Only a few countries are teaching children how to think - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21583609-only-few-countries-are-teaching-children-how-think-best-and-brightest <comment><USER2> Growing up, I declined to participate in the educational system (primarily to avoid harassment at school) and instead spent all of my time learning to program video games at home. So I would sleep through class, go home, and try to write Pong. My academic performance was nonexistent, but I came out of it with a career. I was wondering, was anyone else's childhood experience similar?

Highschool felt at best a dungeon, and at worst a torture chamber. That was primarily due to my mindset. I didn't really know how the world worked, and it seemed to me like the system had been designed for the purpose of dragging me down to the level of the brutes around me. But unfortunately the experience killed my interest in wanting to strive to attend a good (or any) university, which I now deeply regret. Not due to loss of credentials, but rather due to missing out on the social experience of uni.

If it were explained to me that the reason I was in school was because an industrialized society needs a place to put children for 8 hours each day so their parents can work, it would've made so much more sense than trying to believe the lie that we were there to learn. It felt so obvious that we weren't there to learn anything substantial. By learning to program video games I'd gotten a taste of the amount of effort real learning took, and memorizing historical dates or doing trivial math problems definitely wasn't any effort. So maybe one solution to "How do we cultivate the desire to learn?" is to relax on the idea that school is even supposed to be a place for kids to learn.

<comment><USER3> I feel like I'm in the minority here (backed up by a similar discussion on reddit today), but I really enjoyed high school. I liked the classes, I felt like I knew what I was doing with life when I graduated and went on to college, and then there's the whole social thing that people seem hit/miss on. I made a ton of lifelong friends in high school, played on sports teams all 4 years, and evolved from a shy little kid to a reasonably social adult by the end as I gradually learned to come out of my shell.

Maybe it's just the people who comment on these types of articles are the kinds of people who also didn't like school, but I personally wouldn't change my high school or college experiences for the world.

<comment><USER4> I liked my high school experience as well, but I went to this school: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-B_Woodlawn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-B_Woodlawn)

But I did attend elementary school in Japan (and had cousins who went to high school there at the same time I was) and while they may have achieved a proficiency higher than most americans, the freedom granted to me at my high school allowed me to do even better - and I was given a decidedly non-standard education emphasizing critical thinking and questioning of authority.

This served me exceptionally well in college, and on through grad school and postdoctoral studies. Perhaps this is a bit of an overgeneralization, but almost all of the East Asian postdocs that I encountered did not, outwardly, exhibit as critical a stance towards data and evidence as did american postdocs - with the generalizeable exception of the East Asian postdocs who did their grad school in the States.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am Polish, I live in Poland, and I found the article's praise for our education system strange. My opinion of it is much lower. I regularly worry about teaching my children to think for themselves — because I believe this is something the schooling system actively discourages. I also don't think that recent reforms did much to improve education, and I don't see why anyone could think they did.

I would approach this book very, very sceptically.

<comment><USER6> I have a number of good friends who are teachers, including maths, and they talk about it a lot. While you may not think your system is good, it sounds like the UK system is encouraging mediocrity.

For example, when I was at school 20 years ago, we had to memorise formulas for common thing ( speed = distance over time, and similar). Apparently the kids are given the formulas in exams now. There doesn't appear to be such a thing as a "fail" these days, just a "foundation level pass".

As such, I can see where the UK is failing, and see positive things mentioned about Poland in the article.

<comment><USER7> I have also memorised the formulas for d/s/t and f/a/p but struggle to see how these translate in to academic excellence of any type, or even why giving them to someone is encouraging mediocrity.

There is (imho) nothing of value in memorizing simple formulas, and everything in the value of knowing how and when to apply those formulas, or where to Google for them.

<comment><USER8> The presumption that students have memorised the formulae allows you to build more complex tests with confidence that they will tease out _understanding_ and not just computation.

In my highschool physics exam, about 2/3rds was of questions based on memorised formulae. For example, the bouncing ball problem, with a series of questions to tease out our application of calculus, memorisation of compression rules and so on.

Then comes the final question. I remember it well because at first, I did not know which formula to apply. Water wells into a pool at rate X per hour, falls over a waterfall into a second pool below, which drains at rate Y per hour. When it falls over the edge of the waterfall, the water is at temperature A; at the start of the problem the temperature in the bottom pool is C.

After an hour, what will the temperature in the second pool be?

To solve this problem you actually need to consider the thermic effect of water falling. You need to build a single equation to accounts for acceleration due to gravity and the beginning temperatures of each pool. Then you need some calculus to transform it into an equation that will spit out the final numerical answer.

The only reason I was able to attempt and solve this problem was _because I had memorised the equations_. There simply would not have been enough time to try to reverse-engineer a bunch of anonymous letters in-flight.

Similarly, when I studied law, all exams were open-book. This is because, as a law professor told me, "it lets us ask harder questions". There's simply no way to synthesise thousands of pages of material in an exam setting. Either you learnt it beforehand, including a whole bunch of flat out memorisation of details of cases, or you didn't. Having your casebooks for reference is useful, but only to check a detail or reuse a quote.

<comment><USER9> > To solve this problem you actually need to consider the thermic effect of > water falling.

I suspect you got this question wrong.

<comment><USER8> Suspect away.

<comment><USER9> Maybe I just misunderstood you. What do you mean by "thermic effect of water falling"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Over here in Indonesia, most of the more prestigious schools follow the Singapore model. Kids do end up studying a lot, but on the whole it doesn't seem more than I did as a kid (in rural America). They tend to be pretty well- rounded, teach three languages (English, Bahasa, and Mandarin), and follow roughly the math courses I remember as a child though perhaps a year advanced by 4th grade.

In the US, schools seem to be succumming to two very serious trends. The first, and most basic, is in the school attempting to replace rather than support the family as the basic unit of education. You can't do this though. Education begins and ends at home, and what schools offer is largely a supplement for the home.

This leads directly to the second problem which is the worship of innovation. I get told by friends in the US about how math classes are teaching Fibonacci parlor tricks for multiplication (like lattice multiplication, which I know enough math to understand but only because I know a lot more math than the average parent). This joins the high tech toys in the idea that gadgets and trinkets can teach our youth but parents cannot. The innovation focus further devalues the home as the center of learning, and it leads to a highly institutional, almost assembly-line view of learning.

In the end, I don't see how American higher education can survive another generation without some major adjustments to our public school system (and probably society as a whole, to be honest).

<comment><USER11> "Education begins and ends at home, and what schools offer is largely a supplement for the home."

I think it is the opposite. I pay the school to teach my kid. I don't expect to have them come home and require me to finish the job. Can you imagine if you went to a restaurant and they said, we prepared the food, but you must cook it.

I work every day with my child on her homework, but it is not to teach her what she learned at school, it is to supplement her teaching with things you won't learn in the classroom.

<comment><USER10> But before your kid ever goes to school, there are habits regarding learning that are picked up. These begin at home. For kids of below-school-age this is the place where most learning takes place.

The question is whether learning is something that is to be compartmentalized off into school work, or whether it is something we weave into every aspect of life. If the former, one will never become very smart or very skilled. If the latter, then all school offers is an opportunity to learn, something that kids take advantage of based on habits acquired at home.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Well, reading that as a 22 years old Polish male gives me mixed feelings. I was living in Poland and studying there for my whole life and basically I have experience basically in whole educational process here (preschool, elementary, gymnasium, high school and now pursuing BS degree at polytechnic) I can definitely say that polish educational system is not that great. Of course we have a lot of people contesting in computer science /maths /physical national Olympic which are very hard contests but it is still very small factor, those kids are often struggling with the same problems you would expect they have (harassment, bullying etc).

Polish educational system (especially nation wide maturity exams after high school and college education) are in my opinion decreasing. The maturity exam is getting easier and easier each year to allow more people just to pass. Sure, life is going to verify that somehow, but it also diminish value of this exam.

In my opinion people that are successful in polish school are only those who decide to not follow teaching process given at school but they work very hard on they own, in my opinion the main problem that is present here (and probably worldwide) is students assessment process, every student is taken to the lowest common denominator when it comes giving grades. People that (in scope of the class room) are doing fine, let's say B grade students think they are doing just fine and there are only few things to improve, similarly A students - they generally tends to think they have already reached the peak, when there is still unbelievable much things to learn.

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the insight.

Every major publication runs a piece just like this every few years. The exotic countries and methods always differ somewhat, but the formula is always the same. It's the pseudo-intellectual version of the filler/cover-baitait articles on new ways to become heart healthy, or inventions that will change the world, usually done well in advance and saved for slow news-weeks.

Not that the subject matter isn't of value, but it's always oversimplified, and oversold.

<comment><USER13> Sorry, typed that one out on a touchscreen and blew it. "baitait" = "bait"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Oh come on! It's a classic case of out-sourcing, isn't it? Workers in Poland get paid a lot less. The min wage in Poland is €384 per month ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_count...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country)) or $525 at current rates, while the minimum wage in the US is $7.25/hr ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States)) - or for a 40 hour week that'd be $1160. I don't know what taxes would do to that, but we're looking at double the rate in the US.

