Why 3.5M Americans in their prime years aren't working - <AUTHOR> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-35-million-americans-in-their-prime-years-arent-working-and-no-its-not-video-games-2018-02-22?siteid=rss&rss=1 <comment><USER2> I'm deeply skeptical of any explanation that claims that we have both a "shortage of labor" _and_ "downward pressure on wages":

> _If men and women from the ages 25 to 54 took part in the labor market... > [t]hat would be more fuel for the U.S. economy and a bigger source of > workers for businesses crying out about a shortage of labor..._

> _Trade with China flooded the U.S. with cheap imports, forced domestic firms > to shift operations overseas and put downward pressure on wages of less- > skilled Americans._

There's an obvious capitalistic answer to this problem: If you're "crying out" for labor, then you may need to offer more money. This will encourage more people to work, or to acquire the skills you want—look at all those coding bootcamps, for example.

Claiming that there's a labor shortage _and_ downward pressure on wages is an extraordinary claim, and it requires a detailed explanation. Otherwise, the obvious assumption is that somebody wants specialized skills for below-market prices. If markets are good at one thing, it's adjusting prices to balance supply and demand.

<comment><USER3> We see this all the time in tech, cannot find people is usually cannot find people with the skills and experience we want for the price we are willing to pay. This will always be true if you offer less than the current market rate which startups seems to think they are entitled to.

<comment><USER4> What I've seen in tech is the idea that literally any number of false negatives is worth avoiding a single bad hire. It's fine to claim that trade- off is worth it to you, but it's ludicrous to simultaneously claim there's a shortage of talent. That's just a shortage of risk-free opportunity. Hey, I suffer from a shortage of risk-free opportunities too.

<comment><USER5> In this age of ghosting people, it seems like everybody is just eyeing everyone else for a reason to stop talking to them or pull the trigger on the block button. We used to be socially-integrated enough to put up with people's foibles and correct them until we are all within a liveable range. Now you cannot confront or give feedback without it blowing up into hyperbole.

I have been openly asked about my politics at an interview for a Y Combinator startup (Starsky Robotics). "We need to make sure you are not a horrible person." One of my references later told me that the co-founder was on the phone almost 20 minutes asking probing questions about me. No offer, no feedback. Who stands a chance with that level of scrutiny?

<comment><USER6> That would be an actionable question, no?

<comment><USER5> I would rather spend time succeeding on my own merits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I can squeeze myself into that group due to long extents of unemployment in my prime years and I:

\- graduated college early

\- graduated law school early

\- was a judicial law school

\- co-developed and sold a patent pending business method for the automated calculation of fees in statutory litigation

In my specific case, especially in law, one thing holds me back (essentially placing me on a do not hire blacklist) I have a blemish on my criminal record for a possession of marijuana charge when I was 21 years old. Law is an old school industry that doesn't generally overlook that type of thing, I even had 1 interview end immediately right when that was asked/disclosed during the interview itself. But even outside of Law I have applied to hundreds of jobs without ever getting interviews, I have applied to all the tech companies (in legal positions) without an interview. I have probably even applied to a dozen or so YC companies and never a single interview, YC even invested in a start up that is supposed to help people with criminal records get jobs and I reached out for assistance and was told they couldn't assist me. This brings me to my second point, like there are "blacklists" and policies against candidates with criminal records, there are just plain old blacklists and I bet most of this 3.5 million are on them.

It's not just People with criminal records either, people with poor credit are on blacklists, people with employment gaps are on blacklists. These blacklists are both internal company policies but also in some cases real shared lists between recruiters and other lists HR checks. I'll personally be alright because I can make money without a _job_ but most can't and need traditional emoloyment. And they will never get a job because they are in in this endless cycle of employment gap and poor finances (bad credit) that can never be rehabilitated because of mindless policy. This also explains a class of people ready and willing to be exploited in the gig economy.

<comment><USER8> It sounds like you're probably located in CA, have you looked into getting that possession taken off of your record, assuming the charge was in CA? The statewide legalization effort yielded[0] a provision that allows for review and possible expungement of marijuana-related charges.

[0]: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/convicted-of-a- marij...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/convicted-of-a-marijuana- crime-in-california-it-might-go-away-thanks-to-legal- pot/2017/12/17/1e9a2564-d90f-11e7-b859-fb0995360725_story.html?utm_term=.66f3e3d7c9d7)

<comment><USER7> I am in FL. I can seal/expunge the charge, as weird as this sounds if a criminal charge is sealed or expunged an applicant to the Florida Bar has to unseal/unexpunge the charge in order to apply to the Bar.

That's really the reason I never took that step, though as a current member I can now take that step.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I personally know several people who are no longer competitive in various jobs due to the massive influx of illegal immigrants. These are tradesmen, landscapers, and others who used to be able to support their families and live in the area. Many of them now commute long distances (so they can live in lower cost areas) for far less pay. Their children are not following them into these jobs. And its not because they're unwilling to do the work. They're priced out because their own government is unwilling to protect them from these predatory practices.

<comment><USER10> So how do the immigrants manage to go by and live with the same wage?

<comment><USER9> They're committing document and identity fraud and dodging taxes. They're breaking housing laws by living multiple unrelated people (beyond legal capacity) per dwelling. We just had 9 illegal aliens evicted from a 2BR house not too far away.

Good for them (probably a step up from 3rd world conditions), but bad if you want to maintain some quality of life.

<comment><USER11> Your first sentence is a bit of an oxymoron. Allow me to explain.

Without resorting to identity fraud, its nearly impossible for undocumented immigrants to find work because most employers require a social security number for payroll purposes. Even though they use a fake identity, they still get a paycheck, they still pay payroll taxes and pay into Medicare and Social Security. However, they get none of the benefits. Undocumented immigrants have no other choice but to commit identity fraud. Unfortunately for them, its a necessary evil. Their intent is not to dodge taxes.

I'm not saying all undocumented immigrants pay taxes but most are not opposed to it. A little google search will bring up plenty of research into this topic.

[http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/...](http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/maria- teresa-kumar/how-much-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes/)

[https://itep.org/wp- content/uploads/undocumentedtaxes.pdf](https://itep.org/wp- content/uploads/undocumentedtaxes.pdf)

To your point about them breaking housing laws, all I can say is that its true but this isn't something that is limited to undocumented immigrants. Just take a look at the hacker houses in the bay. Maybe what is needed is more affordable housing.

I see where you're coming from but blaming undocumented immigrants for lowering the quality of life is a disservice. The US benefits immensely from undocumented immigrants but its something few want to admit.

<comment><USER12> Those employers who employ illegals do not require such a SSN. It's the whole point of employing illegals, to not have the regular overhead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There has to be a point where mere unemployment isn't stigmitized. Of course, being lazy, unproductive, and at worst destructive has to be condemned/disincentivized, but the association of unemployment to unproductive and from unproductive to some sense of worthlessness/leeching has to be amended in our society. Whether it's UBI, an increase in non-profits, and/or a proliferation of diverse and meaningful government funded projects (arts, public works, infrastructure), there are many ways to put people to meaningful work and utility besides working for a for-profit corporation. I think overcoming the stress induced by higher unemployment produced by automation will be one of the biggest societal challenges America (and beyond) will face in the coming decades. The outdated, 20th century model of work hard (for a company) -> be happy/fulfilled/successful will change. Ultimately, I think automation is for the best: let humans do what they do best (be creative, think abstractly, form and implement new models of the world/society/some concept, learn/iterate/improve/adapt) and let machines do what they do best ([generally speaking] automated tasks that require little improvisation or flexibility).

<comment><USER14> Living on handouts or at the taxpayer's expense is not dignified or sustainable, and should be discouraged. A fruitful strategy in my opinion would be to encourage people to become financially self-reliant from passive sources of income, to the point of not requiring employment income, by building up their capital, and looking at the interventions done by the government that impede capital formation, especially for those starting from nothing, like:

* licensing restrictions that exclude amateurs and small businesses from participating in various industries (e.g. securities laws that prevent non-public-companies and unaccredited investors from issuing stock to the public and buying stock from non-public companies, respectively)

* occupational licensing

* high tax burdens

* government deficits crowding out lending to the private sector

* zoning restrictions causing housing costs in core economic regions to increase

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm in my prime and relatively competent. The reason I'm broke working on my own startup and not at a company is because every company or successful project I've been a part of has not led to my success as an individual.

FTE at a startup is high risk low reward. You might think with funding a startup is not high risk. It is. You are giving up the huge salary you'd get a a megacorp. And don't even get me started on the common stock issue.

FTE at a megacorp is medium risk medium reward. Not high enough reward until you get to the higher levels - difficult to do.

And also the dull monotone reward signal of direct deposit every two weeks is so incredibly boring.

So now I'm left bootstrapping. The only thing left with high reward. It's hard. My insurance sucks. Trying to work with other companies is obnoxious. Every app store takes 30% and thinks they have employees without the paperwork. One app store I built something for requested(demanded) never ending meaningless changes then released a copy of my idea without telling me. It wasn't even that good of an idea in retrospect.

The game is rigged and not optional. People everywhere hate rigged games.

</comment><comment><USER16> _3.5 million Americans could either be at work today or looking for jobs. That would be more fuel for the U.S. economy and a bigger source of workers for businesses crying out about a shortage of labor._

Yeah right. It's my experience that companies do not care about picking up anyone who is not already perfectly tailored for the role needed. If that person hasn't been found, the req just sits there. Sometimes for a year or more. That there is some "unfilled gap" of jobs is a fallacy.

