Ask HN: Do you blog using wordpress? - <AUTHOR> My personal site is not much active but when I have something interesting I tend to post.
https://www.minvolai.com/blog I used to blog using wordpress in 2007. Then I migrated to static generator mynt and have been on this from atleast 5 years. Mynt is not so well maintained now and I plan to move to nikola, another static blog generator (written in python).
On the other hand, most of the web uses wordpress. So if I move back to wordpress, I believe I will have a better understanding of other people's workflows and issues. I do not mind keeping the installation up-to-date etc.
One thing that used to bug me when I was using wordpress, was embedding code snippets as a part of blog content. Wordpress would often replace embedded code symbols with html encodings , like ">" by "&gt;". It got really annoying to open every post where it happens and set it right manually.
So my questions are:
* Has anyone moved a programming blog from static blog generator to wordpress? How is the experience?
* Has anyone faced the code replacement situation recently and if so, how do you handle it? <comment><USER2> 1\. Wordpress has come light years in the past 2-3 years and allows for auto updating now

2\. I moved my site [https://kernelcurry.com](https://kernelcurry.com) from WordPress to a statistics site generator a few years ago and I LOVE IT!

If you are looking to have GitHub host and deal with scaling (for free) I say go for it! Jekyll, Hugo, etc... There are a thousand of them. If you just want to write posts and have people view them... Maybe even use a comment service (some of those are also free) then make the move...

But be warned it did take a few days me banging my head against a wall to understand all the nitty gritty BS that comes with these statistics Site Generators. -shrug- isn't that how it always goes?...</comment>


Human translation blackbox now has API - <AUTHOR> http://mygengo.com/services/api/

<comment><USER2> Smart move. On the wordpress side of things, integration of multi-language plugins with translation services has become standard: WPML ties into icanlocalize and qTranslate uses web-translations.com.

Sending translation jobs directly from the CRM (and getting it back in there with all formatting preserved) can save _a lot_ of time and money for long- tail multilingual sites.

The pricing of mygengo looks very competitive, icanlocalize comes in at $0.07/word (value) and web-translations around $.025 (professional).

<comment><USER3> (Disclosure: I'm CEO of myGengo)

I'd say the distinction we have over other services is that we offer a completely transparent solution - all our translators are tested and rated to ensure they meet a consistent quality standard, so you don't have to pick and choose them as you do with others.

So you can literally treat us like a machine, which hasn't been true when I've tested those other services (I got bombarded with emails from translators asking me to pick them for my jobs, which really annoyed me).

We think that's pretty compelling for developers, and makes us a much more scalable solution :)

<comment><USER4> Have you considered using machine translation to speed up the process? Tokenize > Machine Translation > Human Correction

<comment><USER5> I can translate most text faster than I can fix a machine translated text.

It is better to offer translators easy access to electronic dictionaries from within the translation window.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is one of my favorite startups and they're right here in Tokyo.

<comment><USER7> indeed. good to see great work coming out of Tokyo - it's a surprisingly small community here...

<comment><USER3> Small but we work damn hard :) And fewer distractions unless you count gyoza.

<comment><USER8> Isn't it difficult for a translator to work just based on text? I took a look at the job posting api and could only see space for a block of text.

When I wanted strings in my app to be translated, I included screenshots so that the translator would understand the context. Otherwise it might be impossible to guess what a very small string is supposed to represent.

For a while I was working as a manga translator, and in that case it would have been doubly important to see more context. Actually it probably wouldn't even work to split a translation task for multiple translators, since each might decide to translate something inconsistently. For example speaking style, naming of things etc.

This will probably work best for longer pieces of text like business text where you can easily guess the meaning without seeing any context and where you don't need to make decisions that might affect text that comes a hundred pages later.

This is a very interesting startup, if you want more gyoza distractions I'll be travelling in Tokyo until 3rd of May.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the comments!

The context problem is a continual issue with translation - but most of the time our customers handle it by adding comments to jobs.

We do allow you to attach comments to the job call - so you can add context there and also links to related material if required. We're considering adding an option to attach files too.

You can also group jobs together if you want them to be handled by a single translator - this obviously takes longer but makes sense for all-in-one projects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> That's pretty awesome for developers. The rates are really low for the translators, but I guess that is the sweet spot for simple content.

<comment><USER5> I beg to differ. As a translator, I can say the rates are fair, considering the simple content, the well designed job management system, and the reliable, fast paycheck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What other languages are you planning to offer? (Dropdown on translation form says more languages are coming soon)

<comment><USER3> Our focus is on Asian<>European language pairs. The next to appear will be Korean<>English, Korean<>Japanese, Chinese<>Japanese. But other European languages like Portuguese are coming soon too. A full roadmap is in the works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Great stuff, great for developers.</comment>


Ask HN: How much transparency should there be in a startup culture? - <AUTHOR>

When a company is in a growth phase (start-ups or expanding companies), how much transparency should there be?
How much transparency have some of you seen in your experience?
When I say transparency I refer to cash flow, operations, etc. as well as creating a corporate culture of mutual respect instead of a domineering hierarchy of leadership.
From my perspective I see growing companies having a need to be open and honest with their stakeholders since they're being asked to embed work into their lives to a much greater detail then usual.
Thoughts? <comment><USER2> What dimension of transparency you are talking about?

It sounds as if you are speaking about internal transparency between the founders and staff, as well as asking about the relationship between the startup and VC/investors. These are two very different things - Investors are going to have a pretty rigid set of expectations that will probably vary from firm to firm - there are probably also certain legal requirements that need to be fulfilled depending on how the startup is structured legally. I can't speak to that specifically because I'm not on the biz side.

Internally, my personal opinion is that a (traditional)startup is built with blood sweat and tears. You can't afford to have a hierarchy of haves and have- nots when it comes to buy in. Everybody needs to have a voice, and everyone needs to be enabled to invest emotionally in the process. You can't buy the kind of passion that comes from being personally invested in a company or project. Lack of transparency internally creates an economy of knowledge power, and puts up walls that don't need to be there. Of course, there are times when some specifics can't be common-knowledge, but I do believe that there should be a culture of openness at a basic level.

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely referring to internal transparency.

The area I work in rarely has companies that offer employees that emotional connection.

It's horrid when a company can have the upper-ups say the start-up is low on funds but afford a very affluent lifestyle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You should share everything but individual salaries.

If there's good or bad financial news, the best thing you can be doing is having public discussions about it.

If you're making decisions about the direction of the company, everyone should get to have their say (not that you have to be a democracy).

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks (:

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here's my basic maxim:

"Share as much as you can. Not as little as you must."

What matters most is not what you share, but how you share it.

For example, you can be transparent with bad news, but it's best to present that bad news as an opportunity or at worst a challenge to be overcome.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'll agree with the anecdote of sharing as much as possible, but be aware that if an employee has access to monthly revenue and a good idea of profit, you can't get away with paying less than market rate. Experience from being an employee at my last company. ;)</comment>


Ask HN: I am going into autopilot mode What do I do? - <AUTHOR> This may sound strange, but I have been going into autopilot mode quite frequently in recent months. What do I mean by "I am going in autopilot mode"? Well, I a software engineer. While thinking about a software solution to a problem, I struggle to come up with a solution and then all of a sudden "I" solve the problem without "me" realising how "I" reached at that solution! This has happend so many times that I thought I would ask here, how do I get out of this "autopilot mode"? <comment><USER2> For all we know, this is how everyone actually solves problems all the time, the difference being that when most people are asked how they solved a problem they confabulate something after the fact. If you want to gain this skill, perhaps you could consciously practice coming up with a story for how a solution could have been found after you do it. Maybe look at a book like Polya's How to Solve It and construct a sequence of hints like those in the book ("consider special cases", "solve a simpler problem", etc.) that could conceivably lead a less intuitive person to the answer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I was previously able to recreate the "path" of how I solved the problem. Recently it has been becoming difficult for me to recreate that path; it is as if like magic that I get solution with me being disconnected from the problem solving process. The feeling is like I become zombie with no awareness when solving a problem and something inside me takes over and does the work. And when the work is done I regain my humanness as if I become conscious again and there is in front of me the solution to the problem, and then I have to start thinking how did I get to this solution?

<comment><USER3> It could be "recognition" which is a more meaningful word for what is often called intuition or experience. You draw on the many patterns embedded in your mind from your growing experience to "recognise" the solution, and thus can't completely explain how you recognised the solution.

Analogous to the way that you recognise the face of a friend without being able to explain any set of logical steps you followed to perform that recognition. You brain matched input to a pattern.

<comment><USER3> (Could also be dissociation, or temporal lobe epilepsy or other problems.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well, even Ramanujan claimed that the Goddess of Namagiri use to give him mathematical solutions. You are in a good company!

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure you should want to. You have expanded your range of what you can solve by intuition (or just by "seeing" the answer). Rather than being a problem, this is part of your professional growth.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I'm not sure you should want to.

Then how would I be able to quickly solve the same problem the next time if I am not in control of the process?