If on top of that Poles are better educated, that's great. Plus Europe needs jobs. But I'm sure the primary concern is the bottom line. BAMA could staff the factories in Oklahoma if they could get away with paying the workers $4/hr.

</comment><comment><USER15> > the company is struggling to find Okies with the skills to fill even its > most basic factory jobs. Such posts require workers to think critically

Perhaps those educated enough to think critically put that skill to work before accepting a factory job making mass produced biscuits. My critical thinking skills lead me to guess that is not the most fulfilling, high paying, or upwardly mobile job even for Oklahoma.

<comment><USER16> >Such posts require workers to think critically, yet graduates of local schools are often unable to read or do simple maths. This is why the company recently decided to open a new factory in Poland...

This was the solution? Seriously? Going through the hassle of opening up a factory on the other side of the planet across language and legal barriers all because the local population in Oklahoma didn't come shrink-wrapped precisely as ordered? Seems to me that a far more simple solution would be to train your work force, rather than externalize that responsibility. If the problems are really so systemic as they are claimed, then demonstrate some civic responsibility and see to it that your community gets its act together.

<comment><USER17> I fail to see how that is a more simple solution. Teaching people how to think is both an educational and cultural challenge which far exceeds the trivial challenge of outsourcing work.

People have a wide range of different responsibilities (self, family, local community, humankind etc). I don't see why Polish people are morally any less deserving of jobs than Oklahomans. This company clearly thinks the Polish are more capable of doing the job. Who are we to say otherwise?

<comment><USER18> But don't you see, the Poles sit on the other side of the fence!

(Yes, this kind of nationalism bothers me no end.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I live in Poland, went to school here, and definitely cannot confirm the claims made in the article. Half of my education happened in the reform school system that the article mentions and almost everyone agrees that it's much worse that the previous one.

High school in Poland used to be a preparation for further education at university. It ends with a nation-wide exam called matura. The reform greatly reduced the number of other types of schools. It has two effects. First, it's much harder to find a skilled worker because there are much less workers trained. Second, the general level of education at high schools dropped significantly. It had to drop because otherwise many of the new pupils wouldn't pass the matura. Notions of a logarithm, exponential, prime decomposition has become foreign to pupils. No one has heard about a derivative or an integral for more than a decade.

Of course all the above is a generalisation. There are some great schools with teachers who really want to teach their subjects instead of just formally completing stages of the government-mandated education program. Unfortunately they are in minority. I'm really concerned about quality of education that my children will get in this country. Home schooling is an option though an expensive one.

</comment><comment><USER4> Was I the only one who found no evidence in this article about 'teaching children to think'? There was some discussion about metrics (such as PISA) but that is not, to me, any sort of evidence about the ability to think.

<comment><USER20> No, you weren't the only one.

The only reality-based test mentioned in this review was whether Okies could get a "basic" job in a factory, and an assertion that this would require critical thinking skills (with the implication that such skills would be of the sort taught at school).

However, I think Ripley may give more in her book. An NYT review suggests she discusses how American school-leavers "lack the knowledge and skill to compete in the global economy". It's all a bit vague, I admit.

"Teaching children to think" is a much-used phrase. It could mean a great many things.

<comment><USER21> Anyone with any critical thinking skills should question the example of outsourcing manufacturing to Poland as an endorsement of Poles' critical thinking skills.

The alternate hypothesis - that the Polish education system is much more effective at producing drones who are efficient and motivated when performing menial tasks for low pay - has much to recommend it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> History proves some interesting insight to education.

Take for example literacy. There are Finnish/Swedish parochial records/church examination registries dating back to 17th century down to a level of individual families. This is important due to Charles XI's Swedish Church Law of 1686 stating that everyone had to be able to read bible. So you can follow how that emergent Lutheran essence actually turned into literacy. From an individual perspective it was necessary to learn because you weren't allowed to take holy communion, be confirmed and later wed without reading ability. By 1750 some parishes started to have 90% reading ability. What is surprising is the writing ability. It achieved same levels only around 1900 (1920 in Finland). So that is clearly connected to industrial reform rather than spirit of protestantism. At least my initial assumption that reading/writing go hand in hand was proven wrong. In light of this long history of literacy in Nordic countries I tend to value the South Korean jump in literacy from previous generation more highly, even if it was achieved through "culture of educational masochism".

Book about this: Understanding Literacy in Its Historical Contexts: Socio- cultural History and the Legacy of Egil Johansson.

Take a look at pg. 47 at Google Books and see how incredibly detailed those church examination registries in 1688-91 could be (pg. 56 has a nice graph differentiating the development of reading and writing ability): [http://books.google.fi/books?id=WBLOVq4ocLEC&printsec=frontc...](http://books.google.fi/books?id=WBLOVq4ocLEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fi#v=onepage&q&f=false)

</comment><comment><USER23> My opinion and anecdotal experience is that the first priority in teaching children should be foreign languages. The younger you start, the easier it is to learn to speak and think in a foreign language. Almost everything else of any relevance can be taught basically as a side effect of language immersion.

I'm Finnish and went to a French-speaking school. I didn't understand any French going in, but at the age of 6, you pick it up quickly as long as it's a friendly environment. Later during the standard 12-year education, I had English as a third language, then Swedish (it's obligatory in Finland) and also German.

All the other stuff taught in school is such that a reasonably smart kid can learn it on her own as needed. But foreign languages are not like that. Thanks to computer games, I was somewhat fluent in reading English even before the classes started in school, but I couldn't speak a word -- you just don't learn pronounciation and conversation from games and TV shows, you need to have a real teacher.

</comment><comment><USER24> As a Pole, I find it unbelivable. The system is incredibly strict, there is absolutely no place for free-thinking, I have never seen their archaic methods applied to real-world usage in a classroom, and all universities have very low funding,which means that most experiments are ran on ancient machines. There is no budget for buying tools or documentation. My girlfriend was told in front of the class by the professor that she should not be studying engineering because it's not an industry for women. It would be completely unacceptable at a university in the UK or in the States. In Poland she went to see the head of the university and was told that "she probably misunderstood what the professor meant". Obviously every one knows that that these two people are good friends so it's impossible to do anything about the situation.

If the Polish education system taught me anything, it is that free thinking is a bad thing,and you are punished for it on every step of your education.

</comment><comment><USER25> Having grown in Poland, I have to say I was very lucky to be born in 1985 which was the cut-off year for the reformed educational system. I managed to escape it. It is widely agreed that the system brought nothing but deterioration in the level of education students receive pre-univeristy, esp. in maths/physics/chemistry. So much so that when I was still studying in Poland, I often heard that "new" students are at a level comparable to "old" part-time students.

> He decided to keep all Polish children in the same schools until they were > 16, delaying the moment when some would have entered vocational tracks.

This is misleading. First of all, education is obligatory until one is 18 years old in Poland. There is no such thing as dropping out of school before that age. The previous educational system was two-tier, with primary school lasting until 15 years old, and high school lasting the remainder 4 years (5 years for vocational high school, AFAIR). There were no electives in primary school, so the first real sorting of students based on ability was taking place at entrance exams to high schools (which had no obligation to accept a student based on their geographical location). What the reform implemented is it created a third tier in between primary (shortened by 2 years) and high schools (shortened by 1 year), the gymnasium. Gymnasiums do not have the sorting ability of high schools. With the end result being that what high schools were previously struggling to teach in 4 years now they have to condense into 3 years. So a lot of things are left out now. Plus the students they get at entry are also of lower quality -- I remember browsing through the first set of chemistry textbooks for gymnasium and being shocked that what the "old" system primary school students had to cover in two years was supposed to be covered in a lesser form in 3 years of gymnasium. So yes, the reform postponed the division of students into university/vocational tracks by one year, but at the cost of overall quality of education.

<comment><USER26> > First of all, education is obligatory until one is 18 years old in Poland.

I was about to point out your mistake, but decided to actually check that fact, and you're absolutely right.

> There is no such thing as dropping out of school before that age.

I must have slipped through the government's fingers. I'm not sure if it's a bad or a good thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This article is really funny for somebody living in Poland. It is totally opposite to what you hear in Poland about our educational system. I am really worried about other countries if Poland works as an example in education. The reform mentioned in the article has a very bad reputation here and most experts, citizens and politicians would like to take back the changes. Education standards declined rapidly as it become more egalitarian. I am laughing at the level of mathematics when I compare it to what I learned at school (in late 80s) and back than it was already a joke comparing to 70s. The most often repeated argument is that our schools do not teach pupils how to think. I don't really want to go further as it is somehow nice that The Economist, being so wrong, is giving us so much undeserved credit.