</comment><comment><USER17> There's a lot of challenges, automation, globalization, immigration, poor schooling, poor family life, discrimination, clueless human resource departments, unjust stigma from encounters with criminal justice system.

All these things are issues, part of the reason many people can't work.

With all that in mind, some (largish?) percentage of people not working are simply unemployable. As in, they won't be able to do a job. Or they will make more trouble than they will put out so are net negative to have employed and thus don't stay employed. I don't know what can be done about this, probably feed them and call it good. Not sure everyone is owed a job, at least the way the system is set up now.

</comment><comment><USER18> _> Higher minimum wages are probably another cause._

 _> After declining in inflation-adjusted terms from 1998 to 2007, minimum wages rose almost 11% in real terms between 2007 and 2016, Abraham and Kearney estimated. Firms may have outsourced jobs or spent more on automation to offset the higher costs of low-skilled labor._

Is it just me, or is this a shockingly misleading paragraph? That minimum wages rose in real terms tells us nothing. They may have kept in place with inflation, or they may have even continued to fall in inflation-adjusted terms. This is not an apples-to-apples comparison at all.

<comment><USER19> Real terms means inflation adjusted. Nominal means just the rate ignoring inflation.

<comment><USER18> Thanks, all. I thought that "real" was the same thing as nominal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Not sure why people are shocked by this, it's just the basic principle of diffusion.

As long as america continue to allow free trade our wealth and jobs will flow out of the country as countries seek cheaper labor and sell it right back to America with no restrictions. The standard of living is raising in other countries while lowering in the US. Labor is already getting too expensive in China for cheap goods so companies are beginning to look at other countries for cheap labor, or bring manufacturing back to the US and us automation to make up the difference.

The US really has no incentive to allow this to happen. We have the largest market in the world and could very easily do what China does if other countries want access to it. The US allows anybody into our markets while China bends them over the bargaining table requiring them to give up IP and form joint ventures with Chinese companies. What incentive does the US have to do "fair" trade? We have all the leverage in any negotiation but for years haven't used that leverage. At some point we're going to have to or the citizens are going to either rebel or accept lower standard of living, lower income, and lower life expectancy.

I'm starting to believe that the reason Washington DC does nothing about the opioid crisis is because it benefits them. If thousands of unemployed, heavily armed rust belt men were not strung out and dying from addiction they probably would have organized and marched on DC a long time ago and got payback on the politicians who have sold them out for personal gain.

<comment><USER21> Comments such as yours -- parroting Donald Trump like talking points -- are remarkable when you consider that the US has the second highest purchase power _in the world_.

 _The US really has no incentive to allow this to happen_

Except that it has opened trade for US companies, and the reported numbers are often laughably misleading. Apple, for instance, nets almost all of the profits from an iPhone, yet in the trade balance an iPhone magically counts as a $1000 deficit with China. Further, it yields cheaper goods for Americans, and more efficiency.

The US was literally _built_ on free trade, and sits right near the top because of it, so to read these nonsensical "but what if" arguments borders on parody. It is just a profound ignorance of history and even the most rudimentary of economics. It is one of those amazing things where people really, really don't understand what they have until they lose it.

<comment><USER22> > Apple, for instance, nets almost all of the profits from an iPhone, yet in > the trade balance an iPhone magically counts as a $1000 deficit with China.

What good does Apple's record profits do for the US? Apple is owned by shareholders across the world, and Americans benefit only insofar as they actually own Apple stock.

<comment><USER23> Normally those profits would be taxed in the US...

<comment><USER24> The profits made by Apple Germany are taxed in Germany. Profits made by Apple US are taxed in the US. In theory... In practice very little of what they make is taxed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Next on tonight 's news: disability cheats, the millions of Americans who could work, but don't._

Yep, I'm a cynic.

Then, there's this:

" _After declining in inflation-adjusted terms from 1998 to 2007, minimum wages rose almost 11% in real terms between 2007 and 2016, Abraham and Kearney estimated. Firms may have outsourced jobs or spent more on automation to offset the higher costs of low-skilled labor._ "

I was unaware there were many minimum wage jobs that could be outsourced or replaced. Most are in the service industries, right?

</comment><comment><USER25> I didn't read the study, but an even bigger factor than SSDI is Medicaid expansion. Free insurance with no co-pays and deductibles is worth a lot of money if you consume any healthcare services, and you can only get it if you _don't_ earn more than 140% FPL.

<comment><USER26> > Free insurance with no co-pays and deductibles is worth a lot of money if > you consume any healthcare services, and you can only get it if you don't > work.

The Medicaid expansion population is up to 138% of Federal Poverty Level, so it's not "available only if you don't work", and the vast majority of states participating in the expansion impose cost sharing requirements (which work like deductibles, though at least the ones I know well are monthly rather than annual), so it's mostly not "with no copay or deductible".

<comment><USER27> The Medicaid population excludes those who pay any portion of subsidized ACA policies, even when the subsidy is 95+% (e.g. paying $10/month for a Bronze policy with the taxpayers paying the other $500+).

<comment><USER26> > The Medicaid population excludes those who pay any portion of subsidized ACA > policies

The ACA subsidy minimum income in Medicaid expansion states is the exact minimum amount that fails to qualify for Medicaid expansion in the first place, so such an exclusion is irrelevant to the expansion population (the ACA minimum is lower—100% of FPL—in states that don't expand Medicaid, but that's obviously immaterial to the effect of Medicaid expansion.)

Medicaid cost sharing is, in case you are unclear, also a completely different thing than the recipient paying a subsidized ACA premium, it's being on Medicaid and paying the first $ _N_ /month for Medicaid services, where _N_ is income dependent, out of pocket.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm one of these, it sucks. Several career starts failed, having to rebuild again.

</comment><comment><USER29> On the one hand, US is doing great. US grew 3% annualized last year, on a base of 19T, the most in the world. That's very impressive considering how big the base is to even have such a big percentage. You can compare that to China, where they had to keep reporting a fake 7% growth despite their provinces confessing to a 20-30% fake revenue. In the last 40 years, America's middle class shrank 7%. However, the lower middle class shrank 7% as well, and the upper middle class grew 16%. ([http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/21/news/economy/upper-middle- cl...](http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/21/news/economy/upper-middle- class/index.html)) . Implying that alot of the lower middle and middle had moved up. Especially in certain cities like San Francisco or Santa Clara, where there is just an abundance of $130k+/year jobs (and contrary to popular belief, one can easily save $50-60k/year by renting a room in a house at $1000/month).

On the other hand, it seems like the lower class has barely budged, and has remained in place and their quality of life has suffered. They have been losing manufacturing jobs to China and other countries (20M at the height in 1970, 12M currently [http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/07/news/economy/us- manufacturin...](http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/07/news/economy/us- manufacturing-jobs/index.html)). However, now with an administration dedicated to bringing jobs back from overseas (with focus on manufacturing), and enacting tariffs on countries that competes by flooding the market and destroying local competition, the jobs for lower class should be growing starting this year. The current solar/washing machine tariff, and upcoming steel and aluminum tariffs against China should help.

<comment><USER30> > and contrary to popular belief, one can easily save $50-60k/year by renting > a room in a house at $1000/month

What if you have a family?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Causal statements. No experiment means you shouldn't make causal statements.

You can have natural experiments, but I don't see any. Did they try kidnapping Congress and forcing them to do a total embargo on China? Seems a no.

<comment><USER32> Asteroid is discovered in deep space heading for Earth. Astronomers watch the asteroid approach Earth. Asteroid hits New York City. Millions die. Astronomers and media report:

"Asteroid from deep space kills millions. Asteroid causes death of millions."

No experiment is possible. Causation is clear.

<comment><USER31> I'm sorry to be seeming to make a straw man, but do you actually in sober thought think that economics is as well-understood as physics?

<comment><USER33> Did you just post a rebutal to your original comment calling for 'experiments'? If economics is as mysterious as you say, how can you design experiments that produce verifiable and reproducible results?

<comment><USER31> Physics has had a lot of predictive power: economics hasn't. "Asteroids are incredibly powerful" is a physical statement, and a physical statement of causation that you can only make because physics is better-understood.

With exceptions, physical statements have predictive power. With exceptions, economic statements don't. So that's why I say that causality in economics is not generally understood.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What phone to get for the upcoming holidays? - <AUTHOR>

I know this is a difficult question to answer, but I come to HN to get your trustworthy opinions.
I am looking to get a smart phone in the next month or two, but I am stumped as to which one to buy. I like the iPhone because of the activity around it, but I don't run Windows or OSX  which could make using it more painful than it should be. I like Android, but I have yet to be convinced any one phone doesn't have at least one glaring issue (although I haven't followed the new ones for about a year now).
I probably won't do a lot of native app development, but an html5 compliant web browser would be a huge win for me. I don't know much about the mobile web browser market in this regard.
Also, I have big fingers, so I prefer touch screen keyboards over the physical button keys.
What phone do you recommend today, or do you recommend waiting for some new phone yet to be released?
Thanks as always.
Edit: I am not tied to a particular carrier, but AT&T or Verizon is preferable <comment><USER2> I don't live in the US, so I'm not sure what plans you can get it on, but (as you might see from my other comments) I love the Dell Streak. great android phone, its on 2.1 for now, but should be on 2.2 within weeks, and is powerful enough to meet the supposed ginger bread minimum specs.

really happy with everything the phone offers, screen is great, stock keyboard is good, and battery is fine.