<comment><USER5> Think about learning to drive a car. You come to an intersection, and you check _very carefully_ to make sure that there aren't any other cars moving in a way that you have to avoid. Then you proceed.

After a while, you don't drive that way. While you should still maintain caution, you just _see_ the other cars. You are now a _better_ driver, not a worse one.

In the same way, you grow as an engineer partly as you grow the number of situations that you can just "pattern match" on. It doesn't mean that your logic is somehow failing you! Instead, it means that when you see that situation, you "just know" how to solve it (typically, by seeing similar situations a few times). The logic still works for the situations you don't know how to "just see" the solution to.

If you're solving _all_ your problems on autopilot, it means you're ready to step up to harder problems.

And, a caveat. "Autopilot" can produce wrong results from time to time. It's worth taking a bit of time to think through whether the solution is actually right (the more important the problem, the more time is appropriate).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This sounds similar to the natural way your brain works and transitions between "diffuse" and "focus" modes (to use the jargon from Learning How To Learn). Highly recommend the course!

[https://www.coursera.org/lecture/learning-how-to- learn/intro...](https://www.coursera.org/lecture/learning-how-to- learn/introduction-to-the-focused-and-diffuse-modes-75EsZ)

</comment><comment><USER7> > how do I get out of this "autopilot mode"?

Take daily walks like Einstein > [http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170612-what-you-can- learn-...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170612-what-you-can-learn-from- einsteins-quirky-habits)

<comment><AUTHOR> I already walk for 1 hr everyday.</comment></comment>


Girls Around Me developer responds to criticism - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/03/31/girls-around-me-developer-defends-app-after-foursquare-dismissal/

<comment><AUTHOR> I may get a couple down votes for this, but I don't think the developer is doing anything wrong or creepy.

I was at a mall in Bangkok today and I opened up Foursquare today (the first time in a crowded venue for me). I scrolled thru, saw a female, and clicked thru to her Facebook profile.

Girls Around Me, while tacky, isn't that different. If I were a stalker it would be useless, I'd have to use the Foursquare app instead, because Girls Around Me doesn't let me follow individual users... _Foursquare does that._

I feel like this is just the app that is saying what everyone knows - <USER2> networking can easily be creepy.

Also - it was a lot easier in this mall to find girls by walking around and looking at them. I have a feeling if I were a predator this is probably what I'd do. The information about their location is in real time and they can't opt out or choose to make it visible to friends only. They're in public, and if they chose to share this info on Foursquare it's even more public.</comment>


Writing and WYSIWYG text editors. Medium vs CKEditor - <AUTHOR> http://webjit.su/blog/2013/09/14/writing-wysiwyg-text-editors-medium-vs-CKEditor/

<comment><USER2> either you have confused me, or it is _you_ who is confused.

i think it's the latter, but i'll see what other people say.

-bowerbird</comment>


DRAM errors in the wild: A Large-Scale Field Study at Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/sigmetrics09.pdf

<comment><USER2> nice. heh. my experience has been that ram errors correlate most closely to how careful you have been with your ESD precautions.</comment>


Ask HN: Svbtle or Medium? - <AUTHOR>

I am starting to blog and choosing between Svbtle or Medium, now that both are in GA. Which do you enjoy better and why? Does Medium's network distribution rival Svbtle's? Is Medium's platform advantages outweigh not having your own custom domain? <comment><USER2> I've been asking many ppl the same question. I would recommend considering how important authorship control vs content spreading. I've heard that Medium puts the author secondary and doesn't provide robust analytics. I haven't thoroughly tested Svbtle yet (about to). Ghost seems great but I don't want to host my own and debating if the price-point is worth it. I think it's great how much design innovation is going into the content creation process.

</comment><comment><USER3> Medium is much, much better than Svbtle, but keep in mind it'll be near- impossible to hit the HN front page on Medium.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why would it be near-impossible to hit the front page of HN?

<comment><USER3> medium.com is a penalized domain.

<comment><USER4> does anyone know why? I dont see why it should be so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wrote a blog post about this that you may find useful: [http://blog.binarybalance.com.au/2013/12/06/why-i'm-not- writ...](http://blog.binarybalance.com.au/2013/12/06/why-i'm-not-writing-on- svbtle)

<comment><USER6> Have you still not gotten a reply about this? I've been using svblte for a while and this post made me seriously reconsider.

I would try medium but I really don't like the design.

<comment><USER5> Still no reply from svbtle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You might want to consider to add Ghost to the list of considerations as well. In terms of UX it's close to both Svbtle and Medium, but you get to keep your own data.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ghost is very intriguing, but I prefer a hosted, zero-administration platform. Perhaps there are Ghost-as-a-service providers that I'm not aware of?

<comment><USER8> Ghost does provide this already. It doesn't do a very good job advertising this.

[https://ghost.org/pricing/](https://ghost.org/pricing/)

<comment><USER9> Ghost doesn't do a very good job of advertising their download page either. Here it is in case anyone was looking for it:

[https://ghost.org/download/](https://ghost.org/download/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


German government wants 'backdoor' access to every digital device: report - <AUTHOR> https://www.thelocal.de/20171201/german-government-wants-backdoor-access-to-every-digital-device-report <comment><USER2> Thomas de Maizière wants that.

The guy says unconstitutional shit like this every other week. It'll be shot down by our supreme court for sure, if it's even taken into consideration in the first place.

<comment><USER3> Its like this guy never heard of the DDR and the Stazi.

<comment><USER4> I'm sure _he 's_ heard of them. The question is, have the voters who elected him?

<comment><USER2> He's not directly elected. Merkel appointed him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Coming soon: a proposal to hold the government responsible for every breach of data that occurs because they corruptly assigned some contract to an irresponsible third party or hired a minimum wage cop who decided surveillance power's main use is to prove that you really do secretly love him [1]. And of course for selling your private photos. [2]

Wait. Nope, no way in hell the government is responsible for those things [2] (even ignoring the fact that the government internally knows about thousands of abuse of surveillance data cases as the AP points out and I was able to find 2 references to cases about such abuse, neither held the government responsible for anything (and neither was filed by the government). However they do make clear that government cares _deeply_ that cops not be punished for abusing surveillance systems)

[1] [https://www.computerworld.com/article/3124641/security/cops-...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/3124641/security/cops- run-unauthorized-searches-on-confidential-databases-for-revenge-stalking.html)

[2] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh- conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh- conspiracy/wp/2015/08/26/ninth-circuit-overturns-cfaa-verdicts-for-misusing- databases/)

</comment><comment><USER6> When I see a story where representative democracy is failing to serve the people, I can't help but remember that this form of democracy was invented before we had the Internet.

The Internet should be used to fix its deficiencies. Change.org clearly isn't enough.

Digital democracy, even with 10% fraudsters, would be better than representative democracy by a large margin.

<comment><USER7> The theoretical advantage of representative democracy is that the average voter doesn't have the time or knowledge to make decisions on the vast majority of issues, while an elected representative can spend 100% of their time ensuring they make the decision that benefits their constituents.

That, plus it's actually _really_ hard to write a law.

I agree that representative democracies as we see them implemented have serious issues but I don't think it's viable to replace it with direct democracy, digital or not. Imagine if America was a direct democracy, the country would be a flaming wreck by now.

<comment><USER6> "the average voter doesn't have the time or knowledge to make decisions"

That's condescendent, and openly anti-democratic. The time argument is the worse of the two: "people don't bother with making decisions, so let's make decisions for them". Really?

"elected representative can spend 100% of their time ensuring they make the decision that benefits their constituents"... "could" instead of "can" would be more appropriate. That's an hypothesis.

"it's actually _really_ hard to write a law": to me it seems there are too many laws anyway, so let's make it easier. No prejudice? no law. Less freedom for the People? no law. How many laws would become obsolete?

"representative democracies as we see them implemented have serious issues": if representative democracies were working on those issues, we wouldn't have this discussion.

"Imagine if America was a direct democracy, the country would be a flaming wreck by now"...

America once was a flaming wreck... then a great country emerged. Sounds a lot like FUD.

<comment><USER7> > That's condescendent

Really? In the wake of the GFC, which bills would _you_ have voted for and why?

> and openly anti-democratic

No, it's realistic. Lawmakers needs to make decisions on a _huge_ variety of issues and people with full time jobs simply _cannot_ become familiar enough with all these issues to make an educated decision about which option is in their best interests.

Unless you're suggesting people stop working, I don't think there's anything we can do.

> to me it seems there are too many laws anyway, so let's make it easier

How? The only way I can see is to make the language required to write them less precise, which opens them for more interpretation by the judicial branch. Are you okay with putting more of the country in the hands of the courts?

> No prejudice? no law. Less freedom for the People? no law.

Guarantees like this are the purpose of the constitution. I don't think "Less freedom for the People" is viable anyhow as laws inherently reduce freedom.

> if representative democracies were working on those issues

There are representative democracies that don't have the issues we see in others. Representative democracy isn't the problem. Things like electoral systems and corruption are the bigger problems.

> America once was a flaming wreck... then a great country emerged.