</comment><comment><USER28> I was born in Poland and lived there until I turned 24 (I am 35 now). Now living in Australia and having previously lived in other countries, mainly US , contrary to others who comment on the quality of Polish education, I can confirm that thanks to the fact I received it in Poland I am much better off compared to my peers in AU or US. I work in IT now but previously got a teaching degree here in AU and worked in education (high schools) for 3 years. To put it in a nutshell, AU education (probably along with other westernized countries) is an utter joke compared to Polish. What AU kids do at school, irrespective of the level they are in is 3-4 years behind Europe. AU is going strong thanks to its migrants coming mainly from Asia who are slowly replacing typical Australians in high paying white collar jobs. Any kid educated in Asia can run circles around top students here and that is particularly evident during students exchange programs where newcomers cannot believe that learning about fractions and watching cartoons to write compositions or essays is a standard curricular approach. The reason I do not work in education anymore is precisely because I could not stand myself to watch how AU curriculum with a plethora of mickey mouse subjects is dumbbing this generations down (and probably others before it). I am not saying that Polish education was the highlight of my youth and that as a student I didn't hate every day of my life while at school, spent cramming Math and English and many other, seemingly useless subjects. However, seeing what I see now, in hindsight I am so grateful for the fact that it was so bloody hard to be even average student at my school and now that I have 2 kids on my own I feel sorry for the fact that unless I pay premium from the start for a private school, they will never have the same opportunity as I did.

</comment><comment><USER29> A must read corollary to this is PG's "why are nerds unpopular"

[http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html)

</comment><comment><USER30> I am from Czech Republic, which has educational system similar to celebrated Poland. "The holly cow" of reforms is to increase number of university graduates, if possible without spending extra money. On technical universities it means rationalizing and streamlining (for example before reforms to study IT I would also have to learn technical drawing). Also three years bachelor degree was practically non-existent.

In reality this eroded university degrees by one level down. Also unemployment rate among university graduates is rising. On other side unemployment rate among younger people is lower, since most of them are studying until 25.

There is shortage of qualified workers such as plumbers, electricians and welders. Those professions can easily make more money than software developers.

<comment><USER31> You actually touch on a good point: because educational success of a country is measured in the number of university* graduates, governments incentivize universities to, well, produce more graduates, which they do both by lowering standards for existing fields of study and by creating new fields that attract a lot of students but which don't really teach anything worthwhile.

The result is graduates are far, far less well educated than their predecessors but on paper (including, I would presume, PISA) a much larger proportion of the population is "highly educated", making the government look good.

To give an example of lowered standards everyone here can probably relate to: up until about five years ago, students at the school for applied information science where I work were required to learn (a bit of) assembly so they understood how computers work at the CPU level. This requirement has now been scrapped, resulting in applied information science graduates who don't know the first thing about how computers actually work. On paper, however, our school looks very good, because, after all, it is producing a larger number of "knowledge workers" than before.

* this goes for schools for higher vocational training as well

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> For a more detailed understanding of the PISA system, there was a recent Econtalk podcast - [http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/08/hanushek_on_edu_3.h...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/08/hanushek_on_edu_3.html)

</comment><comment><USER33> Supplemental reading: Linus Torvalds's (from Finland) opinion of American schools: [https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/J1NCgKQi55X](https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/J1NCgKQi55X)

</comment><comment><USER34> >>Yet international rankings now put the country's students well ahead of America's in science and maths (the strongest predictor of future earnings), even as the country spends far less per pupil.<<

This sentence is exemplary of most, if not all, of the discussion about education reform. Another cue are the explicit goals of the Common Core standards, expressly designed to further economic competitiveness of America's youth.

But what about our children's ability to _make informed decisions using qualified evidence_?

This is different from so-called 'critical thinking', which is so vaguely defined whenever it comes up, or 'creativity', which lacks a rigorous method to appreciate its application.

These informed decisions I'm talking about not only affect our youth's ability to make decisions about their own lives (because no matter your education system, practical experience is other than doing well in school), but also their ability to make decisions about the state we live in collectively. There's little out there teaching people how to make informed decisions about areas they have no expertise in, and yet, must make a decision.

Politicians are voted in for dubious populism rather than the sensibility of their policy programme. Most responses to social issues continue to spiral around ideology and prejudice. America needs a lot more than just an effective STEM education regime.

</comment><comment><USER35> This year, I've engaged schools at length to discuss computer based systems. There are a few recurring threads that I have seen that would support this article.

* Real-world examples are not favoured. I'd go as far to say they are unpopular. There is an over emphasis on theory and rote learning, without providing context. This may be a result of "stove piping" mathematics to be "pure math only", rather than having "real-world applications".

* Children are shoe-horned and given little opportunity to pace themselves and their learning. The theory may be that kids that progress quickly may become bored.

* Technology is praised/shunned in the wrong ways. Tablets are generally praised, and in my view, offer limited opportunity and creativity. PCs are shunned, or treated as "toys".

* Over emphasis on rewards. There seems to be a common thread that kids continually need to be bribed. Avatars/humourous or cute animations/etc. There may be a good reason for this, but I find that it actually distracts students rather than helps.

I could list other things that have concerned me, but these are the first ones that come to mind.

Edited to add comments about "rewards".

<comment><USER36> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori) ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> In this article the journalist associates critical thinking with economic abilities. In other words, the local factory can't find laborers because children in the area lack reading and math skills. The author then goes on to argue that standardized testing is partially to blame for this phenomenon.

While journalists commonly make this leap, it's not necessarily an accurate one. In other words, standardized testing is not always at odds with critical thinking.

For example, South Korea, a nation with a very strong emphasis on standardized testing, consistently ranks in the world's top 5 universities, according to Pearson. Its students have strong reading and math skills, which prepare them to meet the challenges of many jobs.

We should question the myth that standardized testing always harms critical thinking. In some cases, I think, this argument is used as an excuse to justify American children's increasingly awful test scores.

</comment><comment><USER38> 2 anecdotes:

We had a guy from Poland living with us in Germany for 6 months. I think it was around 2003/2004 when I was still in school. His math skills were absolutely impressive but he still had to study a lot to keep up (he was living in Germany due to some excellency initiative, so this is a slightly skewed sample). When he showed me some of their lessons it was way beyond what we had to do in school.

In 9th grade I took part in an exchange program with the UK. As they lacked exchange partners , I got matched up with a guy from 10th or 11th grade (can't remember). The school was supposedly one of the better ones. I wasn't very good in math (usually hovered around grade 3 [1 - 6 with 1 being the best grade and 4.0 the worst passing grade]) but I was pretty much the best in their class. Wasn't very impressed by them.

</comment><comment><USER39> Worse yet, the standard education indirectly discourages independent thought. It is difficult to reconcile the standardization of education with the wide diversity of students. There is simply no way everyone's intellect can flourish under a one-size-fits-all system.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm an American so I'm probably biased.. but what I've found is that in most school districts you can get as good of an education as you want. I grew up in South Carolina and went to high/secondary school in Florida.. two states with relatively poor education records.

However, by staying on the "right" path I was able to get in advanced programs, programs for students with high IQs that taught critical thinking skills.. I graduated high school with over 30 college credit hours and had completed Physics 1, Calc 1, 2, and 3, and a hand full of other electives... all in high school.

Other students in the same exact schools I attended had equal and opposite educational experiences/success.

</comment><comment><USER41> >Students forego calculators, having learned how to manipulate numbers in their heads.

Not true in Finland.

</comment><comment><USER42> > The argument about knowing how and when to apply formulas misses the fact > that practice in applying those formulas is essential to competence.

>

I am coming late to this topic, and I wanted to make exactly this point that @kaitai made in a thread, in one of the many threads about memorisation vs. critical understanding.... This is the (moot) point that people seem to be missing here, which is surprising, because most of us here do seem to think highly about "code katas" or the "10,000 hour rule" or "immersion into code/algorithms" which is all about the above.

</comment><comment><USER43> The review of Amanda Ripley's new book _Smartest Kids in the World_ by Annie Murphy Paul in the _New York Times_ [1] is a good reality check on the review from _The Economist_ kindly posted here. The book is in hot demand in my county library system, so my request for the book hasn't been filled yet. The other excerpts from the book I have seen online have been very good.

I have lived overseas and observed the effect of another school system, and indeed education reform is the issue that drew me to participate here on Hacker News,[2] so I am always interested in discussing education policy here. Based on the different country I have observed, I think the book's account is largely correct. Americans underestimate how much young people can learn. School programs in the United States, according to federal sample surveys, are so underchallenging that many school pupils, not just the "gifted" pupils, find school too easy and boring.[3] Mathematics lessons in the United States are especially notorious for emphasizing the mechanical aspects of calculation --thus expecting students to bring electronic calculators to class--and underemphasizing the thinking involved in mathematical problem-solving.[4]

Let's discuss what makes sense in education policy on the basis of facts from more than one place. It's significant that we are discussing education policy around the world here in English, as very few Americans could discuss education policy in Korean, Polish, or Finnish, the languages of the countries profiled in the new book. (I could discuss education policy in Chinese, the language I learned as a second language, but that is not the usual experience of Americans.) The new book's encouragement to do that is a good contribution to better education policy.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/books/review/amanda- ripley...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/books/review/amanda-ripleys- smartest-kids-in-the-world.html)

[2] [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4728123](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4728123)

[3] [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-07-...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-07-09/school- too-easy/56120106/1)

[http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/z_Personal/G...](http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/z_Personal/Gold/CAP_state_of_education.pdf)

[4] [http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/articles.php?pa...](http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/articles.php?page=calculustrap)

<comment><USER44> I don't see why Americans should be able to discuss education policy in Polish. Seems a non sequitur. I don't think the author of the book claimed to be able to do such anyways.