I use it as my daily phone, to read and post on blogs, music player, ebook reader and satnav.

happy to answer any questions you might have it. but as a 5inch tablet come phone its great at both.

<comment><USER2> [http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/23/dell-us-now-offering- stre...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/23/dell-us-now-offering-streak- unlocked-with-froyo-in-cherry-red/)

More info</comment></comment>


A new addition to CES this year Physics defying tech - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/08/auroratek-tried-to-pitch-us-a-gadget-that-breaks-the-laws-of-physics-at-ces/

<comment><USER2> According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of an isolated system never decreases; such a system will spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, the configuration with maximum entropy. Systems that are not isolated may decrease in entropy.

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

An isolated system obeys the conservation law that its total energy–mass stays constant.

Because of the requirement of enclosure, and the near ubiquity of gravity, strictly and ideally isolated systems do not actually occur in experiments or in nature. They are thus hypothetical concepts only.

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

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> As member of my local makerspace there is never a shortage of people coming through with their snake oil perpetual motion machines.... And they all sound like this guy.</comment>


Smog over Singapore - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/06/smog-over-singapore <comment><USER3> Singapore's air is much better than Hong Kong's or Shanghai's. I grew up in the great white north, surrounded by nature, and on a day to day basis, Singapore's air is fine.

But this annual haze, largely caused by burning in Sumatra to create more farm land, is brutal. It's slightly worse than the worst I've seen in Hong Kong (Summer 2012) and it feels like it's lasting longer than the really bad spikes you get in HK.

Overall, I'll take 1-2 weeks of hazardous air, versus the more constant unhealthy air of Hong Kong or Shanghai.

Sadly, both HK and Singapore are quick to blame others. SG blames Indonesia, HK blames factories in Southern China. Even if both claims are true with respect to total pollution, both regions could be doing much more to reduce pollution.

P.S. - If anyone at Amazon or 3M is reading this...there's a need for N95 masks. The people most at risk are also the people less able to spend $3 a day on a mask - homeless, elderly, construction, cleaners.

<comment><USER4> You say that Singapore's air is "fine" on a day to day basis. If that's the case there's nothing wrong with Singapore placing the blame on Indonesia.

<comment><USER5> Well...

In the interest of full disclosure...

It's NON-Indonesian corporations that are the ones engaging in the illegal burning. Further, some of those corps are controlled out of Singapore. Which is ... ironic.

<comment><USER6> There have been a few suggestions by the Indonesian officials on this - <USER2> you elaborate on which corporations exactly? I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I've not been able to find direct information on "non-Indonesian corporations" who engage in illegal burning, so if you have sources, that would be great.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The atlantic has pictures: [http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/06/singapore- haze/10...](http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/06/singapore-haze/100538/)

<comment><USER8> Here is a comparison photo from just over the water from Singapore. It is pretty amazing how bad it has been the last several days. [http://malaysia.curiouscatnetwork.com/2013/06/19/extremely-b...](http://malaysia.curiouscatnetwork.com/2013/06/19/extremely- bad-haze-in-johor-bahru-and-singapore/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If any one is interested the hourly PSI is published here :

[http://www.nea.gov.sg/psi/](http://www.nea.gov.sg/psi/)

<comment><USER10> The 200+ pmi range sucks, but is pretty normal in places like Beijing. Thankfully it's spring and we are under 100 most days. In the worst of winter, we were at 700+, think 2.5x as bad as Singapore right now.

<comment><USER11> While not as bad as Beijing, 24 hour PM2.5 is also in the high 200s, making it Heavily Polluted/Hazardous. My parents are elderly; my father has suffered strokes before and I'm not taking any chances.

[http://epi.yale.edu/community/blog/2013/01/18/beyond- crazy-b...](http://epi.yale.edu/community/blog/2013/01/18/beyond-crazy-bad- explaining-beijing-s-extreme-air-pollution)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a potentially dangerous situation; a lot of people just do not realize the gravity of it.

Singapore is an island with only two links out of the country to neighboring Malaysia. It is also one of the most densely populated countries in the world.

If the situation were to take a turn for the worse, the warning might come too little, too late.

<comment><USER12> What do you mean?

<comment><USER13> what he is saying, in Singaporean, is that all countries around Singapore are highly dangerous and that Singapore should buy more F-16s and conscript more young people into the army.

Because of the foreign countries, not in case of a uprising at home, mind you.

<comment><USER11> That's not what I meant.

The state is run like a corporation. Singapore does not have a FEMA because it has never had to deal with natural disasters or an ecological crisis of this magnitude. Thus the government and its people are ill-prepared for what lies ahead:

1\. Serious long-term health effects

2\. Political and diplomatic tensions because this slash-burn cycle will repeat in perpetuity

3\. Economic impact from declining revenues in industries like tourism, food & beverage, construction etc.

The government has yet to articulate a plan that involves displacement of its population should the situation persist (almost a given) and take a turn for the worse (possible). I'm not going to rely on it or any other higher power when it comes to the health and safety of my family.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The sad part is, 400 is not uncommon in Beijing (particularly in the winter) and nobody besides expats seem to complain.

Those masks in the picture are useless, though. You need to use the 3M 8511 or 9211 or similar. (And in addition to making the air breathable, they also help with allergies).

<comment><USER15> I was in Beijing a few weeks ago when the AQI was in the mid to high 200s. While it looked nasty, what really surprised me was that I couldn't really sense that I was breathing polluted air – it didn't smell bad and it wasn't difficult to inhale. The only indicator that I was breathing bad air was the cough I developed after a week in the city. I attributed it to a traveling cold but it quickly went away when I returned to the relatively clean Manhattan air.

<comment><USER16> We've had up to 700+ this year in Beijing. The "standard", almost everyday 200+ makes it hard to do any sport... 700 was barely breathable. The situation here really deserves attention such as the one in Singapore it getting right now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The article states: _Singaporeans are also baffled as to why Indonesia has not yet ratified a regional agreement on trans-boundary haze pollution. Mr Laksono could provide no clear answer._

I think Singaporeans are smarter than that. Unless this agreement comes with huge payments to Indonesia to help them change agricultural practises what incentive do they have to sign it? They are the biggest polluter and my understanding is that the agreement mostly comes with "help" for Indonesia in areas of each other signatory's choosing - also known as "nothing."

</comment><comment><USER18> A Wikipedia article on the event: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Southeast_Asian_haze](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Southeast_Asian_haze)

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm currently in Singapore and to be honest I can actually smell the wood in the air. I've went to two pharmacies and couldn't find a mask as they're all sold out.

<comment><USER20> We have an office in Singapore, here's one of our colleagues report alongside with this image.

[http://i.imgur.com/nssEV4z.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/nssEV4z.jpg)

Singapore at 8.30 this morning, as Ali and Michael struggle to work through what appears to be Dickensian fog. The PSI (Pollution Standard Index) hit 321 which is well within 'Hazardous' levels, as Sumatra conducts its annual burning to clear land for palm oil, killing wildlife in the process. Reports say that nearly a 3rd of the only 200 remaining Sumatran Orangutan have already died as a result of this year's burning. The whole island is wreathed in smoke, everything smells, inside and out, some people are wearing masks in their offices... a far cry from Leeds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think the even bigger problem is how Indonesian authority is handling this. Looking around the national publication, this haze problem is barely covered. A lot of the "netizens" hanging around forums are acting like a spoiled child saying how the Indonesian forests provides tonnes of oxygen every year and people shouldn't be overreacting. Heck, even the ministry is acting childish by refusing aid from Singapore to put out the fire.

</comment><comment><USER22> The real problem is not in Singapore, but in Indonesia, and with the companies that are responsible for starting the fires.

[http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/06/20/ri-dodges- haze...](http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/06/20/ri-dodges-haze-blame- game.html)

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm in Singapore but I've been in Hospital since Monday morning (unrelated to the haze) so I missed out, but nurses here say A&E has been filled with people they had to bring more staff in, the hospital is out of masks too!

</comment><comment><USER24> I wonder if the losses Singapore's tourism and medical costs are enough to buy all the Sumatran farms, or at least to require other forms of clearing land.

</comment><comment><USER25> I travel to Singapore tommorow from KL for 3 days, but I guess it won't be very good experience :(</comment>


Pavel Durov wants a law to make Apple allow iPhone users install other app store - <AUTHOR> https://androidrookies.com/telegram-developer-wants-a-law-to-make-apple-allow-iphone-users-to-install-apps-from-other-app-stores/ <comment><USER2> They have anti-trust lawsuits pending in multiple countries that will also force this once they resolve. It's obviously monopoly bundling. Literally every other modern OS allows you to install apps from multiple sources, including Android.

<comment><USER3> 1\. Secure

2\. Open

3\. Customer friendly

Pick two.

<comment><USER4> At least for me as a consumer, Apple's behaviour is a feature I pay extra for, not a bug.

<comment><USER5> You pay extra for not being able to install apps outside of Apple Store?