Not coincidentally, the "great country" (as a non-American living in America, I find this hilarious) was a representative democracy.

<comment><USER6> "Really? In the wake of the GFC, which bills would _you_ have voted for and why?": I'd have chosen a plan, maybe not "save the banks who caused all of this", but that's only me. In democracy, you learn to accept the choice of your fellow citizens (rather than the choice of an out-of-this-world elite).

I don't suggest we should remove all law-makers, but most decision-makers. That's a huge difference.

"more interpretation by the judicial branch": how is it a bad thing? A judge who doesn't judge but applies an algorithm instead isn't a judge to me. Funny enough, a jury is still chosen among the people, but they have to judge respect of the law, not facts, and the law is so tight (over-constrained) there's no room for judgement.

"No prejudice? no law"... "Guarantees like this are the purpose of the constitution"

The original purpose of the constitution? probably. Is it working? No, in a great extent. A "no prejudice no law" would forbid surveillance of the whole people.

"Less freedom for the People? no law": read it in the context of prejudice. Prejudice is what makes law necessary because it must be repaired, punished, and the people protected... from an individual who has caused prejudice. We could abolish most laws and there wouldn't be more prejudice, because many laws don't protect from prejudice. Lots of laws try to avoid potential prejudice (eg. drug laws to protect order) and cause more pain than gain (war on drugs! a war doesn't protect order, it causes chaos).

As long as you pay people to write new laws, guess what: they write new laws, more is better for them. Then law become complex, people dodge it, then you write new laws and people dodge them... Then a guy gets out of prison because a fax-machine ran out of paper which compromised the procedure. This is caused by too many laws, and judges who don't judge but are tasked to merely apply the law.

"There are representative democracies that don't have the issues we see in others": the Swiss are a striking example of more direct democracy... but yet, the internet would allow us to go much further. See how people are passionate about change.org, even if there's no guarantee of any effect? Imagine if their opinion did count!!!

"the "great country" (as a non-American living in America, I find this hilarious) was a representative democracy". I'm a non-american living abroad, but I keep in mind what America once was (my phrasing wasn't clear about the "once was" point). It's still a great country, but it's less and less free and less an less great. Hence a bit of nostalgia. If the USA falls to more government control, more enslavement of the people, less freedom, then a star goes dark... and the USA is no more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I bet in a few years most countries will simply follow China and make it illegal not to own/use "closed" devices that are not accessible for the government. 1984 was harmless compared to what is already here and what is coming.

<comment><USER9> _FYI man, alright. You could sit at home, and do like absolutely nothing, and your name goes through like 17 computers a day. 1984? Yeah right, man. That 's a typo. Orwell is here now. He's livin' large. We have no names, man. No names. We are nameless!_

<comment><USER10> Can I score a fry?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Germans will be safe for a good few years yet. Their government will only be able to do this when everyone who lived under the Stasi dies and can no longer vote.

</comment><comment><USER12> Proposing such a drastic law should somehow be not so easy to do. Sure, this proposal won't go through as is but what ever "weaker version" of it will come in a few months will therefore sound much more sensible and might go through.. these "tactics" make me really angry..

</comment><comment><USER13> Folks, don't despair; always look at the bright side. They're still years away from backdoor access to every German person!

</comment><comment><USER14> Never expected this from Germany.But we should wait to see if this is really considered by the governament as viable or not.

<comment><USER15> The good thing about Germany is that there is a healthy separation of powers and the Constitutional Court will never allow this, not even coming from the executive. If that step fails, there is still the German people who would never allow this to get approved.

Or at least this is my intuition of what will possibly happen.

<comment><USER16> Bet ob the court because german people has been quite toothless in the last decade

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There is another big Risk to this point. If you have Back Doors everybody can use it not just government

</comment><comment><USER18> The Germans always were anally fixated.</comment>


Anonymous web weapon backfires with hidden banking Trojan - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/02/trojan_attack_tool_targets_hacktivists/

<comment><USER2> wow, so you can't trust Anonymous. Am I really that surprised?

<comment><USER3> It must be a beautiful thing for hackers to have people that are willing to install software that can include anything in their payload.

Now, you just politically motivate people to install your payload rather than having to develop for the ever shrinking number of drive-by web exploits.</comment></comment>


What travel insurance really means - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ryanbadger/how-insure-and-go-left-me-with-a-20-000-bill-d353491c6386 <comment><USER2> I'm somewhat sympathetic to the insurance company here. Travel insurance is there to take care of emergency medical care. It's not for long term care. The guy clearly didn't want to travel because he preferred to be cared in Singapore. From his e-mail:

>I intend to stay in Asia for some time yet. I did consider travelling home to have surgery in the UK, but the medical Service here is excellent and I'm already scheduled in for the procedure on Monday. I was concerned about the long haul flight and travel time with a broken hand and fractured rib, as well as potential waiting times on the NHS.

So he's pretty clearly trying to game the situation. He wanted to keep traveling and avoid the NHS. The letter from the doctor saying he was not fit to fly simply states:

>The patient Badger Ryan Sean was admitted from 11/6 to 12/6 for an operation for a right index finger proximal phalanx avulsion fracture on 31/5 and was not fit for flying before his operation for his fracture.

It's reasonable for the insurance company to ask for more details and a specific reason why he wasn't fit to fly.

<comment> J-dawg I'd always assumed that "Travel Insurance" means you're covered for whatever treatment you need in the country you happen to be in. (EDIT: providing the accident happens on your trip).

Flying you home and palming you off onto the state seems kinda shady to me. That's not really "medical cover", it's just a flight home. And to make matters worse they made out as if flying him home was doing him a favour.

EDIT: Reading some of the other comments makes me think I'm just another mug who doesn't read his insurance policies. But I still think that offering _"£5,000,000 in medical cover"_ without qualifying that it really means _" £5,000,000 in medical cover, only if we absolutely can't get you home and get the NHS to do it for free"_, borders on deliberately misleading.

<comment><USER3> Travel insurance is only for emergency coverage while traveling. You absolutely can't purchase travel insurance for $100 and use it to fly abroad to get non-emergency surgery.

<comment> J-dawg > _You absolutely can 't purchase travel insurance for $100 and use it to fly > abroad to get non-emergency surgery._

I've certainly never thought that was the case, and I don't think my comment implied that (I've edited it for clarity anyway).

What I meant was, I've always assumed that if I had an accident abroad, it would cover me for any surgery I needed in the immediate aftermath, until I was well enough to either resume my trip, or fly home somewhat comfortably.

I still don't think that's an unreasonable assumption, but I've learned something today!

<comment><USER3> This is why I said in another post you absolutely _have_ to read and _understand_ your policy _before_ you experience a loss!!

Depends on the policy but I doubt there is a "somewhat comfortably" clause - if you want your insurance policy to cover you you generally have to follow what their policy requires and with cheapo insurance like this, if you are clear to fly, you are expected to fly home.

It's gonna be very difficult to get onto a plane and then claim you were unable to fly even if Singapore is a world closer to Indonesia than the UK.

I feel for this guy though, the situation sucks.

<comment> J-dawg > _This is why I said in another post you absolutely have to read and > understand your policy before you experience a loss!!_

Yep, and this post has been an education for me!

However, I still have issues with the way it's marketed. I think part of the problem is showing these huge numbers for medical cover. It's almost a psychological trick, in the same way that lottery players see an enormous jackpot and somehow conflate it with the likelihood of winning. It's falsely reassuring.

In reality, most claimants are going to spend much less than 1% of that £5 million limit before they get flown home. It only really applies to people who are at death's door and end up with a long stay in intensive care, or need a fully-staffed medical flight to get them home.

<comment><USER4> > In reality, most claimants are going to spend much less than 1% of that £5 > million limit before they get flown home. It only really applies to people > who are at death's door and end up with a long stay in intensive care, or > need a fully-staffed medical flight to get them home.

Exactly, but you're saying it like it's a bad thing instead of "this is just what travel insurance is and why it's so cheap."

<comment> J-dawg I'm saying it's both of those things. I'm grateful to the author that I found out this way.

I still think it's marketed in a deliberately misleading way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I always wonder when I buy insurance, if I need it will they actually pay out.

You should be able to get insurance for your insurance. So when you need insurance and it doesn't pay out. Then that insurance company can go after the first one without having to resort to twitter or medium to shame them.

<comment><USER6> Every time my wife's parents travel to the US we get them insurance. Their most recent visit was the first time we actually needed to use it, and it was just minor.

After they arrived they both quickly got sick, not flu type symptoms but a weird spot on the neck, dizziness, and a couple other things I can't remember. It seemed like it could be serious so we took them in. Doctor examined them, said they were okay and we went home. Filed a claim with insurance.

Insurance asked for medical history. They literally don't have any, nor was it really relevant as they weren't diagnosed with anything. I think the insurance wanted to claim pre-existing conditions (which they don't cover). They still refused to pay anything. The bill wasn't even that much, maybe a few hundred dollars? It was less than what I paid the insurance!

<comment><USER7> Report it to your state's insurance commissioner.