As for technological over-reliance, I take that as given.

I'm surprised that you agree w/ the conclusion of the review that segregating talent into higher and lower achieving groups is bad. To me this is one of the strengths of the US system. Even if the high achieving groups are not stimulating enough for high achievers, it seems to provide some sort of positive stimulus that otherwise would be lacking in the system.

<comment><USER45> _> I'm surprised that you agree w/ the conclusion of the review that segregating talent into higher and lower achieving groups is bad._

I think it's bad too, and here's why: The teachers & staff in charge of the less-performers will do less to help them. Won't push them as hard. Generally just not care(as much). I think it's better for the under-performers to see the strong-performers and understand those kids are not magically-smarter, they just work hard and it's completely possible for the under-performers to be like them if they try to mimic their study habits.

Once you divide a group between the "desired" and "non-desired" traits, there's no way the less desired people will get the same quality attention as the desired. It pretty much will turn into: Group them all together, then systematically eliminate them, condemn them or make them irrelevant. Basically, that segregation will become the solution itself:

 _" We need to get class-A performance up to get more funding or raise our GPA average so our Class-A looks better to those affluent parents to send their kids to! Hmm, billy & mandy aren't too bright and are lowering the average. We could help them to be better, or we could just move them to the Class-C group; thus eliminating their scores from Class-A's GPA average." _

<comment><USER44> So do you think that the US higher-ed system is inherently flawed also, with competition between high achievers (i.e. Harvard) and schools that anyone can get into? It's true that there are more resources associated with success, but doesn't that also incentivize people to work harder to end up in the higher bracket? I don't see the "Class-C" problem as necessarily a problem, so long as the person in "Class-C" has the opportunity to get back to Class-A by putting in the appropriate work.

My own feeling (having also observed higher ed in Europe and Asia and other places) is that the US system works better for cultivating high achievement, but less well at making sure that lower achievers maintain a certain level of quality. This means that there is more spread over the bell curve and less in the center. Europeans, on the other hand, seem to prefer more clustering in the center of the bell curve.

This is equally true for wealth acquisition, btw, with Europeans generally preferring not to have extremes (i.e. extremely high wage earners or extremely low wage earners).

<comment><USER45> _> > So do you think that the US higher-ed system is inherently flawed also, with competition between high achievers (i.e. Harvard) and schools that anyone can get into?_

Yes, I do think there's a flaw there too. But the paid schools' issue is more complicated because of the "private" money involved. "Private" in that, students are paying directly out of pocket rather than the taxes that go into public high-schools that's less visible to people. What I'd like to see there, is that people who go to the cheaper & less "high society" schools get a chance to take maybe 1 or 2 classes a year at the Havards/Stanfords/Yales/etc just to see what it's like on those campuses. No segregation either; there should not be any way to tell which students are exclusively attending Harvard/Stanford versus the ones on the "visitor" program unless the student him/herself chooses to disclose that info.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> From the outside, the state of education in the US seems really worrying. Hard to see the wage gap closing any time soon with the way it sounds like their kids are being educated.

</comment><comment><USER47> I disagree the norm that we don't teach kids to think or our American education sucks. I want to stop comparing education with other countries if possible, but we do this every day anyway. We do teach kids think. I am a Chinese immigrant. I came to US when I was 12 and I am 22 now. I have to say that the American education is quite liberal and most classes I take do ask students to think more critically.

The thing about American classroom is that overall classroom interaction is more decentralized than the Chinese's. In China (specifically HK), you sit in the same classroom with 30-40 people for many years. For example, I can sit with 80% of the people for 6 years during my elementary school (in China, elementary school is 6 years, age 6 to age 12). So you build a strong friendship with a lot of people. You work like a team and solve things like a team for many years. Usually with team effort and strong friendship, students are more likely to produce something interesting - everyone can be honest to each other. You are not shy to tell others your opinion.

This is quite true for school up to junior high in America as one spends every day with students in their homeroom. When you enter HS, you usually don't have that kind of classroom model anymore. You usually see different people in different classes; it's like a college experience to me. For a school with 3000 students, 20/30 people will not appear in my next class.

Now you can still do teamwork, except, team work is with different group of people each time. This has an advantage though: you hear more different opinions. Except people can be shy and skeptical so it's harder to work with.

To me, education is not about score. Sure Russian and Chinese are scoring 98% and Americans are scoring 50%. So what? I don't go to MIT and people around me are genius in their own way. I can't make a good joke and people I know can. Every one has their own strength and own creativity. Teaching children how to think is like making everyone to do the same thing: get 100 on your next math competition.

That's stupid. If you make fewer exams and more on spreading knowledge, let students have more time to rest and play, eventually students will happier and will have more time to think.

When you put emphasis on testing knowledge, you stress students out. I am not saying you don't stress them from time to time - you know, because stress can produce new ideas (think agile and get shit done), but we need to put less on scores. This is why group activity is important. Students in group competitions like sports and robotics (FIRST) are happier. This is why we should go back to HS and help students to organize clubs and events. Or mentor people to do things.

Eventually, kids will figure out. Each of us can come up with some crazy ideas for the next biggest startup. It is just a matter of time.

Inventions don't come in a day. It takes idea, time, dedication, group effort and knowledge.

</comment><comment><USER48> Smarter kids where good education and good relations and good social communicate but it not fifth element and it is insufficient. Kids everywhere are smart but env may stop evolution. Lets kids thinking. Kids needs in protect always.

</comment><comment><USER49> Most people don't need to think. Thinking isn't necessary to live in today's world.

<comment><USER50> right, that makes sense....

<comment><USER51> Well thinking, allows people to see things under a different light. Under different light you look at state and say - What a piece of shit!

Tell me who is gonna call out governments on the stupid shit they do? The stupid? No, they are too busy drooling. It's the thinkers. They are always troublesome. The less of them, the better /devil advocate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Does smart child earns a lot of money and stupid one does not?

</comment><comment><USER53> Slightly ominous headline, perhaps?</comment>


Yunduan, Application Virtualization Store for Windows - <AUTHOR> http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http://www.yunduan.cn/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_swbox%26task%3Dtechn&sl=auto&tl=en

<comment><AUTHOR> For those who confused by auto-translate:

Yunduan(Softcloud) is a virtualization layer for applications on Windows. Basically, it is a shadow system but have a projection in real system which enables that the software managed by Yunduan can interact with software managed by real system.

This kind design make the software installed by Yunduan highly portable. You can hide/activate/uninstall/reinstall with one click and almost instant. However, the software installed by Yunduan have to downloaded from Yuduan manager throw P2P method (like an app store).</comment>


Use Django or end up building a Django - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/use-django-or-end-up-building-a-django-6cce65eb7255#.qfx6rp6me <comment><USER2> As a big fan of Django, I agree with most of this, but I think one thing that he is missing is the opinionated nature of Django. Its great for probably > 90% of web applications, but there are some use cases where the flexibility of Flask may be a better option.

One example would be the ORM. Its great for easy queries but when you need to do something complex the ORM is lacking (additional conditions on a JOIN for example). If you are going to need a lot of complex queries then maybe Flask / SQLAlchemy is worth the switch.

<comment><USER3> Author here, yes, Django is opinionated. That's for the good reasons and as you said it works for probably > 90% of web application. Although that percentage is rising with Django channels in some ways.

Django in this article is an example of a Full Stack Web Framework, usually when we gonna use a minimal framework such as Flask, bottle or Sanic, if and only if we're going to build something that can be categorized in full stack, then it would make much more sense to go with a Full Stack framework such as Django.

And yes, the flexibility that Flask or Sanic give is really high and tempting, but each come with a cost, either Django or Flask or any other framework.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is AioHTTP as well if you're a bit curious but for early python and web developers this is a no-brainer, especially given that the "django" code- architecture (Note : Not Soft Arch..) is a kind of standard in python since everybody got to learn it someday.

<comment><USER3> You should see Sanic, it's amazing. Very minimal and faaast.</comment></comment>


Bad Stripe.js update takes down user websites - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/tildedave/status/1179165047366410241 <comment><USER2> This is now fixed: [https://twitter.com/stripestatus/status/1179172007218274304](https://twitter.com/stripestatus/status/1179172007218274304)

It was a bad deploy of Stripe.js that brought down the Stripe Dashboard. If your site uses the global `webpackJsonp` instance, it could've caused errors there too.

</comment><comment><USER3> We were affected by this, it appears resolved now.