Or more specifically, you pay extra so others couldn't do it on their phones (because you as I understand wouldn't, but you don't want others to be able to)?

<comment><USER6> I'm having a hard time phrasing this, but I also fall in the camp that views it as positive.

The gist is this: there is no app maker that can say "screw that" to Apple's privacy/security rules and bypass them. As such I will never be in a position to choose between my privacy and using the app. By Apple's removing the possibility of that choice, I get both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are already several different alternatives to iOS that a customer can get if they want a different app store. What he is really saying is that as a vendor he wants to force me as a customer to deal with a looser security model so that he can more easily sell to me. If I wanted that I would have chosen a different phone. But on the flip side, it's helpful that now I know I never want a product of theirs... choice. =)

<comment><USER8> So Microsoft should be able to kill off Steam/etc. and then and force all publishers to post to the Microsoft Store?

After all, you're free to install MacOS or BeOS if you don't like it.

That's ignoring the fact that forcing Apple to allow other App stores in NO WAY makes you less secure. Just because you CAN use another app store doesn't mean you HAVE TO.

<comment><USER7> That's a bit extreme... Microsoft also shouldn't start killing people, but that's aside from the point. Let's unpack some of the differences between Apple here and the MS example:

Apple always had this model. From the start... So people who bought into the ecosystem did it fully able to understand the system. This isn't some creepy unexpected recent change... if someone doesn't like this system then they should (past/present/future) put on their person pants and buy a different phone. I use Linux and Mac specifically because I didn't like the way Microsoft was doing things. I didn't start a movement to somehow legislate handcuffs to force Microsoft to address my whims, I just voted with my time, attention, and wallet.

And yes, do think others are free to chose too and should own their choices. If Apple stops providing me the best avenue to the things I want then I will switch. But right now I want ease of use, and the most confidence that things will just work and work well. I want this in the hardware, the OS, and the apps... and I think Apple provides that best. If my needs change, or their ability to meet those needs changes, then I will move to the place that does it best then...

Regarding the "don't HAVE to use it" argument... I humbly suggest it's irrelevant. They don't have a monopoly so we don't have a public overriding interest in messing with them. I'm saying that I don't give a hoot about them having a side store: I want to quickly and confidently find the best apps to fill the needs I have. I will pay for the ability to do it as time has value. After that need is met, not much else has value and so I'm (personally) happy in the store. I'll also suggest that Apple's success says that a healthy number of people agree. This leads me to think that all the people who want to better sell crap to me that I don't want are showing a bit of a case of "sour grapes".

<comment><USER8> So your reasoning is: there's a duopoly, not a monopoly, so each of the players should be able to act like a monopoly?

That's maybe the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. And saying "well they've always done this bad thing so there's no reason they should stop" is ridiculous on its face. There are countless examples in history of a company taking an action that was permitted when they were a minor player that is banned as they grow.

The fact that the US government has become criminally complicit in their refusal to enforce the Sherman act doesn't suddenly make the behavior they're ignoring OK.

This is literally textbook violation: Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony

You don't have to strictly have a monopoly to break the law.

<comment><USER7> Every one talks about MONOpoly, not DUOpoly, for a reason. But lets back up and just use the more generally used "anti-trust". The law (in the US) is basically if you either a) collude with competitors to price-fix or restrict trade, or b) own so much of the market that your price is price fixing and there is no/little unrestricted trade, then you a violating anti-trust law. There is a similar intent in other places and the bar is placed higher or lower.

If you have the choice to buy phones which use one of several app stores, then you have choice in app stores. You also can't install a Corvette engine in a Toyota Corolla but I don't see everyone screaming about that. If you want a Corvette engine I do know the car you can chose in order to get it.

And yes, two non-colluding choices is choice. People aren't suggesting that Apple and Google are all buddy buddy so there is choice. I suggest we all make one we are happy with and move on. =)

<comment><USER9> For the Corolla vs Corvette example, Toyota allows you to open the hood and take the toyota engine out. The screws are all standards and tools are available to get parts you need to take the engine out. If you had the tools to fit the Corvette engine in place, you are allowed to do it. You could build your own custom engine as well and put it there. We can put a lot of after market stuff in our cars, replace tires, wheels or even engine if we want to. WE own the car fully.

With the App Store case, they don't allow you to open the hood, unscrew and take out the apple app store and put an alternate app store. While Jailbreaking is legal, you need to use a hack to open up your iPhone and Apple actively plugs those holes in the next versions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Related, in Europe they are making laws to make app stores give reasonable explication 30 days prior to removing games from the store and to add more transparency to rankings: [https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-07-13-european-u...](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-07-13-european- union-sets-limits-on-platform-madness)

</comment><comment><USER11> With enterprise ios app development, there is already a mechanism built into the apple dev ecosystem to develop and distribute apps that can be installed from any website on any number of devices after the device owner grants permission.

Currently the TOS to join the enterprise development program are extremely restrictive but these could be updated to allow a better (IMO) distribution model.

I don't want to see a 3rd party app store gain popularity on iOS but would love for the current TOS for enterprise program to be expanded. This should also open in-app purchases to happen without Apple being involved. I'd love to drop support for apple/google in-app purchases and just use stripe for our website and inside our apps. One set of billing models and webhooks to worry about.

</comment><comment><USER12> But the majority mobile OS, Android, allows this already, and always has. There is only one player that controls its own app store, Apple, with about 20% of the market (Less in 20q1 but that's a special case).

Seems like phone buyers are voting with their feet so why would such a law be required?

Mkt share numbers from [https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global- smartphone-share...](https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone- share/) or [https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market- sha...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-share-of- apple-iphone/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Yes. Apple should not be in position to destroy a business, by removing their app from the app store whenever they want.

<comment><USER14> Should [insert retail business here] be in a position to destroy a business by removing a product from their shelves whenever they want?

Why is software special?

<comment><USER15> If a retail store removes a product from their shelves, you still have alternatives - selling your product in other stores, providing mail order, and so on.

With Apple App Store, there is no alternative. Your iOS application cannot be distributed without Apple's approval.

<comment><USER13> One retail stores doesn't have about 50% of market (I don't know the real numbers) like Apple does.

Also, the app you built was specifically for apple. You cannot sell it anywhere else.

<comment><USER14> > One retail stores doesn't have about 50% of market (I don't know the real > numbers) like Apple does

iOS market share is less than 15%

> Also, the app you built was specifically for apple. You cannot sell it > anywhere else.

Sounds like the app developer is taking a deliberate risk while doing so. Why do they need to be protected?

<comment><USER13> > iOS market share is less than 15%

iOS has 25% share worldwide. And in the USA, where most customers will be for most startups, it has 58% market share.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Doesn't exactly come as news that Apple has Ios in an iron grip. They might not have a monopoly, but they certainly have a level of control that Android doesn't.

<comment><USER17> > _Apple has Ios in an iron grip_

iOS is their own product. Every company has its own products on an "iron grip", as well as controlling who gets to partner with them (and e.g. sell something on their platform).

<comment><USER18> Windows is Microsoft own product. Anyone can run anything on it without anyone's permission.

<comment><USER17> That's because Microsoft allows it, and (b) Microsoft has a monopoly on their market (not on the "Windows market", but like 98% on the whole Home/Enterprise PC space) and abused it so they were forced to open up.

If Microsoft had just a small share of the Home/Enterprise market with Windows, they'd could close it in any way they want, same way the game companies do for their consoles or Apple for iOS.

<comment><USER18> I think the answer is much simpler: at the time Windows was created, no one in their most sadistic totalitarian dream could have imagined such evil as an app store.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I personally think this would lead to piracy of App Store apps. Restrictive App ecosystem protects consumers from installing apps that maybe steal their financial information but also protect developers from getting their apps pirated like the Android ecosystem. There is a reason why the app payouts on iOS are so high even though android has a much larger market share of mobile devices. I dont want to see sites like _apk4free_ on iOS ecosystem.

<comment><USER20> I personally think that this is mostly unrelated, since very few people sideload on Android (also due to a less restrictive Play Store policy) and Apples curated store would remain a trusted source.

<comment><USER19> If side loading isn't the issue here then what is? Also why are there more than 300 Android App stores worldwide just for side loading apps [https://www.wandera.com/third-party-app- stores/](https://www.wandera.com/third-party-app-stores/) There must be a significant market. It seems Android App side loading is a $17.5 Billion Leak which means a number of people do download apps from these apps stores. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2018/02/02/app- pub...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2018/02/02/app-publishers- lost-17-5b-to-piracy-in-the-last-5-years-says-tapcore/#426e83c67413)

<comment><USER21> From the Forbes article you cited:

"While most people get apps from official sources such as Google Play or the App Store, there are hundreds of third-party app stores around the planet, especially in China, where Google Play cannot operate. As a result, Android, in particular, has many third-party app stores."

I think, your argument does not hold when put in the correct context.

Also, it is 17.5$ Billion within 5 years, to put a time frame on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Apple could do the following: When rejecting apps, still put them in the App Store, but with a Rejected label. And under Settings, add a toggle "Allow installation of Rejected apps". Then make it so you can find them in the App Store only if this toggle is enabled, and you search by the app's exact name. Finally, force the user to acknowledge "Yes I'm sure.... Yes I'm really REALLY sure".