<comment><USER8> ^

Look up contact info here:

[https://www.naic.org/state_web_map.htm](https://www.naic.org/state_web_map.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Contact the financial ombudsman, they will be able to help, and in a lot of cases they side with the consumer. [http://www.financial- ombudsman.org.uk](http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

<comment><USER10> I would like to second and strongly advise this advice to contact the ombudsman.

I got cheap UK travel insurance, got my jaw broken in Australia, racked up huge hospital bills, hotel bills, curtailment bills...

They tried every trick in the book to not pay.

Although it took over a year the ombudsman made them repay every penny.

It seems you documented everything well - the ombudsman attaches a huge weighting to the medical opinions of treating doctors, so you have a good shot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Looks like they wanted him to use NHS, unless he was dying. Luckily, I live in America, where no travel insurrer will ever tell you to return to as costs will increase by 40x.

<comment><USER12> I think they would still tell you to return, since any costs in the US would be paid by your regular medical insurance, not your travel insurance.

<comment><USER13> In this case I presume you'd not be paying for US insurance, as you'd expect to be backpacking for many months more.

<comment><USER14> But the expectation of most travel insurance is that you also have regular health insurance.

If you think you've found a neat hack like:

\-- Skip buying regular health insurance

\-- Buy a $300 12-month travel insurance instead

\-- Spend the savings traveling around for a year while being fully covered for medical expenses

You're probably missing something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> From his telling, the company was not very communicative when he contacted them, but, fundamentally, saying he should fly back to the UK for treatment and they'll cover the flight does not seem unreasonable.

He complains that "unless you are injured so horrifically that you cannot survive another moment without life saving surgery, odds are they'll just tell you to fly home and have the surgery for free." But, to me, this is exactly what travel insurance is (which is why it's so cheap). Expecting fancy Singaporean hospitals unless it is strictly necessary seems totally unreasonable.

If they were not so communicative, he also basically decided to not get back to them on the vital "is he fit to fly?" issue for a few days (he had been OK to fly to Singapore after all), until after the surgery. There were a few days to go until the surgery, so that was enough time to get him back to the UK. Also, why hadn't he gotten in touch before? He texts pictures to friends, books flights, &c, and does not call the insurer or even ask somebody else to call on his behalf?

For what it's worth, I think he made the right decision in getting treatment in Singapore at his own expense, but that was still his decision.

<comment><USER15> His doctor said that he was not fit to fly back to the UK!

<comment><USER4> The incentive to say so is pretty clear: if he flies away, not only does the doctor lose a 15,000 costumer, he can also be liable if anything does go wrong.

Maybe he was indeed in no shape to fly, but he should have argued it properly in those days. Even now, it seems more like "it would have been awful to fly economy" and not "it would have been dangerous".

<comment><USER16> You may argue the doctor gave the opinion in bad faith, but that's pure speculation.

As a patient what would you do? You have been given a medical opinion that it is unsafe to fly. I definitely don't think anything the guy did was unreasonable.

<comment><USER4> I never claimed it was in bad faith and I don't think it was. Considering incentives and conflicts of interest is perfectly normal and does not mean that someone is operating in bad faith.

I just claim that it's reasonable for the company not to take it at face value as the doctor is not impartial and may have been considering a different standard for "not fit to fly." I certainly do not take it at face value. Could he have been put on a plane with extra medical assistance, for example? That may still have been cheaper than surgery.

I think what the guy did was the best choice if he can afford it, but I also think it's not unreasonable from the company to say that it was not what travel insurance covers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is horrifying. Glad you made it out okay.

Insurance companies always felt like a Govt sanctioned scam. These companies are the real scammers that thrive by finding grey areas and loop holes to shirk their responsibility. Making this mandatory is just the government whoring its citizens out to these companies.

I cant imagine how I'd have dealt with a $20000 hole in my pocket. Come to think of it, I should seriously work on saving up for a "personal insurance fund" that I can draw from in cases of emergencies like this and not trust the insurance companies at all. Your story was a wake up call.

<comment><USER18> I think it depends on where you live and what kind of insurance it is.

In Canada I've had zero problem making claims against health, dental, car, and home insurance. But pet insurance dragged their feet every step of the way on a very obviously valid claim. Definitely have no evidence but my first Avenue of thought is that pet insurance is probably less regulated.

<comment><USER3> >Canada

See this CBC Marketplace piece on travel health insurance.

[https://youtu.be/G08phgECt3I](https://youtu.be/G08phgECt3I)

Basically, from what I recall, those medical forms are impossible to fill out correctly and they are used to deny claims.

<comment><USER3> Too late to edit, but after skimming through it a second time, here's the issues laid out in the piece:

They make you fill out medical forms that are written by lawyers and for lawyers. Any minor mistake on the form is grounds for denial for any claim. So if you forgot you stubbed your toe 11 months ago, your aneurysm isn't covered. For one man interviewed they used unintentionally undisclosed GI bleeding to deny his claim for a heart attack. Even though his GI bleeding had nothing to do with his heart attack.

The form is impossible to fill out 100% correctly 100% of the time. The issues are:

-Patients, especially the elderly, a unaware or forget some things in their medical file, or the doctor explains things a different way than the form asks.

-You have to read the fine print of all of the definitions because they have "gotcha" clauses, such as the definition of "cardiac treatment" including diagnostic tests that didn't result in any diagnosis.

-Travel agents/salespeople give incorrect information to people who have questions about the form, even though they aren't authorized to give any information or assistance.

They suggest contacting your doctor if you have questions filling out the form but even if you were a doctor with full access to the patient's medical file, the doctor might still get the "legalese" wrong.

<comment><USER19> I can see two obvious solutions to this. One would be to require insurers to prove bad faith when using a form error to deny a claim. Honest mistakes should not result in denied claims. Another would be to have a statute of limitations, where the insurer has, say, three months to find and point out any mistakes, and after that they're stuck with what they have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Warning for anyone who's squeamish: there are some fairly gruesome photos of an injury in the article.

<comment><USER2> And a ridiculous amount of gifs of random crap

<comment><USER21> And a dire need for an editor!

<comment><AUTHOR> my first ever blog post attempt, I thought the gifs helped make up for my poor writing abilities

<comment><USER22> I loved the gifs and thought it was well written and 'fun' to read. You can't please everyone.

<comment><USER21> There's always room for improvement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This approach by the company is not surprising at all.

I have family in Canada who come and visit the US. They buy the insurance. One of them had a heart attach while in the US. Insurance paid something like $50,000 to put them on a private medical jet back to Canada. Far cheaper than having the care in the US.

<comment><USER21> I think what surprises me is that they wanted to fly the guy half way around the world. Canada and the US border each other.

I DO think that the gentleman made a bad decision saying that he was intent on staying in-country for 6 months afterwards. That's probably all the insurance company needed to think, "Yeah, this guy is using travel insurance as regular insurance"

Still, I do think the gentleman get the wrong end of the stick. I know I won't use this company, but now I really don't know who to use.

<comment><AUTHOR> my insurance was for 18 months of travel though, so i intended to travel for 18 months. I think that's reasonable. Maybe my wording came out wrong in the post, I wasn't telling them, "no i wont come home" I was telling them I didn't have a return flight pre booked because I was planning on travelling for 6 more months yet.

<comment><USER21> I'm surprised they would allow you in country for > year without a return flight. I couldn't get even in the EU without showing them I had a way to get out. What sort of visa did you have?

You do mention being a, "digital nomad" which sort of signals to me that you're not into coming back to wherever you started. I don't know the best type of health insurance you should set up for that, but I wouldn't be surprised if traveler insurance companies don't want to be thought of as, "regular health insurance, but for people traveling".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I really feel for the guy, he has gone through a lot of pain and suffering.

That said, as someone who has gone through life and used my share of insurance, I think the guys attitude is exactly backwards. There are huge numbers of people out there working insurance fraud schemes. I nearly ran into a couple that was trying to 'brake unexpectedly and get insurance payments.' Since I leave enough following distance I didn't hit them and they were quite irritated. It would have been funny if it were not sad.

So the insurance folks try to set up a lot of processes that minimize that fraud or make it harder on perpetrators.

This guy seems to have set out with the idea that insurance was trying to rip him off, and by operating under that assumption, taking actions (or not taking actions) that make himself look suspicious.

An alternative course of action might have been to familiarize himself with the policy before hand, and the processes and requirements he needs to meet when he needs to use it. And then set up things like putting into his wallet, "If I am being treated at a hospital or clinic please call this number and inform this insurance company xx xx xx xxxx" My sister in law is a nurse and we know a guy who works as a volunteer medic around the world, and when you come into the hospital they will always look through your wallet for identification and insurance information, help them out there.