</comment><comment><USER4> We were tearing our hair out trying to figure out what this was, cloud flare and sentry both went down too.</comment>


What we know about Lockheed Martin's mysterious SR-72 - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/lockheed-martin-sr-72-fastest-plane-ever-71-blackbird-military-defense-tech-fastest-spy-plane-mach-2017-10 <comment><USER2> What we (actually know in 2019) about Lockheed Martin's mysterious SR-72: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72)

<comment><USER3> Which is as far as I can tell, nothing more than what we knew in 2018.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow. A two year old video with no information whatsoever.

</comment><comment><USER5> > for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike missions > (wikipedia)

for the strike part, wouldn't it be better to use a satellite-based system, I would think it could reach any place on earth much faster given the initial velocity of being in orbit.

e.g. missiles/drones would be launched from a satellite at 8000m/s (17000 mph, 3/4 times faster than the SR-72), and they could be distributed globally. I'm just unsure about the descent phase but sounds like it would work out.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is disappointingly little information.</comment>


Ask HN: HN API to submit a comment? - <AUTHOR> I'm aware of API to list/view items from HN (https://github.com/HackerNews/API). Is there an API to submit comments or posts in HN? <comment><AUTHOR> I wrote one (in python) myself: [https://github.com/pplonski/hack- hn](https://github.com/pplonski/hack-hn)</comment>


Socialinks – best linktree alternative for bio links - <AUTHOR> https://socialinks.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> Our site is built by influencers for influencers, I use now we can only put a link in our instagram bio, but that time is over!

Thanks to socialinks, the best alternative to linktree you can add as many links as you want and even more thanks to our personalized links pages</comment>


Arts contributed $763B to US economy – more than agriculture or transport (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-arts-sector-contributed-7636-billion-economy-agriculture-transportation <comment><USER2> Air to breathe didn't generate much money, but try doing away with it. This sort of headline is complete nonsense. Market size is completely orthogonal to actual importance. Likewise prices. Expensive and rare things like Ferraris or Jeff Koon's flowers aren't more important than free things like air, water springs and insects.

<comment><USER3> The unfortunate reality is that in order to get many decision makers to support something, you need to show them quantitative data about its value.

In a past life, I worked on the performance team at an enterprise software company. For some of our users, our main dashboard took almost a minute to load. Fixing this didn't generate any new sales or increase revenue (enterprise software like this is sold to CTOs, not employees, and the actual product quality rarely affects sales numbers). We had our PM work full time to come up with numbers supporting our argument that making the service fast decreases churn. It was a pointless exercise, but it got us the resources to help fix the problem.

The sad reality is that while there are many things whose value should be intuitively obvious, the folks in charge do not always have an appreciation for them without seeing hard numbers.

<comment><USER4> The problem with enterprise software is the same problem with most issues we see from the producer side - those doing the work are completely different in alignment and requirements / needs than those that make the decisions to purchase for those. In Agile (and devops), the greatest friction is squarely around the reality that there's a manager caste that pushes down and makes decisions with very little feedback loops or misaligned incentives by all the stakeholders involved, and this causes churn within the group. For the buyers and the users of the software, their requirements are oftentimes lost. In your scenario, users with more power over their day-to-day software will demand better software and be empowered to select alternatives, but in more traditional organizations there will be a lot less churn comparatively because users will simply put up with bad things forcibly.

Almost all the "radical" software and project management practices to show up (and when implemented successfully at least) in the past 15 years aims to give more power to workers and to de-scope the role of management from pure decision-makers into a more supportive role with more intense feedback. There is a very consistent theme that organizations where these efforts fail are ones where management uses new processes and tooling to exert their existing political power to achieve results instead of also transforming themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Artists amount to 1.8% of the American workforce

[https://www.princeton.edu/culturalpolicy/quickfacts/artists/...](https://www.princeton.edu/culturalpolicy/quickfacts/artists/artistemploy.html)

Farmers, 0.05%

[http://infomory.com/numbers/number-of-farmers-in- us/](http://infomory.com/numbers/number-of-farmers-in-us/)

Not surprising that art is a bigger industry? Unsurprising, with ~40X the number of people involved, arts produced 4X the revenue.

<comment><USER6> Can an artist draw 1000 paintings like a farmer can (automatically) milk 1000 cows per day?

I am under the impression that farmers have automated pretty much everything that is automatizeable in their workflow. Artists still have to put pen to (virtual nowadays) paper and spend time on each and every piece of work. Same for other forms of art (be it furnitures or scupltures or animations and video).

So yeah, I don't think you can compare easily.

<comment><USER7> Andy Warhol had an art factory. More modern artists dabble with machine learning. It makes one wonder how we will value the art when we get to a case where an artists trained avatar lives on beyond them.

<comment><USER8> I'm working on this very thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The arts is s broad category dominated by radio, tv and the film industry, as well as books and music and such. It's not so much your artist in lofts and buskers on the street.

<comment><USER10> Absolutely. Music, acting, and story telling, etc have almost always fallen under the category of art. Is it always high art? Of course not, but I think most would still consider these things art.

<comment><USER11> How about news broadcasting then? The weather report?

<comment><USER10> I suppose if an artistic person broadcast the news in an artistic manner, sure, why not?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is disingenuous. They're comparing the entire entertainment industry to the manufacturing portion of the agriculture industry. If you include agriculture's entire impact after the manufacturing step, you'll find the retail and food services industry that arise from it contribute $5.75 trillion to the economy. [1] That dwarfs the arts and entertainment industries by several times.

[1] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/197569/annual-retail- and...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/197569/annual-retail-and-food- services-sales/)

<comment><USER13> And if you are going to add the entire food chain to agriculture then we will add the telcos and consumer electronics industries that depend on content consumption and the tertiary industries like advertising and marketing that draft off the economic engine of content delivery. I think that in the end it is going to be the case that arts and entertainment have a far larger footprint than food over the past few decades.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Unfortunately everything that comes on top of your mind when you hear Art is probably at the end of list. Entertainment and Media are dominant.

<comment><USER15> I don't think it's unfortunate that oil paintings don't generate much money. Hopefully books would be at least halfway up the list though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It would be more honest to use "Entertainment"

<comment><USER17> Yes, a lot of movies or video games block busters, no matter how pretty they are, are closer to a rollercoaster than to a van gogh painting.

Indeed, you may have a lot of fun in the rollercoaster, and it may be aesthetically pleasing, but it's not made with an artistic intent as much as a desire to make the audience feel good and spend money.

You can call anything "art", so it's not like we can state precisely what fall out of the category. Plus I think the intent make things clearer: do you create music for the music, or do you reuse a well known working formula hopping to sell a lot of air time ?

You can mix both, of course. But when ROI is measure by those producing the thing, it's more a product than a piece of art.

<comment><USER18> That's not art?

The whole point of art is to make _someone_ feel _something_. And a big part of getting people to feel is playing on familiarity - for example, how much rock music can be traced directly or indirectly to Chuck Berry? Almost every guitarist has been affected by him. We all mine Chuck Berry riffs, and thus the audience can latch on to our original music and have a spark of recognition.

Product "or" art? It's not either/or.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why compare a broad category like arts with narrow category like agriculture?

Why not compare something general like arts and with something general like food? Could it be because the contribution of the food industry dwarfs the arts industry? Or compare something specific like "instrument market" with something specific like agriculture?

Also, isn't contribution defined by how we arbitrarily choose to measure it? Do we ( or should we ) assign the value or portion of the value of the goods transported to the transportation system?

</comment><comment><USER20> My initial thoughts were: _Such is the fate of efficient economies (like the US) that have effectively turned farming and logostics into specialized utilities_

Quickly followed by: _Try enjoying your arts and entertainment when you are hungry and have to walk to the venues._

</comment><comment><USER21> More information here: [https://www.arts.gov/news/2018/arts-contribute- more-760-bill...](https://www.arts.gov/news/2018/arts-contribute- more-760-billion-us-economy)

There is a lot that's classified as art here, and rightfully so. Film, TV, Broadway, music, photography, art schools, sculpture, jewelry, architecture, musical instruments...

</comment><comment><USER22> If 2% of the workforce is comprised of artists, would it suffice to cap student loans to art majors at 3% or 4% of the student population?

At what point does a student loan become unviable to the lender, given real world statistics? Why isn't it a factor in actual loan issuance. Further, why is there massive rhetoric around student loan forgiveness, if the economy has no need for certain professions beyond a threshold (which is apparently 2% for arts). Do we want to educate people in certain majors on tax dollars, when the labor market has no demand for it?

Also, do we want to encourage kids going into degrees, without a thorough cost:benefit analysis of what they are getting into?

<comment><USER23> >Also, do we want to encourage kids going into degrees, without a thorough cost:benefit analysis of what they are getting into?

They do

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Who spends more money on art/entertainment than groceries?

<comment><USER25> They mention agriculture, not groceries.

Farmers don't get paid anywhere near the retail price. And that's excluding all the processed food where the farmers get even less as a proportion.

<comment><USER24> They mention broadcasting, art-related retail, and several other things associated with facilitating trade instead of creation.

If you include art galleries and bookstores, you should include restaurants and grocery stores right?

