return it if I am not happy for any reason.

This is what I want from AirBnB. A very generous refund policy, and transparency in its listing + pricing.

<comment><USER28> > AirBnb uses a lot of dark patterns. The price you see on the UI can be 50% > lower, because cleaning fees and other taxes add up very fast. You can't > even compare two listing and get an Apple to Apple comparison.

That's kinda normal even for the various hotel booking sites/chains. They almost universally display the average pre-tax/fees price per night. The issue is that taxes and resort fees (which are in of themself very, very bullshitty) frequently make up a meaningful portion of the total cost (double digit percentages) so you still get sticker shock when you click through and get to the checkout screen.

<comment><USER10> Most hotels don't have "fees" piled on. A few scammy places have mandatory amenity/resort fees not in the price. None have "cleaning fees".

Taxes are additional but not vendor specific.

<comment><USER28> > A few scammy places have mandatory amenity/resort fees not in the price.

I'd argue that most hotels in major metro areas now have resort fees.

\---

But yes I do agree that hotels don't have cleaning fees nor service charges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I have tried using Airbnb for accommodations in the last two years and always found them to be considerably expensive than a decent hotel. So never used it. I am beginning to think Airbnb could be just for a niche set of users.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'll take 4 boxes of Trump cereal and 3 boxes of Biden cereal, please.

<comment><USER10> The audience here is too young for that.

<comment><USER30> It was worth it! Though, if the HN crowd doesn't remember that story, I'm not sure anyone would.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> AirBnb forces you to agree permanently to automatic withdrawals If you ever book using PayPal. Yesterday I noticed they had randomly withdrawn over $500 from my PayPal account over the past two weeks. I haven't booked a stay with AirBnb for months, and their support refuses to acknowledge that it happened and doesn't answer any questions. How convenient that this "mistake" happened just as they are running out of money. I wonder how many other people have experienced this "mistake" from AirBnb recently.

<comment><USER32> Wow, that's crazy. Are you still unable to get your money back?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> If I lived in an apartment building and for whatever reason couldn't take a videoconference in my home, I'd be interested in borrowing a neighbor's clean and quiet living room for the duration of the meeting. A micro-Airbnb or a nano-WeWork. With proper precautions, this could probably be done without risking infection.

<comment><USER7> Isn't this Peer Space?

<comment><USER33> I'm not familiar with that one, but I just heard on the radio about something called Covid Care, which is more what I had in mind. Of course you wouldn't want to encourage people to be walking around knocking on doors asking for random things right now. Online makes more sense. So that might be an opportunity for an online but only super-local forum for things like help taking a meeting because your kids are bouncing off the walls.

Maybe that's Nextdoor or Craigslist. But those aren't sufficiently local to reach only the 100 or so people who live in your apartment building.

Judging from the downvotes, this isn't a need that resonates with many people. But it does seem that this new situation would be a little more tolerable if people actually could communicate with the person who lives down the hall. Yet right now it's not safe to introduce yourself (at least I wouldn't open the door if someone knocked; I'd just talk through the window, which wouldn't make those introductions very comfortable).

Edit: looked up Peerspace. That's more formal. This is more like "anyone mind if I do a videoconference in your living room for 30 minutes? My kids are doing their schoolwork and we don't have a place to move them" and broadcasting it to just the couple hundred people who live in your building. Same idea but residential for WFH rather than B2B.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to deal with a shift to slower work? - <AUTHOR> I moved from a fintech where everything happened very fast and I had a lot of responsibilities to work in an hedge fund where everyone works long hours but everything takes a lot longer to happen.<p>Sometimes I feel that my desire to want to keep the same pace can hurt me. How do I adapt to this change? <comment><USER2> Get them to use this, so they stop working long hours [https://i.imgur.com/ia2s7AM.png](https://i.imgur.com/ia2s7AM.png)</comment>


Ask HN: Good examples of Facebook API implementation? - <AUTHOR>

If you've hacked up something using the Facebook API in a cool or interesting way, put up a link and maybe an explanation. <comment><USER2> Hi,

I dont know if this counts as interesting but I said I would post it anyway. We (<http://www.youtipit.org>) have a feature that allows people to tip Facebook members with bitcoins and the recipient can claim them at any time by registering with their Facebook account. Its just basic OpenAuth/Graph code but it works well all the same. The cool thing here is that you can reward someone (eg a friend, a band etc) without them even knowing about you or bitcoin. Unfortunately it does not work for Facebook pages... only profiles.

I too would be interested so see other interesting FB Graph uses, I bet there are some pretty cool ones out there.

(This is my first post to HN, take it easy on me :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a very cool idea. I suggest you submit it as a ShowHN

<comment><USER2> OK cool. I just posted a comment on what we are trying to do on your submission. Thanks for posting that...</comment></comment></comment>


Yahoo Board Member Out Over CEO's Bogus Résumé - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/yahoo-board-member-out-over-ceos-bogus-rsum.html

<comment><USER2> My comment four months ago...

> I choked on my coffee when I saw the headline. Not the Scott Thompson from > Kids in the Hall. Though that would be an inspired choice as well, and just > as likely to save Yahoo.

Sketch comedy might have been preferable to this train wreck.

<comment><USER3> The "I'm crushing your head" sketch would seem wonderfully appropriate for this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm willing to bet this problem doesn't end with Yahoo. How many CEO's do you think have resumes that contain false data?

CEO's, older, experienced CEO's, only expose their resumes to a very limited scope of reviewers. I'd suggest that the scrutiny (fact-checking) that their resume gets is not quite the same as, say, a developer applying to a large IT company. Whether the demand for a factually accurate resume from a potential CEO is greater, less than or the same as your average developer is left as a question for the reader.

Here the person leading the search embellished her own credentials.

Perhaps when selecting a CEO, there are "more important things" than the checking the accuracy of his/her resume.

But then you could also argue finding false information on a resume might just have some informative value of its own.

The public almost never gets to see a CEO's resume. I mean the actual document, not some blurb that comes out of the communications department.

<comment><AUTHOR> As an aside, this company makes verifying lots of resume educational claims relatively simple <http://www.nslc.org/></comment></comment>