Life is so much harder if you assume other people are "out to rip you off" or "get you" as your going in position. It can ruin possible relationships and it certainly damages business relationships.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is true, but the reality is I doubted my insurance would pay from the start. I was expecting to pay for everything myself. It was only once I got the quotes in Singapore that I realised I might not actually be able to afford it that I resorted to the insurance. And their response was even worse than I expected it to be. I appreciate there are countless fraud attempts and they need to protect themselves, but I was lucky, it could have been a lot worse, I'm sure for other people it is. And I guarantee you when you're facing emergency surgery the LAST thing on your mind is "I best call my insurer and start the form filling process". It's fuck, FUCK. This fucking sucks.

<comment><USER24> This part it sooo true: _And I guarantee you when you 're facing emergency surgery the LAST thing on your mind is "I best call my insurer and start the form filling process"._

Something that I carry on me when I'm travelling in my wallet is a piece of paper. It is written in both English and the predominant language of where I'm travelling. This paper is titled "Instructions and information for emergency personnel." It has my name, home address, blood type, allergies, short medical history, insurance numbers and international numbers to call for authorization. It also includes numbers of people who can be called for more information (like my primary care physician)

It is easy to make, write it up before the trip, run it through Google translate for the destination language, and fold it up into my wallet.

I got this idea from a friend of my father's who was a diplomat and so travelling a lot. He had stories about how it had saved his life in when he crashed his bike in the Alps. He too said that the last thing on your mind is explaining all of this stuff to people when he was injured. But once he realized that he didn't have to explain it, he only needed to let them know who to ask to get the information.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Insurers should be required to list the statics for the number of accepted and rejected claims on the policy website. Currently there is no way to tell which insurance is more or less likely to screw you.

<comment><USER26> Or, which insurer has customers who do not read their policies.

Accepted vs. rejected claims is meaningless on its own.

<comment><USER27> It is not meaningless. If the insurance policy is 1000 pages of legalese it's a dark pattern designed to dissuade you from reading it. Ultimately, the accepted to denied ratio is the measure to watch for as a consumer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The insurance company is likely not in the wrong here. I think part of the problem is that, as Brits, we are used to not worrying about this kind of thing. If we get hurt in the UK we get unlimited "free" healthcare (paid through taxes) and there are reciprocal agreements throughout Europe whereby healthcare is either free or has a nominal charge to reduce Moral Hazard. We don't have to think about communicating with an insurance company.

Since moving abroad I have gotten used to carrying my insurance card and calling their number before any elective insurable event takes place. I feel that the OP was unfortunate in finding this out the hard way.

<comment><USER29> You really should have health insurance when travelling around Europe. A friend of mine broke her arm and had a one night stay in a hospital in Germany. It came to €1000.

Her insurance were excellent and paid the hospital, in full, directly. The insurance company is STA - [http://www.statravel.com/travel- insurance.htm](http://www.statravel.com/travel-insurance.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> There's no point in even buying travel insurance if your upfront assumption is that you're not likely to need it so you're going to buy on price.

On the other hand insurance is tricky at the best of times. (shill warning) In situations like this I put my trust in Costco because they have a track record of consistently providing a good deal the price.

I once knew a guy who ran a roofing business. He said that it was easy for him to insure his workers if they fell off the roof, but difficult to get coverage for when they hit the ground.

</comment><comment><USER31> He paid £275 for 18 months of travel insurance? Well yeah, of course they are going to want to fly him back to the NHS. As a US traveller my insurance was $2600 for 12 months. When you enter into a legal agreement (insurance) read the fine print, it'll save you a lot of disappointment.

<comment><USER13> > read the fine print

People should be able to expect that insurance is as advertised, and there's no "not really" in the fine print. UK courts are much less accepting of such things than the US. The infamous case is PPI misselling: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_protection_insurance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_protection_insurance)

<comment><USER31> Insurance policies are not the same as an iTunes TOS. The policy is an agreement with a company outlining very specific circumstances in which they pay you. I'm sure the company was garbage (they sure sound that way) but when I've had travel insurance it has always outlines the circumstances where I could make a claim.

In the case of an insurance policy the fine print is what you're buying.

Again, to be fair, the insurance company could have had a misleading policy and if that's the case they should be raked over the coals.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> When our daughter visited Bali with a friend last year she was also in a motorbike crash. I guess a lot of people think it will be fun to ride a motorbike in Bali. Her hand was badly cut and needed stitches. We had to transfer the cash to her friend's debit account so it could be paid out on the spot, but once that was done the ER docs did a great job sewing her up, and $700 seemed like a hell of a bargain compared to what a visit to the ER and some stitches probably would have cost in the U.S.

<comment> forgot-my-pw I'm very suspicious that the article mentions $22,000 hospital bed cost for 5 nights stay (excluding surgery).

<comment><USER33> In Singapore, with first-rate hospitals, and the highest cost of living in the world? That's not even a little surprising.

<comment><USER34> > the highest cost of living in the world

Singapore is not THAT expensive. Yes, it's first-rate, but not even close to highest COL[1]

[1] [https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Singapore&city1=San+Francisco%2C+CA&city2=Singapore&tracking=getDispatchComparison)

<comment><USER33> Cost of living is complicated and lifestyle-dependent, and living in the city core vs. the suburbs makes a huge difference in most places. According to Forbes and The Economist, Singapore is #1. San Francisco may have laughably- high rents, but the cost of consumer goods, food, and many other things is far cheaper in San Francisco than in Singapore, for example, and it heavily skews the results.

Singapore is a "top 10" city by any metric and that was the main point.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/03/19/the- ci...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/03/19/the-cities-with- the-highest-cost-of-living-infographic/#39df0d36320c) [https://www.economist.com/graphic- detail/2017/03/21/measurin...](https://www.economist.com/graphic- detail/2017/03/21/measuring-the-cost-of-living-worldwide) [https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/most-expensive- cities-...](https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/most-expensive-cities-in- the-world-2018)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> What a story. But it's not insurance that's bad, it's (local) insurers. In the Netherlands for international coverage there are two main support companies covering all insurers that provide help while abroad. That help is pretty extensive. If you deliver early abroad, they might send a nurse or doctor to help fly you back. They can book you flights and taxis if a relative dies or get you a new car pretty much anywhere worldwide. This all from personal experience, my professional experience gives me the same impression. In this case they would have probably guided him with a nurse or doctor to Singapore.

Which leads to my only gripe about this story. Why did he act though and not ask for help from the get go. Is there no international support in UK policies? Flying while sedated and bleeding...

Any insurer should see paying out as the prime deliverance of the customer promise. You don't skimp on paying out, but do try to be very careful about getting swindled. Getting called after 20k is spent would get the flags up in any insurer, good faith or bad.

My 2 cents would be that a good timeline and documented claim (like this blog post without the fluff) could still get him the 20k. It's an insured event, without the time for proper evaluation and without malice. That's a good basis for any claim.

</comment><comment><USER36> What I was astonished to find out is that insurers actually have people or departments whose sole job is to find reasons not to pay and how they cling to absolutely every detail, true or not.

More or less the same thing happened to me with a 6 months travel insurance. I had an unfortunate series of light medical problems that racked up about 1500 EUR. I was somehow lucky that I over-informed the insurer anytime anything concerned them and they pre-approved each doctor's visit. When it was time to get my money back, they denied the claim saying that I flew back home one month into the trip (and then left again) and that legally concluded my trip. That was, of course, non sense.

I wrote them a letter saying that if they don't return my money in 30 days, I will fill in a complaint with the insurance oversight authority in my country. They didn't so I did. The nice part is that this authority shoots first and asks questions later so in a few days I got a really passive aggressive letter saying they will be paying in full, that they already decided that a week before so there was no need for me to file the complaint (I was, of course, not informed) and they asked me to withdraw my complaint.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm assuming Insure and Go will be in touch at some point requesting me to take down my post as it's amassed 30k views in 24 hours. But I won't. Even if they don't pay out because of it, I'd prefer that people have access to this information. Paying me the $22k would be a drop in the ocean for them, but hopefully, the post will live on for years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Absolutely shameful. Has this insurer ever paid out an actual claim to anyone?

</comment><comment><USER38> Expecting insurers to be magnanimous will always lead to disappointment and anger.

Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that insurers will nearly always err on the side of denying a claim if they can find an excuse to. That's why it's important to (a) read the fine print in the policies you purchase and (b) hire an attorney if you believe that you have been unfairly denied a claim.

Even if a claim is valid, insurers will also do whatever it takes to minimize their payouts. In this case, paying for transport to the UK for additional treatment would have been far cheaper than paying a Singaporean hospital for it, and so it's unsurprising that they pressured the claimant to hop on a flight instead of stay in Singapore since the injury did not contraindicate air travel (or at least there was significant disagreement as to that question).

</comment><comment><USER39> Since moving to the UK I've found that insurers here have SO much more legalese in their contracts. It's really hard to figure out what they actually cover ("two-fifths of fuck all").

My top "Gold" level travel insurance doesn't even cover my phone getting stolen while overseas.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is why it's important to read the policy itself, not just the marketing materials. Usually they have the specific details of what you have to do and what you're entitled to receive.

The insurer definitely didn't handle it well but it would have gone much smoother if the expectations were properly set by reading the policy.