The USDA has a chart of household expenditures: food=13%, transportation=16%, entertainment+alcohol=6.2%

[https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/Charts/58275/agfood- sector_...](https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/Charts/58275/agfood- sector_fig02-002-fw_350px.png?v=8130.7)

Looks like the NEA and the USDA are making reports that make their own sector shine. One talking about household expenditures, the other GDP "contribution". I know I could not convince anyone (or myself) of the significance of the different measurements, but when it comes to "X is bigger than Y", the takeaway for the average reader, the headline and report ring false.

<comment><USER25> "Looks like the NEA and the USDA are making reports that make their own sector shine"

Probably, you didn't point to a conflicting source, so I was just going from the article.

One thing you didn't account for is balance of trade. Art in the NEA definition is probably a net exporter. Food probably not? (you can export raw materials, and you can export the brand. As a non American though, my big mac has never seen America, so I really don't know how that would feed through to those figures). Agriculture also attracts subsidies, that _could_ account for the disparity, although it could increase the disparity so I don't know.

Long story short, the figures don't necessarily contradict each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This article is making an argument that because broadcast TV, film generate billions of dollars, that the government should continue to fund the NEA. Is there anybody who believes that if the NEA was completely defunded that it would cause the output of broadcast TV or film to go down? This is like arguing that government should subsidize yoga instructors because healthcare is such a huge part of the economy, and yoga is part of the healthcare industry.

</comment><comment><USER27> If you added up all the contributions different sectors claim to be making to the economy you would probably end up with a GDP that's 50 times as much as it really is.

</comment><comment><USER28> I can't tell if they included video games / interactive entertainment in this. If they didn't, it would be an even bigger figure.

There is a huge bias against the entertainment industry in a lot of America. On Fox, if they use Hollywood as an adjective it is a pejorative. Meanwhile our culture exports are the envy of the rest of the world, who subsidize and protect hoping to catch up.

</comment><comment><USER29> there is a very broad definition of the arts here. It's really the entertainment industry:

>But the largest economic impact nationwide came from the usual suspects: broadcasting, which generated $127 billion in economic activity; followed by the motion-picture industry, which accounted for $99 billion; and non-digital publishing, with $77 billion of economic activity. The "arts-related retail trade"—which includes everything from art galleries to book stores—generated $51 million in 2015. But the arts-related retail trade employed 767,000 people to "provide arts and cultural goods and services," making it the second- highest-employing industry in the arts and culture sector.

</comment><comment><USER11> I've always suspected that CNN is a work of art...

</comment><comment><USER30> How have they narrowed down billions generated down to 1/10 of a billion or $0.6B, when what the definition or "art" is not set in stone?

</comment><comment><USER31> Does this include TSA inspections at airports?

<comment><USER32> The art of wasting time and money?

<comment><USER31> Security theatre -- participatory performance art!

<comment><USER33> Interpretive Dance! We interpret the constitution as not applying!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Can't really compare the three fields: transportation is key to everything, people need to go to where they generate revenue. So does merchandise. Agriculture, can't eat a painting, can we? Nor can we use the art money to buy wheat from Russia long term.

so apples and oranges.

<comment><USER35> Exactly, you have to have transport and agriculture to enable that level of art. Likewise, tourism, education, construction. It is really a meaningless comparison in one sense. But it does make sense in terms of things like trade disputes: why put tariffs on ordinary steel/aluminum to prop up an inefficient and undercapitalized industry, when that imposes massive costs on a much bigger industry like construction? Or alternatively, one should look at the linkages between industries, and see what the choke points are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Hacker News visitors don't seem enthused by this

<comment><USER37> I really don't understand why. The point of the article is to simply convey that "art" is a larger part of the economy than many people realize, and that maybe we should think twice about cutting funding for the NEA. Not sure why that makes everyone so defensive here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Without reading the article, gonna go ahead and guess this is largely TV, movies, and video games. Do ads and marketing count as art?

</comment><comment><USER38> Gosh, if it's such a vibrant economic sector, maybe it doesn't need a government subsidy.

<comment><AUTHOR> you say "subsidy" I say "investment"...

Generally you want to keep investing in things that make you money.

<comment><USER38> The NEA spends 1 out of every 5 dollars on its own bureaucracy, rather than art. Is the NEA good enough at 'investing' that they can justify a 20% management fee? That's laughable.

Nobody seems to appreciate the central contradiction in the argument of this article. People can apparently 'invest' their money in the arts without any guidance from Washington, so why not return the 150M budget of the NEA to the apparently art-loving public and let them allocate it as they see fit?

<comment><AUTHOR> People can invest their money in science and technology... Why do we need the government to invest in that? See how silly that argument sounds...

<comment><USER38> It doesn't sound silly at all?

The NIH is pretty poor at allocating research funds, and extremely bloated. The grant application process is kafkaesque, to the point where most investigators must hire an FTE just to deal with NIH paperwork.

Private foundations (e.g. HHMI, Wellcome Trust) already do a much better job. There's less overhead, less make-work for beauracrats, and overall higher- quality science.

I don't have first-hand knowledge of other disciplines, but I doubt that it's much different. Certainly SpaceX, Blue Origin, Orbital ATK have moved from design to implementation faster than NASA with the SLS (where 3 of every 4 dollars are spent on overhead).

<comment><AUTHOR> Without NASA I think it's fair to say none of those companies (e.g. SpaceX, Blue Origin) would exist.

I could write an essay on the momentous achievements made by agencies you've listed, and the private sector industries they've generated.

<comment><USER38> Of course SpaceX and Blue Origin, etc. are working off of pre-existing rocket technology -- that's why I'm comparing to the SLS (which was supposed to be assembled out of mostly existing space shuttle parts).

I don't think it's obvious that NASA was required to create commercialized space. One could just as easily write an essay on the momentous achievements made by private industry and philanthropic foundations.

I dare you to write an essay on the momentous achievements of the NEA and the private sector industries it has generated.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Everyone I know is broken hearted - <AUTHOR> http://zenarchery.com/2014/08/everyone-i-know-is-brokenhearted

<comment><USER2> I'd recommend reading "Escape From Reason" by Francis Schaeffer. Even if you don't buy his conclusions, it gives a very insightful look at where we are and how we got here.</comment>


FBI in talks with Apple, Google over device encryption policies - <AUTHOR> http://9to5mac.com/2014/09/25/fbi-apple-privacy-encryption/

<comment><USER2> what's (not) shocking is the double-speak. "i believe that nobody is above the law" when that's not been the case for quite a while. additionally, use that as a case against apple and google touting encryption is an insult to the collective intelligence of the populace. it's because there is demonstrable evidence that the fbi/cia/other organizations are acting outside the jurisdiction of the law that citizens are "protecting themselves." not to start a flame war here (or a red herring, and if it is then let me know), but this sort of self protection seems to have been the impetus behind the bill of rights, in general. it's the right to protect one's self from the overreaching of government.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was afraid this would happen. Either they will back down on these policies, or worse, they will make the moves to make FBI happy behind the curtain, while promising everyone they still made the changes to protect your privacy.</comment>


Humble Indie Bundle 9 released - <AUTHOR> https://www.humblebundle.com/#9

<comment><USER2> I've slowly been transitioning to Linux-only gaming, because the whole reboot- into-Windows just to play is a pretty steep bar. (Steeper than it even sounds in practice, as now, basically, every time I boot into Windows I have to spend about 10 minutes updating the damn thing, because I don't do it often enough; this has become a vicious cycle.) This bundle is _great_ for that, with all the Linux debuts.

Linux gaming is still young, but it's picking up surprisingly quickly, really. I describe Netflix streaming as: "If you ask 'Does it have X?', the answer is no. But if you ask, 'Is there something I want to watch?', the answer is yes." Linux gaming is getting there, slowly but surely, at least if you can deal with Indie stuff. (And no hipster intended, but Indie stuff has come a _long_ way in the last couple of years. There's a _lot_ of stuff there that would have been at least A-grade, if not necessarily AAA, only five years ago.)

<comment><USER3> I have also been doing more gaming in Linux recently. I only have a windows partition for Starcraft 2 and League of Legends. If blizzard ever gets on board the linux bandwagon, I won't need a windows partition :-D.

<comment><USER4> SC2 works perfectly fine on Gnu/Linux with wine. [http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId...](http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=20882)

I don't know about LoL but you might want to give SC2 a try on wine if you haven't already.

<comment><USER5> I found that I got pthread protection problems, but other than that SC2 worked great.

No idea how well LoL works under wine, but DotA 2 has a native linux client. Just saying! :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why does every bundle get upvoted to the top every time? I love Humble Bundle, I have bought a majority of the ones they release - but this is no longer news, it's their business model. If they were doing something new (like the introduction of the eBook or comedy bundle) then I can see it being interesting. Now it's no different then if every new AirBNB listing were upvoted to the front page.

<comment><USER7> They're rare enough to be notable, and they promote Linux (usually) and charity. Why not?

<comment><USER8> They're every week.

<comment><USER9> They have a weekly sale, but the HIB is more rare. They're up to 9 and they started in May 2010, so... every few months rather than weekly. I don't mind that getting upvoted if the games are good.