<comment><USER23> It is too frequent that I know an app's name that is either generic or not popular. Sometimes it takes a while to find the app. Apple hasn't fixed search in over a decade. I can't see them fixing it any time soon, unfortunately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Even if you could do this I doubt it would change. They could do so many engineering things to prevent it.

They could change the CPU architecture and prevent you from uploading to any other services or using dev tools. They could do what google did and make certain apps rely on a services app that is managed by the store as a dependency.

Theres to many options when the people building the product are opposed to the idea.

<comment><USER25> There are entities big enough to challenge Apple if they were forced to accommodate alternative app stores but obstructed them in practice, like GOG, Steam, Google, Microsoft etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Why would anyone do that? I mean what kind of customers are going to install a 2nd app store then buy apps through it? Those app stores are going to be full of shady marginal apps. Without a leavening of 'good' 'trust worthy' apps, what credit card processor is going to handle their transactions?

<comment><USER27> Simple. As soon as a competing store is available that takes a 20% cut (or has less onerous rules about in-app purchases, etc.), developers will move to that store to make more money. Users will follow.

<comment><USER28> I feel like you could just as easily say "Simple. As soon as Google changes their cut to 20% for Android-exclusive apps, developers will move to that store to make more money. Users will follow". They won't. Users won't leave the walled garden, just as people on Android didn't leave it for Fortnite (the most popular game in the world at the time). The App Store comes with the phone and is safe, has customer support and nearly no malware. Any other App Store would require multiple extra steps to install, along with a bunch of "please don't" prompts that Apple would build in to make sure that the user knows what's happening (just like what happens on macOS with unsigned software). It would end up being too confusing for the masses, and they'd just find an alternative that was willing to sit in the App Store (or the nightmare, not use the app at all and go unhappy).

Amazon already tried this exact thing on Android, where the barriers are a lot lower. They've never had success with their app store outside of their first- party devices. Why? Because it's too dang hard, and I'm willing to pay an extra buck for Minecraft if I don't have to track it down in another app and worry about malware coming through the wall.

I'm all for a switch to install unsigned software, but only for development stuff. The App Store serves as a good barrier for 99% of users who just need to turn on their phone and use the darn app. The other 1% just need Apple to put a hidden switch to disable the protections ala csrutil in macOS and we'll be fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Why couldn't Apple do this but place requirements on the additional app stores. They must conform to Apple mandated code signing, follow APIs it designs for app installation and permissions management, must provide an email obfuscation layer for accounts and payments, and all binaries must run through an approved AV before installation. Would check most of the boxes for remaining Apple-ish. No reason allowing a second App Store means letting all hell break loose on the system.

Personally don't see the need for an additional App Store outside of surveillance. Would rather see legislation on protecting developers and consumers instead of thinking letting random, untrusted code be installed by a 3rd party on a device always on your person would be good for anyone.

<comment><USER30> I think Apple loses money on the app store policing app privacy and content even with a 30% cut. If they had to do it for 3rd parties app stores without the financial benefit, I wonder what impact that would have to app turnaround time (back up to 2 weeks+). Eventually, a third party app store may end up with iOS anti-virus and malware software like on Android as well as much of the malware just getting through. I suspect counterfeiting will go up as well like on Android.

<comment><USER27> The App Store generated $15bn in profit last year for Apple. Fortnite alone made them more than $300k per day. They definitely aren't losing money on it.

<comment><USER30> I haven't kept track of the profits of the Apple App Store, but I was remembering when it made them $3bn in one year and with the overhead after keeping 1/3 of that on their %30, they called the App Store a loss center that helped them sell iPhones and iPads. I think this reluctance to run the App Store carries over to macOS, which is why I assume they are merging it. The macOS App Store doesn't sell macs so they are likely going to remove it like they did with Ping and iTunes.

If the app store generated $54.2bn in revenue in 2019, then Apple only keeps about $16.25bn assuming a 30% cut. I can see why they would want to expand that in to the macOS now, but I don't think they are willing to part with that to a third party like Google or Amazon, as they could dominate them on their own platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Not a fan of this idea, but I would support "marketplaces" which could be like public playlists on Spotify for companies or influencers who want to share what apps they use.

Could bake in referral code tracking to apps so developers know who is sending them business.

</comment><comment><USER32> With this type of pressure along with the anti-trust pressure I would think Apple would prioritize PWA experiences on iOS as their relief valve on the App Store monopoly.

<comment><USER33> They have recently announced they wouldn't support many of the APIs needed/useful for PWAs

edit: I was a wrong in thinking they severely limited PWAs, they still allow Service Workers although with a 7-Day Cap on All Script-Writeable Storage. Not as bad as I thought.

<comment><USER33> Why downvote? I would be happy to be wrong

<comment><USER34> I didn't downvote, but probably because of "needed/useful for PWAs," which seems to be incorrect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The success of Progressive Web Apps is what we need rather than a new application store. App stores will eventually try to monopolize and kill the business when they want.

</comment><comment><USER36> > Speaking at the panel discussion with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail > Mishustin and representatives of the IT industry in Innopolis

Wait, wasn't Durov in bad terms with the Russian government and exiled?

<comment><USER18> Apparently they made a truce, Russia stopped blocking Telegram recently.

</comment></comment><comment> dane-pgp I wonder how quickly Apple would start to restrict APIs so that certain apps can't even be written, making it moot whether the app is available from other app stores or not.

Presumably there are APIs that Safari has access to that other browsers written as apps wouldn't be able to access. This approach could be extended so that streaming audio APIs could only access certain approved domains (which doesn't include any of Spotify's).

<comment><USER37> > _I wonder how quickly Apple would start to restrict APIs so that certain > apps can 't even be written, making it moot whether the app is available > from other app stores or not._

There's precedent against this in _US v. Microsoft Corp_.

</comment></comment><comment> awinter-py yes and more generally, we should tightly regulate when hardware vendors are allowed to exclusively bundle their own software

permitting hardware sellers to control what you install on it isn't just an apple issue -- see also john deere, nest, sonos. The right to repair movement includes a surprising number of farmers.

</comment><comment><USER38> No thank you.

</comment><comment><USER39> Durov is correct, but this is a terribly written article.</comment>


How to Lose Traffic and Alienate People - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-amp-gaming/article/2009-01/how-lose-traffic-and-alienate-people

<comment><USER2> He points out really common (mostly) advertising practices that sites use that really tick off users (me at least): tooltip ads, CAPTCHAs, and others. He did miss some other horrors, though, such as a story that puts one paragraph per page over 10 pages, intro ad pages, or ads that obscure the content until you close them.</comment>


Ask HN: Got font? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN, I saw a new (to me) font that I liked recently, on someone's blog. (I would mention it, but do not want that to influence any of the answers.) That made me think of asking this question: What fonts do you like, and use, on your site or blog? I should mention that I don't know much about typography.<p>Thanks in advance for all the replies. <comment><USER2> This is a pretty deep rabbit hole to go down, and you will find some strongly opinionated people on this topic. You may want to consider the download cost of a font to your visitor in some cases.

That being said here are some good resources:

[https://fonts.google.com/](https://fonts.google.com/) [https://www.fontsquirrel.com/](https://www.fontsquirrel.com/)

If you're interested here is a catalog of the TeX fonts: [http://www.tug.dk/FontCatalogue/](http://www.tug.dk/FontCatalogue/)

Some advice on internet typography from a TeX perspective (probably not for everyone, favors more information dense layouts): [http://www.tug.dk/FontCatalogue/](http://www.tug.dk/FontCatalogue/)

As for what fonts I personally like Roboto Slab from google for websites, and Gentium for print. I am a fan of serif fonts for text -- I think the sans- serif default for computer screens made more sense with older, lower DPI monitors.

Gentium: [http://software.sil.org/gentium/](http://software.sil.org/gentium/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, will check the links out.

I'll keep in mind the download cost of a font.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't know why, but I seem to be the only person who actually likes the Verdana font face.

<comment><AUTHOR> Seen its name in web pages (in View Source), but don't remember what it looks like. Also, IIRC, had first come across it in the HTML of a Java / J2EE web app I worked on much earlier. Will check it out, thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In my opinion, recently launched Vllg.com got some of the best new fonts. I especially love Galaxie Copernicus and Sharp Sans Display set.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool. Will check.

BTW this is the font I had seen and liked - the one in the body text at this site:

[http://eleganthack.com/](http://eleganthack.com/)

Squarish in shape, and for some reason, to me, it makes the text appear good. Like I said, don't know typography, so don't know if there is any specific reason why it looks good to me, or is it all purely subjective.

Steve Jobs' Stanford commencement speech comes to mind, BTW. He talks about typography in it.

Steve Jobs Stanford Commencement Speech 2005

[https://youtu.be/VHWUCX6osgM](https://youtu.be/VHWUCX6osgM)</comment></comment>


The Millionaire Fastlane - <AUTHOR> http://leoexplor.es/great-books/2012/09/19/the-millionaire-fastlane/ <comment><USER2> Was trying to refrain from making negative comments on this book, having recently read it, but I can't resist just a few to save some people some wasted time:

. The style is very 'motivational speaker', written by a self-confessed 4-time MLM 'business owner' \- lots of fluff and padding - and what is with the 'Laws' he keeps making up? And the long drawn out explanations with terrible analogies?

. Nice tone of misogyny throughout. Yay!