The travel insurance that comes for my credit card for example makes it quite clear that you have to contact the insurer as soon as possible after an accident and that in most cases, they'll opt to have you repatriated for care in your home country.

<comment><USER41> _in most cases, they 'll opt to have you repatriated for care in your home country._

Yes; and that's a shitty thing to require when the person has a broken rib and a detached fingertip and is 20h+ away from the home country.

The problem wasn't that he didn't know the policy, it was the policy itself.

<comment><USER42> Certainly it was partly his fault for not reading the policy.

<comment><USER43> He did read the policy. He also read the 94 page medical manual they later sent him, which presumably wasn't in the original policy. He found the reason in all those pages of text why he was eligible for getting his costs covered, and they still replied with:

> "This is a general exclusion and doesn't apply to you specifically. Our > decision still stands with curtailment. No further medical input needed.

Why do you feel that he shares any part of the blame here? Why do you expect him to be an expert in reading and interpreting insurance policies in the middle of a medical emergency?

<comment><USER2> He's being willfully ignorant there. That quote comes from the section saying when an airline requires medical clearance. Two pages later there are several pages of specific medical conditions and guidance on if they should fly. One of them is "Full plaster cast" and it says that you can fly 2 days after getting one.

<comment><AUTHOR> I felt that paragraph was the most relevant to me, I had been told by my DR that I shouldn't fly. They had already told me I was crazy to have flown to SG with my finger hanging off without being stitched up first. And I didn't have a plaster cast, they had given me a make shift thing in Bali, but once I reached SG I was unfit for flying home due to the risk of further damage to the hand. It was massively swollen and 2 of the bones were pretty badly shattered. I wasn't going to ignore the advice of a DR who was holding my X-rays to appease an insurance company who doesn't give 2 shits about my health.

<comment><USER2> >I felt that paragraph was the most relevant to me

And not the one specifically dealing with broken bones?

>I wasn't going to ignore the advice of a DR who was holding my X-rays to appease an insurance company who doesn't give 2 shits about my health.

Which is not something anyone is going to argue about with you. Except, of course, those that have to write the $15K check. They are going to want more documentation that a one liner when standard medical advice says you can fly.

<comment><USER44> Standard medical advice? Are you even reading what he wrote? His doctor did not clear him to fly. It's crystal clear from the way they conducted themselves that the insurance company would find any excuse to deny his claim. It's also very probable that their delays were deliberate. I hope OP can talk to an attorney and take them to the cleaners. At the very least, he named them so potential future victims will have something to find if they perform due diligence.

With all the responses you've generated here and the way you go about your argumentation I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you work for the insurer.

<comment><USER2> >Standard medical advice? Are you even reading what he wrote? His doctor did not clear him to fly.

That's not how insurance works. They aren't going to pay for stuff on the say so of one doctor. The expectation is that they pay for treatment according to published and accepted standards of care. In this case, those say that you can fly with broken bones.

>With all the responses you've generated here and the way you go about your argumentation I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you work for the insurer.

Of course I don't work for the insurer. I am just an experienced backpacker that understands the concept of travel insurance.

> It's crystal clear from the way they conducted themselves that the insurance > company would find any excuse to deny his claim

I see no evidence of that. What they offered was exactly what travel insurance is there for. That is, travel home for further treatment after a patient is stabilized. OP wanted to argue he wasn't stabilized. In response, they told him specifically what he needed to get from his doctor in order to justify his claim. As far as I know OP, for whatever reason, never bothered to get that.

IMHO, it's debatable whether or not you should be travelling with unset broken fingers. However, if all you bring to your side of the debate is a single sentence, you're going to lose.

We also don't know what their reaction to paying for the emergency services would be. OP, for reasons that are clear only to him, has decided not to claim ~$6,000 worth of covered expenses.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just to clarify your comment on "What they offered was exactly what travel insurance is there for." They didn't offer me anything. Not one piece of my cover was offered. They 'offered' me a flight home as a goodwill gesture. They stressed that they didn't have to. It was a really shitty tactic. If you complain to a company and accept "their goodwill gesture" you are agreeing that no further action will be taken. If I had accepted their flight home, that would have been my insurance void and I would have no grounds to appeal.

<comment><USER2> Your booklet says:

We will not cover the following:

2\. Any treatment or surgery which we think you do not need immediately and can wait until you return home. Our decision is final.

That's what travel insurance is. It's there to pay for care until you can fly home. Accepting their flight home isn't voiding your insurance. It's getting the coverage you paid for.

<comment><AUTHOR> It would have been if they said "we will fly you home, as per your cover" but they didn't, the flight home was a goodwill gesture. If they weren't going to pay for my 2nd operation, I would have ditched the "reasonable attitude" and claimed for the 1st operation. They knew that, so by offering me the goodwill flight home they were literally trying to make me void my own cover.

Furthermore, the policy says clearly, until I CAN fly home. My DR had explicitly told me I could not. I wasn't going to risk my health for the sake of my arsehole insurance company and their bullshit attempts to wriggle out of paying.

Ask yourself, would YOU have ignored the advice of your DR, who knew your case personally, in favour of the "opinion" of a private company whose sole motivation is financial?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm shocked at how much expense you weren't looking for them to cover.

</comment><comment><USER46> Once I filed for travel insurance after my travel plans to Patagonia were delayed by a blizzard.

Getting there required 3 separate flights and 2-hr cab ride in the middle of nowhere Chile, which cost like $200.

After Kafkaesque paperwork my claim was initially denied. They said I didn't have my boarding pass from the 3rd flight (first 2 legs were Air Canada, easy to reproduce, but the third was some small, domestic Chilean airline with a barely-there website and a Spanish-only hotline).

Who saves a boarding pass at the start of a 2-week hiking trip through the Patagonian wilderness? Why is that third flight stub necessary, since I'm asking to be reimbursed for the cab ride when I got there (which I have documented proof for)?

I had to arrange for a conference call with a Spanish translator and the insurer (srsly), and eventually they paid up. But how many people go that far? It felt like the plot of "The Rainmaker".

The only other time I had to use travel insurance was when I lost my brand new iPod while changing planes in Seoul, South Korea. Even though the insurance covered "lost or stolen" they claimed they couldn't reimburse me because I hadn't filed a police report with the South Korean airport police (it was the middle of the night, I don't speak Korean and I didn't realize it was gone until later). And why do I need to have a police report if it was lost?

So I can definitely sympathize with how unscrupulous these travel insurance rackets are. That being said, I don't think asking him to fly home was that unreasonable. How are they supposed to validate the care he's getting there? He just going to dictate his care and hand over a massive bill from Singapore?

But usually this involves taking them to court and getting a settlement.

</comment><comment><USER14> This whole thread has me curious. If you're in a country with national health insurance (and no private supplementary insurance), are you pretty much always advised to buy travel insurance when out of the country?

In the US, decent private medical plans typically cover emergency medical treatment when traveling. Pretty much the only time I buy travel insurance is when I either have large non-refundable payments because you never know when you'll have an accident or a family emergency or I'm doing some specific activity like a Nepal trek where an evacuation could be very costly.

I'd never buy travel insurance because of potentially lost luggage or extra flights/taxi rides.

</comment><comment> J-dawg I wonder whether the author has contacted any of the consumer rights TV programmes such as "Watchdog" [0], which are quite popular in the UK. Martin Lewis [1] might also be interested.

This story seems tailor-made for them. It's an emotive story, connected to a wider issue ("Can YOU trust your travel insurer?"), and just in time for summer holidays!

[0] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mg74](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mg74) [1] [https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/](https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/)

</comment><comment><USER47> Question for those who might know about this:

If I find myself in a similar situation as in this article, is there some sort of "insurance professional handler" laywer kind of guy you can hire so that he does what is necessary and who knows all the traps, so that you have good chances of being covered?

<comment><USER3> This person is in the UK, I can't speak for the UK but in the US you can contact the Department of Insurance for your state if you have issues with insurance companies. They are responsible for regulating insurance companies and making sure their actions are within the bounds of the law.

<comment><USER47> I meant during the thing. Like you don't talk to the police without a lawyer present, maybe you shouldn't talk to the insurer without a professional present.

<comment><USER48> It's probably best to start by trying to work with them in good faith. But figure out within 24-48 hours what they intend to cover. If you can't get that specific for lack of information feel them out. If they're being difficult at all, speak with an attorney.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> wow, that's brutal. I've been looking at something similar through this outfit - [https://www.globalrescue.com/](https://www.globalrescue.com/) and now I'm not so sure if it's worth it or not.

<comment><USER14> They sound like they're probably the real deal: [https://www.wired.com/2015/08/search-and-rescue-for- sale/](https://www.wired.com/2015/08/search-and-rescue-for-sale/)

But, without looking at what they offer in detail, I'd be pretty sure they're quite a bit different from normal travel insurance and are priced accordingly. This is about potentially saving your life when things go sideways in some remote corner of the globe.

Not hopefully paying you out some money because your tour operator went belly- up or you need to take an emergency flight home because of an injury or other problem (which is what most travel insurance emphasizes).