FTL and Fez are real damn good.

<comment><USER6> Of the numbered main ones - but the problem is all of them get posted here - the THQ, FrozenByte, Origin etc bundles... They are far more frequent then you think: [https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=humble...](https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=humble+bundle&sortby=create_ts+desc&start=0)

<comment><USER10> As the guy who submitted the front-paged link to the Origin bundle, I thought it was interesting because it was a significant departure from the usual Humble Bundle fare and perceived ethos.

Submitting every bundle that's offered, however, is just annoying. They have a mailing list for a that.

<comment><USER11> You must have missed the THQ Bundle, which was the start of their whole ethos departure, IIRC.

<comment><USER10> Perhaps it's just my personal feelings towards the relevant companies but I felt like it was a totally different affair than the Origin bundle, though you are right that it was different from the original ethos.

The main similarity to the Origin bundle was that only DRM-full copies were available and, again, this was definitely a departure.

On the other hand, while THQ was technically a AAA developer/publisher as well, by that point it was largely an in-name-only sort of deal. The THQ bundle was (or at least looked to be; I don't know if there's a definite official word on it) a last ditch effort to save a well-liked company from bankruptcy. Maybe trying to prop up a large company is not quite in the same vein as trying to support a tiny company but I personally felt like the spirit was mostly intact.

The Origin bundle, on the other hand, was a different beast. EA is a large, _stable_ company and has a strong reputation for being anti-consumer. They also only provided DRM-full games in the Bundle but most of the games were only available on a service used by fewer people. And, for that matter, that seemed to be the entire point of the bundle: actually get people to use Origin. As much as I hate to say this phrase, the Origin bundle definitely felt like the HB guys selling out.

<comment><USER7> The Origin bundle was entirely for charity, though. Kind of hard to consider it "selling out." AND EA let them post Steam keys for some of the games, even though the whole point of the bundle was to promote Origin.

I'm not happy about them not having Linux games, but it's hard to really feel bad about buying that bundle. At least for me.

<comment><USER10> It would be one thing if it felt like EA had decided they wanted to do a charity event out of the goodness of their heart or at least like the charity was the point of it. As was, it felt more like EA didn't think they could get away with positive PR by actually making money directly from the Humble Bundle but they didn't particularly care since their point was getting buy-in.

I don't mean to say anybody should feel bad about buying it--I don't think they should feel bad even if EA had gotten all the profits--but backing EA's attempt to get market share does feel like a major shift for Humble Bundle.

<comment><USER12> I'm happy to read that you're complaining about the Humble Bundle's attempt get EA market share. That's as if someone were to complain about Orval trying to get Anheuser-Bush Inbev market share because their lead brewer once said he would buy a Budweiser.

<comment><USER10> First, if you think I'm complaining you may be misreading. I'm explaining the difference in perceived ethos but I have no problem with HB at all.

Second, I think you already realise that your analogy is only analogous in that there's a multi-billion dollar company and a much smaller company are both involved.

For example, AB InBev makes up half of the US beer sales with Budweiser and Bud Light being the top two US beers and the Budweiser family is the best selling worldwide. On the other hand, while Valve doesn't release many numbers, it's estimated that Steam has a strong majority of the PC game digital distribution market and Origin's market share is, obviously, lagging far behind.

Also, it doesn't take into account the vast difference between Origin and Budweiser. Origin exists to sell you other products and you have to use the service in order for this to happen. It is difficult to overcome the initial user inertia to get them to join and install the service and to keep it running on their system so that things can be further pushed on them. Once this inertia is overcome there is very little extra resistance to using the service to purchase games. This inertia is also increased because the market of people who would use a DRM-full digital distribution service is not at rest but is rather largely moving along happily with another service. By offering a significant discount on popular games if you start using their service they could convince people to get and run Origin giving them that initial hook.

Further, the Humble Bundle was creating an opportunity to have a significant effect on their user numbers. At 50,000,000 users in July, even if only half of the bundle purchasers were new Origin users, that's an extra 2% of people using their service, and they created positive exposure to many more that may have also joined or may be more inclined to join in the future.

And, finally, I don't think HB was attempting to get EA market share at all. EA was trying to increase Origin market share; Humble Bundle was trying to grow their own service and make some money. (People keep saying the Origin Bundle was "all for charity" or whatever, but don't forget that sending a portion of the money to Humble Bundle was an option that I'm sure some people chose, if only by default.) Again, I don't fault HB for this but it is a noteworthy difference from their prior operations.

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the additional thoughts. I'm not arguing with you. I genuinely appreciate that Humble Bundle is being compared to EA. I think their distribution model is a huge improvement to EA's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Faster Than Light is a great game. Worth more than the average price by itself.

<comment><USER14> Indeed, it's a simple and challenging little sucker, too. But a word of warning: It will make you feel like you're doing well for a while, then curbstomp you with zero warning. There's no saving/loading, and if you die, you start back at square 1.

It definitely feels awesome if/when you finally beat it, but be careful with this game if you tend to throw things when angered.

<comment><USER15> You have to approach it as a roguelike, which does the same thing to you (way more deaths than successes).

But I loved it. Played it many many times, but only won it twice I believe.

For some of the unlockables I'd recommend looking at a walkthrough; for one of them at least I believe I decided to not pursue it since it would require too much random chance hitting all the right spots in the right order.

<comment><USER16> You totally can get good at it, it's a skill like any other. I've won like 40 games out of 200 or so, and I'd say that I win about half of my games I decide to play past the first sector.

You just have to have a good feel for progression. Always fight as many ships as possible, and only leave the sector when the rebel fleet is riding your ass. Know which weapons, events, and upgrades are good, and roughly what order in which to get them.

I have played over 100 hours of FTL. Help me.

<comment><USER17> I was often in the situation that I fought every enemy but either didn't have enough cash or the available weapons were pure crap and I couldn't progress much further, because I didn't have the equipment.

Since that happened way too often and I hate it if my success depends on dumb luck of weapon "drops", I don't play anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> You can buy this for Mark of the Ninja alone - it is gameplay-wise really great and a very artistic game.

<comment><USER19> It's a very, very memorable game, but what do you think about replayability? I can't really bring myself to play it again.

<comment><USER20> There are so many games being released that I appreciate a game that I can play through in 10-20 hours and then put aside. Speaking of Mark of the Ninja specifically, I thought new game plus mode was fun because you can use abilities unlocked later in the game in the early levels, and there's a DLC coming soon.

<comment><USER21> Are you talking about the Special Edition DLC? It's already out: [http://store.steampowered.com/app/239570/](http://store.steampowered.com/app/239570/)

Hopefully it will be included in the bundle as the week progresses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Rumour has it that Monaco is one of the games that is yet to be revealed in this bundle.

[http://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/monaco-whats-his- will-...](http://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/monaco-whats-his-will-be-ours- interview.2241)

Monaco's an excellent team-based heist game.

<comment><USER22> It's not a rumor anymore, Andy has announced it officially on the 24th of July.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> FEZ! Awesome! I've been waiting for this game for so long.

<comment><USER24> I'm probably the last person on HN who hadn't seen 'Indie Game: The Movie' but an entire third or fourth of it is about the development of Fez by Phil Fish.

That said, I wish Fish would make a second Fez and just not say a word about it until it's maybe a month out. He'd still get hype and sell a ton of game without people pissing him off.

<comment><USER22> The only thing I don't like about FEZ is his creator. And the "Indie Game: The Movie" just reinforced that impression. What a douche.

<comment><USER5> I don't see where all the hate comes from myself. Mind explaining your position?

<comment><USER22> The way Phil talks, the way he shits on japanese games (saying they are crap) , and his behavior very much alike to a spoiled brat. I have no sympathy for him and I strongly feel he should be way more humble about himself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I too love this bundle. Pretty awesome that the three charities are Watsi, Child's Play, and EFF.

The games are all very distinct from each other and top notch. My three favorites:

Fez: a perspective-altering puzzle platformer. It's cute, clever, and well designed.

FTL: a real-time starship crew management game, where you assign people to stations and target your opponent's systems. You fly through randomly generated galaxies and have random encounters. Super replayability.

Mark of the Ninja: a stealth-action ninja platformer with very high production values and multiple paths to victory.

<comment><USER26> FTL has a fantastic soundtrack with a chill, electronic sound. Great coding music.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I keep buying these and never have time to play any of the games. I guess I'm doing it for altruistic reasons, as I love the whole philosophy behind the business model.

<comment><USER28> I'm in the same boat, and like you it never stops me from buying the next one. Like you, I'm trying to support the thing as a whole (Humble, the devs, and the charities), but the side benefit is that if I'm ever bored I have a whole cache of really awesome games I can download at a moment's notice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Oh cool, Watsi is one of the charities that the funds are being shared with. Gaming for medicine!

</comment><comment><USER30> All the games support Linux this time! Really looking forward to playing Fez and FTL.

</comment><comment><USER31> Mark of the Ninja is an awesome game, well worth whatever you chose to pay for a bundle.