. Much of the content is obvious and covered in the most basic of entrepreneur guide material. In fact, this link is so useful because it sums up all the most useful parts of the book. Trust me, the words surrounding these are of no further value.

Read it, sure, even skim read it, but don't expect any answers if you're already up to speed on the basics of scalable business models and the need for hard work to get where you're aiming for.

<comment><USER3> 4-time MLM business owner? Have your actually read the book? For one thing MJ is against MLM's because it fails the commandment of control and entry (read the book to find out).

For those of you curious about the book, just read the sample chapters given in his forum, or listen to the audio book sample. Make your own conclusions.

For one thing this is the book venture capitalists don't want you to read.

<comment><USER4> Looks a bit spammy to me. I recommend this one every chance I get as a _practical_ book about how to do your own small business as a developer:

[http://www.amazon.com/Start-Small-Stay-Developers- Launching-...](http://www.amazon.com/Start-Small-Stay-Developers-Launching- ebook/dp/B003YH9MMI/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1?tag=dedasys-20)

One of the things I like about it is that it is not a "get rich quick" book. Indeed, one of the quotes I highlighted is "strive to build a startup that generates $500 per month in profit". That really resonated with me, because it sounded like something that I could aim for, rather than "YOU TOO CAN MAKE BAZILLIONS!!!". Even if you want to make bazillions, you've got to pass $500 a month at some point!

<comment><USER5> Thanks for this. I've not seen this book before and, like you, most of these other books feel way too spammy to me.

<comment><USER4> Glad it helps! I feel a bit spammy myself having posted it so often, but I think it's a really valuable way of looking at the world and I found the book helpful in creating my own side project business (that has passed $500 a month in profits, too:-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _A few examples of Fastlane projects: write a book (lots of work, but then it makes money forever without you having to put in more work), make an invention (lots of work, but then you get royalties for a long time)._

The median average annual earnings for an author in the UK is about £12,330 ($20,300). With the ease of self-publishing platforms like Kindle and the proliferation of promotions and sales at traditional booksellers (bookshops, supermarkets, etc) that figure is _falling_. If you want to be financially wealthy writing a book is a _really_ bad way to go about it.

<comment><USER7> Few people that get wealthy off books do so from the book sale royalties.

They sell seminars, keynote talks, services etc, it is a form of lead generation and an expert positioning tool.

<comment><USER8> Yet that is the exact _opposite_ of the "Fastlane", because your seminars are not detached from your time. Sure, it could turn out to be good good _hustle_ income, but he's not saying to do this as your end point.

There is a cap on how many hours anyone can work in a day/year. If you are charging hourly for your time, you are capped.

If you want to make it more Fastlane, you'd turn it into a sellable seminar video series that can be created infrequently and sold forever via memberships, DVDs, etc.

Note that I'm not for or against books or seminars. Not my area of expertise. I'm just stating that a lot of people in this thread are misunderstanding what MJ means by Fastlane.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Don't waste your money on expensive ($3k+) seminars and workshops. Those make the speakers rich but are rarely worth the money for attendees."

The same is true for books. For example this book.

</comment><comment><USER10> What I find odd when reading these kinds of posts and the discussion that ensues is that most people don't even seem to ask if "becoming rich" is really that important to begin with: For example, in his post the author gives the impression that only money can buy you a decent and fulfilling life and that you should better get rich quick since otherwise "you'll be too old to enjoy it".

Personally I think building up modest wealth over your entire career might be a surer and more reasonable strategy than the "get rich or die trying" model the author proposes, since the latter involves a good amount of luck and seems to work only for 1 % of the population.

<comment><USER11> Your comment about asking whether becoming rich is really that important reminded me of a lesson I learned.

I live in a city that had some major flooding recently. I volunteered to help pump out water and clean basements. I did this in primarily two neighbourhoods. A very affluent neighbourhood with multimillion dollar homes. The other neighbourhood was middle class, 30-50 year old bungalows.

In the affluent neighbourhood, the neighbours all hated each other. It seemed like at some point, everyone had done something to piss off someone else. We set up a large pump on a driveway and were told by the neighbour that we had to move the pump since it was on their side of the driveway (which they were not using). The neighbour also moved the 4 inch pipe into their neighbours garden which basically acted as an excavator until we noticed it. It was actually upsetting to see in times of such crisis.

Other the other hand, and you likely can predict how this story will go, the middle class neighbourhood was full of community, helping hands and people willing to go out of their way to assist others. It actually came to a point where there was too much help. People were driving around with coffee and home made sandwiches which they couldn't give out because 3 other cars with the same had just driven by. People were thankful and would rush across the street to help you move a heavy refrigerator.

I realized over that week that if getting rich means hating your neighbours/being hated by your neighbours, having no one to reach out to, maybe I don't want to be rich. At least not financially rich.

<comment><USER12> _I realized over that week that if getting rich means hating your neighbours /being hated by your neighbours, having no one to reach out to, maybe I don't want to be rich. At least not financially rich._

Or at least not in that neighborhood. You have an anecdote... that's all. I'm sure there are others that match it, but being a dick to your neighbors and having neighbors that are dicks to you is not a necessary pre- or post- condition of financial wealth.

You can end up in that situation regardless of how much money you make. What you should probably take away from that experience is that you value community and wish to have positive interactions with your neighbors; perhaps financial wealth shouldn't be a priority for you, but I don't believe this situation could really inform you on that point.

<comment><USER11> I don't think my point was to say "Getting rich means you will hate your neighbours" but more of a "Getting rich doesn't bring instant gratification." A "money can't by happiness" type message.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Saying it once and for all: Not everyone can be rich. And getting rich requires lots of luck. That's why it's better to be frugal and invest wisely, than to gamble on writing a best seller or invent the next big thing.

I'm not saying don't invent or write books either. Just don't bet your life on it.

<comment><USER7> "And getting rich requires lots of luck."

No it requires making something useful to other people that you can sell to them. You really should read the book.

Airbnb (hardwork and launching 4 times? nah just luck) Dropbox (solving a hard problem? nah just luck)

"That's why it's better to be frugal and invest wisely" This concept is explored in depth in the book.

It's called wealth in a wheelchair and is highly dependent on the stock market and property market (things you don't control performing favourably for you).

<comment><USER14> > _and property market_

And yet, he suggests buying property to rent as a method of the _Fastlane_. Ask a small-time landlord if renting their property in a halfway efficient market is making them rich.

I don't have a problem with the first half of the article, discussing the _philosophy_ of getting rich. It's when he seems to delve into practical advice (write a book! rent out a house!) that the author seems to lack a sense of financial matters.

<comment><USER15> Every real estate investor/landlord I know has worked up to a 7 figure net worth pretty quickly. Started with single family homes or a few duplexes, traded them up/reinvested cash flow, and eventually settled with a few multifamily complexes. Property management does the work, they collect the check. It's not easy, mind you, but it is worth the efforts. The rental market is the most solid investment vehicle out there. The market may go up and down, but it's always trending upward. Can't say the same about the stock market.

<comment><USER14> > _The market may go up and down, but it 's always trending upward. Can't say > the same about the stock market._

Yes, you absolutely can say the same about the stock market. In fact, the historical compound annual growth rate of the market, adjusted for inflation, is almost 7%. That's over 100+ years. I don't have the data in front of me, but I'll bet the market returns crush real estate returns over that period.

You'll have to explain how these people managed to accumulate such wealth "quickly" through real estate, unless it involved flipping houses during one of the biggest housing bubbles in economic history, of which there were massive amounts of losers on the other end of these transactions (aka _bagholders_ ). This era produced a ton of "real estate gurus", but it will prove to be an anomalous period. But, taking the economic environment in context , it _was_ a great, clever way to make a fortune; akin to telling someone to sell Tulips in 1640. I just think the idea that "buy real estate, get rich" is naive. The real trick is figuring out the next real estate, or Tulip, early in the cycle.

TINSTAAFL. There is nothing magical about expected real estate returns, and they are in line with any other investment vehicle when adjusted for risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I know many of you will not like this book, but I personally think it's _exactly_ what the doctor ordered for a ton of people who feel they need to break free from the "golden handcuffs" of their salaries / day jobs.

It's everything I wish I had read at age 20. Except it didn't come out until I was about 28 or 29. At that point, I'd just spent the last half dozen years learning _all_ of those lessons myself.

Behind the marketing fluff and silly title (which has been quite successful for him), MJ absolutely nails it. People either "get it" or they don't.

For some of you, it might seem like common sense:

* Separate your time from your income stream. *

Build a flexible, scalable business that you control that has a hard path to entry, yet can scale beyond its own man-hours.

Don't be _too_ put off by the title. There's a ton of people, myself included, who would benefit from reading it.

</comment><comment><USER16> I think that's pretty risky advice. Just because most millionaires took the 'fastlane', doesn't mean that most fastlaners will become millionares. It gives a bit too optimistic vision of that fastlane. A risk analysis of taking the fastlane vs slowlane would be nice. If you have a family to support, I think the "don't quit your day job" advice is better than anything in this book.

</comment><comment><USER17> The Millionaire Fastlane: write a book with this title, and have a lot of clueless people buy it. It's proven to work.