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Given the context of this thread - what would be a travel insurer for a UK resident that digital nomads of HN would actually recommend? Not necessarily the cheapest, just the most reliable one.

<comment> vertex-four I believe the thing to do is to get global medical insurance, not travel insurance. Yes, it's going to be pricier, yes, if you don't plan on flying back to your home country as soon as you're out of an emergency situation it's necessary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Well done Banger u did a good job friend

</comment><comment><USER52> yeah thats why i try to avoid buying insurance. i only buy it if my parents insist or it is mandated by law.

</comment><comment><USER53> damn lets upvote this. This horrible company needs the bad PR.

<comment><USER54> Might be a silly question, but how do you even know he bought insurance from Insure and Go?

You're awful quick to want to shame "this horrible company."

<comment><USER55> Let me ask you this: how much would you bet that he didn't?

Because I'd be willing to bet $100 that he did.

Am I sure? No. It is impossible to be sure. But I think it's highly likely considering the detail of the article and my difficulty in imagining why he'd put so much effort into a lie that could land him in hot water.

So, let's dump the idea that people can't take action no matter how small unless we are 100% sure of something. Almost nothing is 100%.

But things can be likely. Put your money where your mouth is.

If we get enough people in the pool, perhaps we can cut in the author of the article in return for documentation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Now you can be sure: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/5nmgqv7gqz55uhl/Screenshot%202018-...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/5nmgqv7gqz55uhl/Screenshot%202018-07-18%2001.19.08.png?dl=0)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> This is why I'm an expat in the philippines.

<comment><USER57> Are insurance companies better in the Philippines?

<comment><USER58> I'm guessing, at least, out of pocket medical expenses are cheaper. Don't they have a medical tourism thing going on?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> forgot-my-pw There's no way a 5 day hospital stay in Bali (excluding surgery) costs $22,000. That sounds way too crazy. No way the locals can pay for something like that.

<comment><USER59> Singapore, not Bali.

<comment> forgot-my-pw That makes more sense. Thought it was in Bali.</comment></comment></comment>


California Finds Economic Gloom Starting to Lift - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/us/california-shows-signs-of-resurgence.html <comment><USER2> Watch as the Democrats (now dominating the State Legislature) take all the credit for this.

<comment><USER3> Now dominating the state legislature?

The Dems have dominated the state legislature since 1959 except for 69 to 71 when the Republicans took control of both houses and a brief period from 94-96 when the Republicans controlled the Assembly.

The Democrats can pretty much take credit for everything good and bad.

<comment><USER4> What he probably means is that California requires a supermajority to raise taxes. After the last election, the Democrats have that in both houses now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> daniel-cussen I found Romney's comparison of California to Greece mostly fair. Saying that California is like a balmy Mediterranean country with a rich culture and history is not pejorative. That it has giant public sector workforces and fiscal problems is perhaps a pejorative comparison, but one that is avowed by the color of the ink on California's balance sheet.

<comment><USER5> That claim of Romney's was one of the most annoying things in the campaign, because he is smart and educated enough to know it's bullshit. If California is so awful, why did he move back to his home in La Jolla? Greece wishes it had California's economy. Don't fall for such empty soundbites, the comparison doesn't stand up to even shallow analysis.

<comment> daniel-cussen First, a 6x difference of GDP points out that they're in the same range of size. Further, it has about a third of the population of California, making its people about half as wealthy. Ballpark confirmed.

Now on to debt: Greece owes some money. It's a nation. California owes some money; it's a state. And, the US owes money. If California were to serve in full its debt, and arrange that it no longer had to incur debt to pay its employees, or raise greater taxes to do so, I would say it became solvent-- however, if the day after the United States Treasury defaulted on its multi- trillion dollar debt, California would find itself in trouble all the same. So, really, California also owes a share of the US government debt.

Is the similarity enough for California to emulate Greece should the latter emerge triumphant from this shitstorm? I don't know. But it's enough for a metaphor about the current problem.

<comment><USER6> I think it is a stretch to say that a country that is half as wealthy as CA is in the same ballpark. To flip this around, if you made half of my salary, I would not say that your salary is in the same ballpark as mine.

I like your point on US debt, but the US is in a unique position in that it can print money if needed. Because the odds of a default are so infinitesimally small, I don't think it warrants any discussion when considering the fate of CA's financial issues.

Greece is in trouble because it entered the EU, lost control of it's currency, and as a consequence, cannot attempt to use inflation to minimize their debt. To make matters worse, their economy is a train wreck (professional guilds, rampant tax dodging, heavy reliance on government programs) making growth in the face of austerity nearly impossible. CA has neither of these problems (A dynamic, innovative economy and a strong federal government to rely on for assistance (as compared to the relatively weak-willed EU)).

<comment> daniel-cussen In parts:

The size of the ballpark depends on the ball game. As far as heights, if yours were half of mine we would not be playing in the same league, let alone in the same ballpark at the same time. But wealth's utility falls off very quickly (cf. log-utility), and to this day Greece is a member of the OECD.

Greek is in trouble. There's no denying that. California, not so _much_. Still in some. But the worst may have passed already, because it's better grounded: on sovereign US soil, that strong federal government you mentioned. It's a state in a good federation, whereas Greece is in a bad (weak-willed = opt-in) federation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The housing & job reports feel right and are welcome news.

But did the NYTimes just point to California's current budget as a sign of our State's "economic stability"?

They quote that the "California Legislative Analyst's Office projecting . . . . [that] California might post a $1 billion surplus in 2014"

That is such an irresponsible thing to publish - a "surplus" makes it sound like the government is totally on top of the situation here and a model for success.

The reality is that CA would be going off the @!@W$! rails right now in 2012 if voters hadn't just passed Prop 30.

Prop 30 was an EMERGENCY, retroactive (from Jan 1 2012), and "short-term" (7 year) tax on high income earners + a moderate increase in sales tax which is going to raise $6B a YEAR to pull CA's ass out of the fire.

So while the gloom may be lifting, I remain pessimistic that our state gov't has any long-term solutions to their continued budgetary missteps.

<comment><USER8> A surplus of $1 billion means nothing for California's $100+ billion in debt and unfunded liabilities. We would need a billion surplus every year for hundreds of years.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/california-debt- higher-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/california-debt-higher-than- earlier-estimates.html) [http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/california_state_spendin...](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/california_state_spending.html)

<comment><USER9> Well, I don't know California's interest rate on those loans, but if it's lower than inflation, you'll inevitably win. Also, if the economy keeps growing, 100 billion in a hundred years will be a lot easier to come up with than it is today. Think of Dr Evil asking for 1 million dollars.

 _edit_

Just looked it up. Just shy of a 2 trillion dollar Gross State Product? 100 billion is a big number, but 5% debt is not that bad. (the state) Going into debt during the good times is stupid, going into debt in recession is probably smart.

<comment><USER10> Not to mention that debt interest is taking up twice as much of the general fund as a decade ago.

"California's current debt burden is 7.8 percent of the state's general fund budget of $88.5 billion for the current fiscal year that ends in June 2012. That 7.8 percent is more than double the 3.4 percent of fiscal 2003-04."

[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/debt-320389-interest- stat...](http://www.ocregister.com/articles/debt-320389-interest-state.html)

<comment><USER11> Yes indeed California racked up a lot of debt from 2003 to 2012.

However, with the decreasing shortfalls and expected balanced budgets that debt is no longer increasing and with the projected surpluses it can be paid down.

The debt is a legacy of the past. Great strides have been made in the past few years to get the state's fiscal situation in order.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Recent layoffs and smaller investment rounds a worrying sign - <AUTHOR> Should those working in or aiming to work in the tech industry be worried about the number of high profile companies reducing workforces?<p>Combined with a reduction in the number and size of investments in the sector, are we seeing a recline in the space? <comment><AUTHOR> Also found: [http://tomtunguz.com/sf-boom-over/](http://tomtunguz.com/sf-boom- over/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Suggest reading up on Andy Grove > [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on- leadership/wp/2015/11...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on- leadership/wp/2015/11/18/how-a-business-book-from-the-80s-became-a-cult- classic-in-silicon-valley/?utm_term=.6594a92ff0a6)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I will check it out</comment></comment>


For Whom Is the Water Park Fun? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/07/03/for-whom-is-the-water-park-fun/ <comment><USER2> I too enjoyed David Foster Wallace's account of his trip to the Illinois State Fair.

<comment><USER3> Barth asked first: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_Funhouse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_Funhouse)

This piece title is from that opening line. The DFW connection is quite striking, as Wikipedia sums up:

> The story "Lost in the Funhouse" had an overt influence on David Foster > Wallace in the final novella of Girl with Curious Hair, "Westward the Course > of Empire Takes Its Way". The protagonist takes a creative writing course at > a school near Johns Hopkins, taught by a Professor Ambrose, who says he "is > a character in and the object of the seminal 'Lost in the Funhouse'"

</comment></comment><comment> default-kramer Some of the purplest prose I've read, plus humor so dry people are missing it. I think the author achieved what he was going for.