</comment><comment><USER32> Gotta say I'm really impressed with the Humble Bundles. I buy most of them, and still can't believe how cheap they are, assuming you get in early.

Their "unlock more products by paying more than the average" is sheer genius. Most people will pay just a hair over the average, which causes the price to creep up as the bundle gets older. So to get the best deal, you have to buy in early.

I don't know of any other bundle products out there (MacHeist, MacLegion, Paddle, etc) that even comes close anymore.

<comment><USER33> > So to get the best deal, you have to buy in early.

Thanks for the advice. I wouldn't want to give any more to the EFF, Child's Play, or Watsi than I absolutely have to.

OK, apologies for the sarcasm, but, well— advice on how to pay as little money as possible, while usually great, strikes me as being in poor taste when the money is going to charity (and/or the indie developers, in whatever proportions you specify).

<comment><USER34> I don't think he was saying you should pay less. I think it was just an observation that people are compelled to pay now rather than put it off later, because they know the price will rise, which in turn will actually cause the price to rise for the next person. I think he was just observing that it's a smart system that both compels more people to put their money down, and slowly raises the price at the same time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If you are interested in chilled thoughtful gaming and have a faible for SciFi ala Star-Trek and Co. you MUST try FTL. It is one of the best games I have ever played and I do not know another game that is similar. It is easy to learn and hard to master and although it is Single-Player it has an immense replay potential.

</comment><comment><USER36> Fantastic selection! I love these bundles because the games are always great and the included soundtracks are a pleasure to listen to while coding.

</comment><comment><USER37> At last - Trine 2 is DRM free.

<comment><USER38> Huh? I got it back in April from the official site, I believe, and it was DRM- free.

<comment><USER37> Was it? May be I missed that.

UPDATE: I actually bought it for the Linux version now, and I had no idea it became DRM free earlier. In the past it was DRMed. HB writes however:

 _> Trine 2: Complete Story is making its DRM-free Windows and Mac debut!_

<comment><USER38> Yeah, now that I think back on it, Trine 2 had been out for some time by the time I got it through the Humble Store, which was what Frozenbyte used to sell the game outside of Steam and other DRM'ed distribution channels.

And I just got it again, apparently. Not sure what the 'Complete Story' edition is all about, but hey, more content can't be bad.

<comment><USER39> (I haven't gotten Trine 2 before, so this may not be correct) The HIB9 includes a Trine 2 Complete Edition ebook, maybe that's what makes the 'Complete Story'?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> In case FEZ is grey on your Mac, @flibitijibibo already fixed it. The second binary works for me: [https://getsatisfaction.com/polytron/topics/humble_bundle_ma...](https://getsatisfaction.com/polytron/topics/humble_bundle_mac_osx_mountain_lion_bugs_everywhere)

</comment><comment><USER41> I bought Alienware X51 with Ubuntu (it's preinstalled in US-Region) and love this indiegames. They (most) work very good. I don't need Windows to gaming. Steam, Humble Bundle and WINE for older games. C&C Red Alert works better with WINE than >Windows XP.

</comment><comment><USER42> Trying to buy with credit card, and get a message from Stripe saying "you passed an empty string for iovation_blackbox", as if that means something to me.

EDIT: Nevermind, just had to pause Ghostery. Not sure what script was messing it up.

<comment><USER43> Sorry about that! Has to do with some anti-fraud tools we've built into Stripe Checkout. Should be fixed now, so you shouldn't see that again, Ghostery or no. Feel free to let me know (firstname.lastname@example.com) if you (or anyone) still sees it.

<comment><USER44> Gotta say, no one's kidding when they say Stripe's super responsive to respond, unlike a certain "Pal that doesn't pay!".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Holy cow, this one is diamonds.

<comment><USER46> Yep, the best one yet, IMO. A stunning selection.

The only trouble is I already own all of them. :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> This is great! Bought it but paid less than I should have. Broke at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER48> I already picked up brutal legends from steam for 5usd a few weeks ago. The sad part is that I can't deal with the camera controls very well while driving.

</comment><comment><USER49> Mark of the Ninja looks amazing, buying when I got home.

</comment><comment><USER50> Holy...moly. As a Mac gamer, I've been waiting forever for Mark of the Ninja and Fez. AFAIK, they've not yet been previously released, so is this an exclusive for Humble Bundle? If so, what a huge scoop. If I were those developers, I would've hawked the games on Steam for a couple of weeks...as Mac fans like me would've happily paid full price.

edit: The average purchase so far is $4.37...seriously? Given the caliber of games included, and that this is the first bundle (I think) since the Edward Snowden revelations, this is a great excuse to give a large donation to the EFF.

<comment><USER51> This is the first game indie game bundle; they've been branching out. (The previous bundle was a bunch of standup comedy videos, actually.)

But I completely agree. In fact, in the wake of Snowden, I made a mental note to pay extra attention to the next Humble Bundle charity split. I was planning to send it all directly to the EFF, but now I've realized that I can't just stiff everyone else. In the end, I paid double my usual amount.

<comment><USER52> > This is the first game indie game bundle

Are you talking about Humble Bundle? The first few Humble Bundles were all indie games.

<comment><USER53> I believe they're talking about the post-Snowden bundles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> No other mention of Trine on here yet. That game looks so beautiful. I'm however having trouble understanding the steam key thing. I put my key into steam but my games aren't there to download. Oh well. Downloading Amnesia a Machine for Pigs right now anyway. That wasn't part of this bundle, but happened to release yesterday so I've got games in the queue before having to worry about this bundle just yet.

</comment><comment><USER55> I am super impressed with the slider to choose what money goes where. Very cool.

</comment><comment><USER7> All the games have separate Steam keys, too. Sweet!</comment>


Uber accuses Ola of making false bookings on its platform - <AUTHOR> http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2016-03-23/news/71758823_1_uber-officials-indian-taxi-market-ola <comment><USER2> So in other words, what Uber did to Lyft?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup. Ola might have even got the idea from Uber.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does anyone know what New Jersey is running COBOL apps on? - <AUTHOR> Recently the governor of New Jersey mentioned they needed volunteers to maintain their systems written in COBOL. Since COBOL runs on just about anything that was built after the 60's, from computers less powerful than my analog watch all the way to the newest IBM z15 monster, I'm curious about what they are doing and why are those systems a problem. <comment><USER2> I don't know for specific but they did point out in a couple of the articles that they are running on old mainframes. They say some are 40 years old, but it is unclear whether that is just the software or the hardware or both, wouldn't be unreasonable that it is both IME. Those old IBM machines run forever and generally as long as you keep paying IBM, they will keep supporting you. My guess is these are either the old IBM or HP/Compaq machines of the day, both were popular in government installations.

Many state and county governments still have active mainframe machines to this day and they are just as at risk as Nj is. Hell less than ten years ago I had a contract where we had to write EBCDIC files in batches for a as/400 at the county government to process overnight to update county records and we did that from a modern (at the time) web architecture with a SOA layer. We would take the output of the nightly batch processing and in-jest it to update our SQL database for the website every morning. Fun times.

<comment><AUTHOR> > wouldn't be unreasonable that it is both

Mainframes are well built, but not that well built. 40 years is a very long time for a machine to be running and for nobody to have made a transition plan.

OTOH, considering few politicians see beyond the end of their term, I would not be that much surprised why any such project would be axed until it becomes evident the thing will blow up during their terms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Just curious could they setup a modern website that takes in applications, then format them where they can be imported in to the legacy system?

Just to give them more reliable capacity to take in applications.</comment>


ConnectU: We're not through with Zuckerberg - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-9961058-36.html <comment><USER2> The CNET article, and the linked reference: [http://www.siliconvalley.com/latestheadlines/ci_9486529?ncli...](http://www.siliconvalley.com/latestheadlines/ci_9486529?nclick_check=1) really don't provide any meat.</comment>


Observations of Apple Open Source - <AUTHOR> https://ahyattdev.github.io/blog/2018/01/21/apple-open-source.html <comment><USER2> The weird terms on corecrypto don't surprise me too much. The article's description gives me the impression that Apple doesn't want people re-using the library's code directly (except, of course, by calling it), but Apple does want to allow the code to be examined for flaws.</comment>


Going From One Line of Code to $1M in Funding [infogr] - <AUTHOR> http://www.women2.com/how-to-raise-money-for-your-startup-infographic

<comment><USER2> Is monetization really considered an optional step in this process? I'm new to this whole hacker/entrepreneurship scene, but monetization seems like it should be a key step here.</comment>


The origin of littlelogs - <AUTHOR> http://blog.hellocode.co/post/littlelogs/

<comment><USER2> Hey thanks for sharing! Littlelogs creator here. Origin stories are always interesting I think, though there's not much that's exciting about this one.

<comment><AUTHOR> It was interesting for me Josh; A specialised internal talk, external window into product developent. That's how twitter sort of felt like when it started. A Re-invented .plan file.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hey Belle. I'm following your content marketing posts at Ghost blog. It's inspiring. Tks</comment>