<comment><USER18> sell foraging gear to gold foragers

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This has "don't feel bad for poor people" written all over it. People just don't have the kind of options he's saying they do and I don't appreciate him creating classes of people, some deserving and some underserving of comfort.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've never really believed in a recipe book for millionares. If the books like this really worked, every second person would be a millionare. I strongly believe that a millionare is the person who follows his/her own way and does it well, keeps on doing it when the whole world says: You suck, dude! You don't have to write or read a book about it. It's simpler -do whatever you want and if you do it right, you'll make it through.

<comment><USER21> "If the books like this really worked, every second person would be a millionare"

To be fair to the author, he is not saying that just by reading the book or following simple rules everybody can be a millionaire.

Hard work and a sound strategy are still required, and not every second person has the discipline or ability follow up.

There is about an article a day saying something similar on HN, so I think I will follow his advice and not spend my precious time by reading the book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> From a quick scan of the notes, it seems like this is yet another 300 page book that says nothing beyond "quit your job and start a multi-million dollar business of some kind"

</comment><comment><USER23> This book was useful in changing my outlook on what I really wanted. I actually realized I did not want to be entrepreneur because I didn't want to do the hard work (non-engineering work like dealing with lawyers, accounts, employees, etc.) that it requires to be in the fastlane. I really just want to be a great engineer. It's not that I couldn't have come to this conclusion without the book, but the book just made it clear in ways that I hadn't seen elsewhere. Guess I'll just try to be slowlane defiant.

</comment><comment><USER24> The title is horrible. This isn't a get-rich-quick book like it sounds, in fact, DeMarco constantly stresses the long, tedious process required to become well-off.

People on HN will probably find it redundant and repetitive, but for people on the street, living paycheck-to-paycheck, on food-stamps, etc., this book can really open someone's eyes.

MJ's forum, The Fastlane Forum, is an incredible helpful resource for anyone. If you don't read the book, at least check out the forum. It will be well worth your time.

<comment><USER8> "Sell em what they want. Give em what they need."

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm the author of the notes. I was surprised to find them here =). Just wondering, do people find notes like this useful? I am considering summarizing some startup and business related books at my new blog, [http://codingvc.com](http://codingvc.com) (I no longer maintain leoexplor.es). Books I'd like to summarize: Art of Profitability, Venture Deals, Founder's Dilemmas, etc.

<comment><USER26> It is.

I'd prefer if bullet points were used sparingly though, you could just make use of headings and paragraphs. A very long list of points looks unstructured and is more difficult to read.

<comment><USER25> Thank you for the feedback.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Haven't read the book yet. Read the highlights. Not everyone is going to get rich. We live in a world of winners and losers. But there's some truth to the adage that "The harder I work, the luckier I get".

You can still be prudent and take risks. And let's be honest, saving up millions for my future cancer treatments isn't how I envision using my hard earned dollars. I see the author's point there...

</comment><comment><USER28> > What if you're not happy living a frugal/basic lifestyle?

I think this is an unnecessarily deterministic view of happiness. It seems to imply that every person has a set of randomly assigned, unchanging things that make them happy. If you happened to get assigned happiness from frugality, then lucky you! But if not, then I guess you'll have to find a way to get really rich to buy all the thing that make you happy, too bad.

In fact, if you aren't happy living a frugal/basic lifestyle, you probably won't be happy with an extravagant, wealthy lifestyle either. Happiness comes from within.

</comment><comment><USER29> If you're after a better book on this subject, save your time and read the classic "Think and Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill.

<comment><USER30> Napoleon Hill's "Think and Grow Rich" is great. I would also recommend Dr. Thomas Stanley's book "The Millionaire Next Door" to this list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> For anyone else wondering: author of Leo Explores is Leo Polovets @lpolovets

Twitter bio: "Partner @SusaVentures. Before: 2nd non-founding engineer @LinkedIn → @Google → early engineer @Factual. I love travel, good food, reading, and helping others. Palo Alto, CA · codingvc.com"

</comment><comment><USER32> Slow lane folks, I sleep like a baby.

<comment><USER9> Thats a good one!

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Link is down for me.

Archive.org link: [https://web.archive.org/web/20130623133054/http://leoexplor....](https://web.archive.org/web/20130623133054/http://leoexplor.es/great- books/2012/09/19/the-millionaire-fastlane/)

</comment><comment><USER34> Despite the terrible title and cover image, it is actually a very useful book.

I see it as a set of criteria to analyze any project by to see if it can potentially scale. If you focus your time on business that can scale, you improve your chance of making big bucks.

</comment><comment><USER35> Balance (work/family/fun) = happiness You can also rob a bank and get rich quick.

</comment><comment><USER36> Thank you for this.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a member of the author's forum:

[http://www.thefastlaneforum.com/community/](http://www.thefastlaneforum.com/community/)

He gives away sample chapters of the book, or if you like listening, the first chapter is also in audio format.

<comment><USER37> The Audiobook is the way to go. He treats it like a coffee shop conversation. Really put my ass into gear.

<comment><USER38> Can you provide a link to the audiobook please? Couldnt find it. Thank you.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there a good JavaScript SQL parser for the front end? - <AUTHOR> There seem to be a variety of not-mature options. What do you use, when you had to do this for the front end? <comment> lf-non Antlr4 supports a javascript target [1] and has parsers for most popular SQL dialects [2]

[1] [https://github.com/antlr/antlr4/blob/master/doc/javascript-t...](https://github.com/antlr/antlr4/blob/master/doc/javascript- target.md)

[2] [https://github.com/antlr/grammars-v4/tree/master/sql](https://github.com/antlr/grammars-v4/tree/master/sql)

[2]

</comment><comment><USER2> If I may ask, why are you parsing SQL in the client?</comment>


How to Switch Away from Gmail - <AUTHOR> https://justus.ws/tech/how-to-switch-away-from-gmail/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN. I switched away from Gmail a couple years ago (after a decade on it), and the switch wasn't nearly as painful as I anticipated, thanks in particular to two things, that I think a lot of people don't realize:

\- When you remove Gmail from your Google Account, you'll be able to keep your Google Account, using your new email address as your Google ID. This means you can continue to use Google Docs, etc.

\- Your Gmail address remains yours, and you can reactivate it at any time.

I've commented about my experience switching away from Gmail a couple times, so I decided to write a quick post about it. Nothing groundbreaking here, but hopefully it's helpful to a few folks.</comment>


Namba Aruki: Running style of the express runners during the Edo Period - <AUTHOR> http://www.tofugu.com/2012/07/24/namba-aruki-samurai-walk/ <comment><USER2> I can see how Namba Aruki might help you keep your kimono Clem on a muddy street.

But it's it more efficient? I really don't think so. Go read up on the biomechanics of walking, and you'll see it is already efficient. You are like a pendulum swinging back and forth, recovering some of the energy from each step.</comment>


Ask HN: Good books/resources for learning database internals? - <AUTHOR> I know how to use databases but am sometimes fuzzy on how they actually work under the hood. Can you recommend good books or other resources for learning database internals? <comment><USER2> SQLite has interesting papers about its internals: [https://www.sqlite.org/optoverview.html](https://www.sqlite.org/optoverview.html)</comment>


Donald Knuth used an Erlang-like notation - <AUTHOR> http://videlalvaro.github.io/2016/10/knuth-first-erlang-programmer.html <comment><USER2> Knuth is simply defining a piecewise function here in ordinary math notation. Functional programming languages borrow heavily from math, Erlang is a functional language. The resemblance would probably be even more striking with Haskell... which only serves to undermine the message.

Erlang's great though. Glad to see some irrational exuberance for it.

<comment><USER3> Knuth's function would be written in Haskell as thus:

f [n] = [n]

f [m, n] = [m, n, 0, 1]

f [m, n, r, 1] = [m, n, mod m n, 2]

f [m, n, r, 2] = if r == 0 then [n] else [m, n, r, 3]

f [m, n, p, 3] = [n, p, p, 1]

It needs to be implemented with variable-length lists instead of fixed-length tuples, in order to satisfy the type system.

<comment><AUTHOR> For me what's striking about Erlang syntax is the meaning of the semi-colon and the period, as function clause separator. Most of the rest is just vanilla FP lang syntax.

<comment><USER4> To be fair that's just vanilla _English_ orthography.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, and still people get confused at Erlang's use of semi-colons and periods.

Do you think it is because other programming languages don't uses the semi- colon that way? Or that periods are usually used to access class members, but not to finish function declarations?

<comment><USER5> I think it's because most people have no idea how to use semicolons in natural languages too.

<comment><USER6> I think this is true. Anecdotally, I've looked up the usage of semicolons a few times now, and I _think_ I know how to use them, but every time I'm about to I just rephrase what I'm saying so I don't have to. They are used so rarely in English it's hard to feel confident through exposure.

<comment><USER7> I use semicolons all the time; they are easy and useful.

The two clauses separated by a semicolon are sentences; thus the semicolon is logically and grammatically equivalent to a full stop. (As long as you normalise the capitalisation). The difference is in nuance, flow, and other soft things.

So when do you use a semicolon instead of a full stop? Whenever you want to!

The really difficult punctuation mark in English is the _full_ colon.

<comment><USER8> What's a full colon? Hard/NSFW to google for that...

<comment><USER9> Just a plain colon, as an emphatic distinction from a semicolon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> To the eye of a developer used to more modern languages that also shows some bad choices in the design of the Erlang syntax. Basically everything that makes the source code less readable than the original: uppercased variables, the minuses that prefix the module and export statements, the wierd =:= operator. I add the also wierd <> binary and string concatenation operator, not used in this example.