<comment><USER4> So the author was trying to.. demonstrate Poe's law?

<comment> default-kramer Demonstrating Poe's law probably wasn't the goal, but it was an inevitable outcome of what and how he chose to write.

I'd bet there are a lot of the author's genuine thoughts and feelings in this piece. But the best comedy has at least a grain of truth if not more. There's no way an author who is able to write like this didn't intend the humor in lines like "The moment was so upsetting that I absconded and immediately purchased a funnel cake, which I ate distractedly and tried to calm down, moseying for some time on the park's vast, labyrinthine walkways."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Eeesh. I'm honestly worried about the mental health of the author. It could just be hyperbole intended unseriously, but most of the article also tracks as clinical anxiety masquerading as humor.

<comment><USER6> Fun fact: One of his earlier articles this year was a review of a book about suicide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Unfortunately, it is never revealed if the author enjoyed the Point Of No Return or not. :)

While I agree on the lack of empathy and understanding of simple thrill seeking and "unreasonable fun" (like sports, gambling, dancing, sex, music, movies, even reading...), the author unwittingly stands up for the _few_ that are peer-pressured to take part in "fun" activities that might frighten or simply not entertain them.

However, the approach the author takes won't help them: it's better to recognize that _you_ personally don't find a particular activity rewarding, and encourage everyone to find something that is. Perhaps it's not even a "few", but a _lot_. But just being negative does not help better understand how we are forced to do "fun" things we do not enjoy.

And it's also okay if you find fun in something that majority finds fun in (like water parks): you don't have to be absolutely different in every way to count as a smart person :)

By missing to realize this, the author seems like a disgruntled fake- intellectual guy who hates everyone for having any sort of fun and dismisses it as "intellectually useless": even though studies show that "fun" helps us perform better cognitively.

</comment><comment><USER8> I've been this guy. When volunteering in Haiti, I was just... mad at the world. I hated everyone who didn't want to move to Haiti and help.

Then I started reading about Paul Farmer, who has arguably done more than I ever will but doesn't seem to have developed that same anger.

I met him once, and he recognized that you have to take time for you to be. To center yourself. Whether thats a theme park or watching TV and talking to your friends about it.

The key (which I didn't have a handle on early on in Haiti) is to find the balance you need to be able to accept in life what you can't change and to aggressively strive against the things you can.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is really funny. Do the readers at HN not get that he's joking?

<comment><USER10> Pretty sure most everyone's got that was what he was trying for. It certainly didn't land for me though.

<comment><USER9> > Pretty sure most everyone's got that was what he was trying for.

I really don't think that's true—we have comments "worried about the mental health of the author", we've got comments claiming he "struggles with the joys in life", we've got comments claiming the author "seems like a disgruntled fake-intellectual guy who hates everyone for having any sort of fun". These aren't comments from people who get that he's joking.

> It certainly didn't land for me though.

That's fair; there's no humor that works for everyone. But even if you don't find it funny, at least you understood what he was doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The story ends with:

"The drop was so precipitous that I saw in just a few short seconds I would go abruptly vertical, vanishing briskly down a long dark well. It was the point of no return, a water park in 2019. And for reasons I struggled to explain, I desperately missed my family. Look how far the fathoms have taken us. Look how far we've strayed."

Sounds like a roundabout way of saying he chickened out of riding the biggest slide in the park after seeing the drop. But I have no idea what those last 2 sentences mean.

<comment><USER12> The entire thing is written in a very overwrought and dramatic style, he's trying to be funny. The ending is probably supposed to capture an emotional climax the likes of which you'd find at the end of a Melville or Kafka story (but it's not that funny and kinda nonsensical)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > all this forgotten Americana [...] it casually introduces to the park-goer's > mind scenes of mass genocide and global annihilation [...] Why tempt fate > with a whale-watching expedition when you can scoot on over to SeaWorld? > [...on and on...]

Reading the introductory paragraphs and then moving to the rest, one can understand why the author struggles with the joys of life. Overthinking, overanalyzing, and unable to empathize with the non-rich masses looking for simple, shallow fun. It then goes into politics and ivory-tower-like judgments. On the next escape the author should consider getting away from himself.

<comment><USER14> The footer says his writing appears in a bunch of places including.... "Best American Travel Writing 2018" .... I wonder if the rest of that book is like this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> >Because who can enjoy the Congo Bongo in light of mudslides in the Pacific Northwest? Who can enjoy The Flying Gecko when you have species-wide devastation in the Amazon? The sheer insanity of a water park in the age of the Anthropecene...

This guy must be so fun at parties.

<comment><USER16> I think you're assuming he's being 100% earnest. To me, a lot of this sounded tongue-in-cheek.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Gonzo journalism at its best

</comment><comment><USER18> This was really well written, but I couldn't help laughing at the comma splice errors in his own prose after calling out his students for it in the first paragraph.

example:

> Soon we hurdled through the turnstiles, joining the throngs of near-nude > Midwesterners, our procession a timpani of aqua socks.

</comment><comment><USER19> children?

</comment><comment><USER20> Christ, what an asshole.

</comment><comment><USER21> I like waterparks. Good, clean fun and the kids love it too.</comment>


How I became Junior Ruby on Rails developer - <AUTHOR> http://przemekmroczek.tumblr.com/post/100924166600/how-i-became-junior-ruby-on-rails-developer-with-a-bit

<comment><USER2> I'm curious how much experience the author had at the time of hiring.

While I'm not familiar with the hiring requirements for web dev, in the iOS development world in particular, it's quite easy to learn how to build basic apps with storyboard. But to master Core Foundation, GCD, Core Data, Core Animation, building good API, laying out UI in code, that takes a tremendous amount of time. And what I've heard from dev who've been through interviews, employers are very demanding. One person in particular was asked to build an app from scratch in one day without using ARC.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am the author. At the time of hiring I built few simple apps but my knowledge was really limited. Of course I didn't knew that :)

This knowledge gaps had to be filled: \- ActiveRecord is not replacement for SQL, it's just abstraction. Try writing complex query in rails, good luck. \- You can't learn practices for maintaining code if your app is 200 LOC. \- Reading someone else code is different than reading yours.

You get real experience by building apps for clients.</comment></comment>


Just Room Enough Island - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Room_Enough_Island <comment><USER2> What I love most about this is that there seems to be some form of nominative determinism at play here because the surname of the original owners is Sizeland, which doesn't take a big leap of the imagination to connect to their owning an island of notable size. At the very least, Sizeland is definitely an aptonym.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym)

</comment><comment><USER3> From the title, I was expecting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_on_Zanzibar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_on_Zanzibar) (title from a mention in the novel of a factoid that the entire human race, standing close together, would just cover Zanzibar.

Would love to see either this or Brunner's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider) as well-produced films.

</comment><comment><USER4> Do they have electricity and running water?

<comment><USER5> Looks like a lot of running water to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother-in- Law_Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother-in-Law_Island) AKA "Not enough room" island

</comment><comment><USER7> The "Sizeland family". What a perfectly matched name.

</comment><comment><USER8> I see there is also something similar here , castle in an island [https://www.boldtcastle.com/visitorinfo/](https://www.boldtcastle.com/visitorinfo/)

<comment><USER9> They're around 250 metres from each other.

The Thousand Islands seems a completely ludicrous place that feels like a fantasy novel. Or Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker

[https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Boldt+Castle+%26+Boldt+Yacht...](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Boldt+Castle+%26+Boldt+Yacht+House,+1+Heart+Island,+Alexandria+Bay,+NY+13607,+United+States/Hub+Island,+Alexandria+Bay,+NY+13607,+firstname.lastname@example.com,-75.9240831,18z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x4ccd393928956011:0x67988c8497b22eca!2m2!1d-75.922653!2d44.34434!1m5!1m1!1s0x4ccd393013332baf:0x40b64c50bbcd7568!2m2!1d-75.9248733!2d44.3426381!3e0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Cool looking house.

I'd have to wonder how they keep the siding in shape, though. You'd have to think waves would keep it wet, leading to rot or at least mold on the north side.

Anyone got any ideas about that?</comment>


Performance debugging: from 1.3X slower to 48X faster than Apache Kafka - <AUTHOR> https://www.alexgallego.org/perf/toplev/2018/02/08/performance-debugging.html <comment><USER3> Good article, major respect to devs who actually benchmark and test - <USER2> seem so rare these days.

tl;dr point in time sorting kills performance, and performance coding depends upon do boring micro-optimizations that you wouldn't think / expect.

We had similar experience when we worked to get our system 25X faster than Redis:

[https://github.com/amark/gun/wiki/100000-ops-sec-in- IE6-on-2...](https://github.com/amark/gun/wiki/100000-ops-sec-in-IE6-on-2GB- Atom-CPU)

</comment><comment><USER4> Beware: my anti-virus warned that this site is infected with malware.

<comment><USER5> Oh I just got a linked to this. Thanks. Can u share a screenshot so I can look into this. It's SSL only site with a Jekyll render, and I host it on app engine.. so should be alright. Thank you</comment></comment>