The semicolon-period statement separators/terminators are in the original and in natural languages, but newer languages proved them to be useless. Probably compilers in the 80s needed some help by the programmer to be fast.

Elixir fixed some of the worst offenders, kept others and added something. Examples: the <> is still there but at least we can interpolate strings Ruby like, the useless do at the end of almost every defsomething declarations (the compiler should get it by itself.)

But every languages has its wierdnesses, the contest is to have the least of them.

<comment><USER11> It's worth noting that Erlang gets a lot of that weirdness from its progenitor language, Prolog, where arguably some of that stuff makes more sense. For instance, the =:= operator is an equality operator that forces arithmetic evaluation, unlike = which is just used for unification. In Prolog, this is a fairly crucial difference ("1 + 1 = 2" is false in prolog, while "1 + 1 =:= 2" is true) and there needs to be language constructs that make the distinction clear. Given that, having different operators is a sensible solution to the problem.

On the other hand, it's arguably true that Prolog has an over-reliance on a massive swath of operators. All of these operators represent some variation of the concept of equality: =, ==, =:=, =@=, #=, and "is". The differences make sense if you're deep into Prolog, and it's rich capacity for designing new operators is arguably a strength of the language, but it's clearly an obstacle to beginners.

I absolutely adore Prolog, but it's a real shame that development of logical programming basically stopped with it. It would be as if functional programming never properly progressed beyond early Lisps. Its a shame that Erlang borrowed so much of its syntax, when the syntax is clearly not its strongest suit (though it fits Prolog better than Erlang).

<comment><USER12> > The differences make sense if you're deep into Prolog

They make sense academically, but they only slow down language adoption.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Its interesting how you squeezed 'Erlang language' into some syntax choices. Erlang is about actor model, not about pattern matching. Joe had his inspiration from Prolog - it is a well-known fact from publicly available sources.

Anyway, thanks for the article, it sparked some emotions in my brains :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> I know all that. Long time Erlang dev, former RabbitMQ core dev, so yeah, I've heard already about the Prolog story. Interesting you talk about the Actor Model, since even Robert Virding has said that when they created Erlang they had no idea there was a thing called "Actor Model".

<comment><USER13> Wow! Ok. Well yes, as far as I know both Joe and Rob agree on that it is accident that Erlang have implemented 'actor model' thing. Also its interesting to note that functional nature of Erlang is very different to ML- family languages. Authors used all these functional stuff because of pragmatics in the first place and not because of solid theory underpinnings.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup. See this convo [https://twitter.com/old_sound/status/788349221946662912](https://twitter.com/old_sound/status/788349221946662912)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Joe Armstrong's comment on this post is gold just for this:

        But as Abraham Lincoln said - "don't believe everything you read on the Internet"

</comment><comment><USER15> It's called pattern matching, and is present in most functional languages - Haskell is a good example of something which uses this style extensively.

In a sense it's derived from the way that some mathematical functions are expressed, e.g. i've seen the fibonacci sequence expressed in this manner a few times.

The only thing this excerpt from the book has to do with Erlang is that they both used the same (existing) idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> As mentioned already:

>For me what's striking about Erlang syntax is the meaning of the semi-colon and the period, as function clause separator. Most of the rest is just vanilla FP lang syntax.

It's strikes me that everybody notices the pattern matching part, but not the way the clauses are separated, which AFAIK, it's something used by Erlang Syntax only.

And yeah, after working in Erlang and other FP langs for the past 6 years I kinda know this is called pattern matching ;-)

<comment><USER16> > _it 's something used by Erlang Syntax only._

Well... and English syntax. In English, you can specify a list of things by separating each thing with a semicolon and then a sentence is terminated by a period. Example:

> _Today I would like you to buy coffee; talk to Sarah about the party if you > can, otherwise send her a text; drop off the kids; meet me at soccer > practise._

You see how the sentence is terminated with a period, each individual item in the list is separated by a semicolon, and the comma is free to use inside each item to indicate related clauses. I've changed nothing about the structure of that list, except replaced the items with function definitions.

> _Today I would like you to define f(m, n, r, 1) as f(m, n, remainder of m > divided by n, 2); f(m, n, r, 2) as n if r is 0, otherwise as f (m, n, r, 3); > f(m, n, p, 3) as f(n, p, p, 1)._

It's the same thing, only we've replaced the mundane everyday tasks with function definitions. Now reformat the thing and we get

        Today I would like you to define

          f(m, n, r, 1) = f(m, n, remainder of m divided by n, 2);
          f(m, n, r, 2) = n              if r is 0,
                          f (m, n, r, 3) otherwise;
          f(m, n, p, 3) = f(n, p, p, 1).

Sure, Erlang syntax happens to coincide with the syntax of English, and I'm not sure whether this was intentional or not, but it certainly has nothing to do with Knuth.

<comment><AUTHOR> Really you can use semi-colons on a sentence and then end the sentence with a period? And I thought I had learned something during all my years studying linguistics and grammar.

BTW, newsflash: many languages use semi-colons inside sentences. Spanish for example, which could be argued to be older than English. So did Erlang copy Knuth, or Erlang actually copied El Cid Campeador? I think Erlang comes from El Cantar del Cid.

<comment><USER16> I just find it more likely that Knuth continued to use English for those definitions, and not that he switched to Spanish, or for that matter Erlang.

<comment><AUTHOR> For me it's pretty clear he was trying to write the algorithms in Spanish, therefore the semicolons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Doesn't most of this syntax come from Prolog?

<comment><USER18> Likely that was its direct source (Erlang was originally developed in Prolog, IIRC). However, the first volume of TAOCP came out in 1968, while Prolog dates from 1972. It's possible that the Prolog team got the notation from Knuth, and then Armstrong, et al carried it forward into Erlang.

<comment><USER19> Knuth didn't invent any notation here, it's just standard math.

There are a million languages out there that resemble math notation (mostly functional languages), many of them resemble it much better than erlang does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This article reminds me of the "JavaScript is Scheme" meme from a while ago. In that people wanted to increase the prestige of their favourite(?) language by shoehorning it into a comparison with something high-status; which comparison, when you think about it, doesn't make much sense.

> Interesting curiosity, which proves that the Erlang Syntax is some sort of > Platonic Language Ideal that predates all programming languages.

Because it supports definition by cases and an if-then-else construct? And because it uses the same punctuation marks that ordinary natural language sentences do? Give me a break.

<comment><AUTHOR> Go get your break, while you are at it, get a laugh or two, because that's what this article is supposed to be about. nobody is so silly to pretend Knuth was describing Erlang on his book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Are we sure it ain't just Prolog?

In particular, Erlang's syntax is heavily derived from Prolog's, so it's natural to conclude that Prolog would be the closer relative to Knuth's syntax.

In reality, though, it's probably the other way around; Prolog's syntax is in turn more-or-less derived from the conventions in traditional math formulas (especially with the uppercase variables and such).

</comment><comment><USER19> Author confuses standard math notation with erlang, missing the fact that other, more pure, functional programming languages even more closely resemble math notation.

Nothing to see here.

<comment><USER22> > Author confuses standard math notation with erlang, missing the fact that > other,

The article is silly whimsy, you know that? Knowing the author from online presence, I can assure you the author doesn't really think Knuth was writing Erlang at that time.

> that other, more pure, functional programming languages

Maybe the author doesn't care about other more pure functional programming languages. They care about Erlang so they wrote about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Related: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRbY3TMUcgQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRbY3TMUcgQ)

</comment><comment><USER24> Uhh, TAOCP predates Erlang by quite a bit. Shouldn't the headline be, "Erlang uses a Donald Knuth-like notation"?

<comment><USER22> > TAOCP predates Erlang by quite a bit.

Are you sure Knuth wasn't secretly programming in Erlang since the early 50's. He is considered one of the original inventors, it was just too controversial so it was covered up all this time.

I guess we need special whimsy and/or sarcasm tags so people don't take them too seriously...

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Knuth also created in TeX the notation used by Microsoft's Rich Text Format (RTF): {\b bold} etc.

</comment><comment><USER26> omg, wrong way round. It's more math or logic notation.

<comment><AUTHOR> More like satire logic notation, but who am I to tell at this point.

<comment><USER27> Honestly I can't tell sometimes if HN is all just satirical internet comments. I read the article, chuckled at the exchange with Joe Armstrong, then opened the HN comments to look at all the grumbling.

Turns out there's plenty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is a good case of where the HN guidelines call for changing a title of an article: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

A good HN title is accurate, neutral, and close to the language of the original article. If anyone suggests a better title, we're always happy to change it again.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not misleading or linkbait. It's just humor. Don't you have humor guidelines at HN?

<comment><USER28> Jokes certainly have their place but they're context-dependent, i.e. the same title can work fine in one place but not another.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is the website title HackerNews not linkbait or misleading? I ask since I usually don't see many "hacker News" around here…

<comment><USER28> It's a category error to conflate article titles and website names, but I'll play along.

Misleading? Arguably, but I don't think it's much of a stretch from "Hacker News" to "news for hackers" to "anything that good hackers would find interesting", which is the mandate of the site ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)).

Linkbait? I doubt it, but I'm biased.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Clickbait title is clickbait.

minimal-syntax languages tend to look similar.</comment>