Releasing Serverless Framework V.1, and Fundraising - <AUTHOR> https://serverless.com/blog/releasing-serverless-framework-v1-and-fundraising/ <comment><USER2> Congrats on the raise, but I'll be honest it really rubs me the wrong way that they renamed to "Serverless Framework" from JAWS. They should have picked a different name. The word "Serverless", for better or worse, was what the community settled on. Lot of companies and individuals use it in many different ways and have before this project existed. But they are trying to own it[1]. Not being a good community member IMO.

Edit: An example of the kind of thing I am concerned will happen[2]. Use the word "serverless" in a project? Get a take down notice.

[1][http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:t7t...](http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:t7tj9h.5.3)

[2][https://twitter.com/sindresorhus/status/776142274564616192](https://twitter.com/sindresorhus/status/776142274564616192)

<comment><USER3> Since TESS (Trademark Electronic Search System) requires a session, here is your reference [1] in image format. It's a trademark for SERVERLESS and also SERVERLESS FRAMEWORK both filed on November 25, 2015.

[https://piqd.com/serverless_tm.png](https://piqd.com/serverless_tm.png)

[https://piqd.com/serverless_framework_tm.png](https://piqd.com/serverless_framework_tm.png)

<comment><USER2> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Are there other examples of an open-source community project taking on several million dollars in venture capital funding? It seems a bit odd to me.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable using a presumably open-source, free (beer and speech) tool knowing that the group behind it will have to find a way to monetize their users in order to justify the investment from VCs at some point down the road. Open-source developers should of course be able to be compensated for their work, and the project has to find a way to sustain itself (I work for a company whose main product is open-source so I know this better than most), but the venture capital model doesn't seem like a good fit with the interests of the community, in my opinion.

That said, Serverless is a great tool, and congrats on the 1.0. Thanks to the team for their hard work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, appreciate the shoutout!

There certainly are other open source tools like ansible, Chef, Puppet, Hashicorp, MongoDB (and many more) that have started out as an Open Source project and are still OSS champions.

We have many plans for monetisation and are working closely with small to enterprise scale companies on building products and services around the Framework that help you once your infrastructure has reached a large scale. More info to come in the future.

<comment><USER4> To expand on my last point, how are you balancing the needs of an open-source community (steady, stable feature development, good communication/outreach/support, dedication to supporting existing products) with the needs imposed on Serverless by the VC funding model (acquiring new users quickly, launching new products you can monetize, getting hockey stick growth)?

<comment><AUTHOR> The Serverless Framework is at the core of all our monetisation strategies, so we need the Framework to be spread to as many developers and into as many teams as possible and allow for way more complex infrastructure to be built. So by necessity we'll be pushing really hard on moving the framework forward.

I don't think the needs of an open source community stay in stark contrast to VC funding model, because without the Framework getting a lot of traction our other products aren't as interesting. So we'll be working on getting that traction. And we can't do this just by ourselves. We wouldn't be here without the Contributor community (literally because they implement so many features) so without good communication, outreach, support, ... we won't be able to grow fast enough.

I can only tell you that it is our true intention to push the framework forward very hard and build monetisation around it as much as we can to build this into a long term sustainable company. The more help and feedback we get to build the right commercial products and get great revenue (so we can give our Investors as well as our Team a return as well) the happier everyone is, including the community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recently started using APEX. It doesn't rely on CloudFormation and has supports for hacking Golang support. Its worth a look if your getting more serious about Lambda development and interested in other options. [http://apex.run/](http://apex.run/)

<comment><USER6> Why is using CloudFormation a bad thing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really love the new development being done to simplify cloud deployments of stateless horizontally scalable services.

Once Serverless supports other λaas offerings I think this will really take off.

In addition to the big boys (Amazon, IBM, Google, Microsoft), I'd love to see some alternative stable open source providers come about. Maybe something built on top of kubernetes or docker swarm.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're actually talking to everyone you mentioned. I'd love to see some "on- premise" Serverless infrastructure as well, the biggest issue with that is still the event system as a Serverless infrastructure really mostly makes sense if you can do things like "when you upload something to this bucket run this function". This is hard to replicate in an on-premise system.

<comment><USER8> I don't get what's so difficult to do on-prem. Your target market on-prem all use Kafka as their event bus and either Mesos or Kubernetes as their execution fabric - what's so tricky about fitting into that?

<comment><AUTHOR> Its not about how tricky the implementation is, but what the value of setting this up is. With Lambda for example you just get this magic that invokes your functions when something happens. You don't have to deal with, manage or think about this at all. And its built into many different parts of the stack from S3 to APIG to Dynamo or SNS.

You can of course do something like that yourself in your own infrastructure, but then every piece of software needs to support it somehow, you need to manage that event bus infrastructure and you most likely have to push those events in yourself.

And that kind of thing is already there, so the appeal that Serverless event driven systems in the cloud have (because the providers give you all of this out of the box) is much harder to achieve when you have to do that yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How does this work when a database/persistence layer gets involved? Having a DB connection per function that calls it seems bad.

<comment><USER10> This seems to come up every time serverless comes up. There should probably be some better docs around this.

It's true each function needs it's own connection, but in reality:

1) The containers actually stick around for a while and get reused so if you write the code correctly it only has to establish the connection once per container invocation

2) Unless you are doing _a lot_ of traffic you'll probably only realistically have a few containers running your functions so it will only be a few connections.

3) If you end up with enough traffic that it actually becomes a problem, it would have been a problem anyway because you'd be running a lot of servers with persistent connections in a more traditional model.

In other words, the number of connects and set up and tear down is about the same as in a traditional setup, maybe just a little bit more.

Edit: One more thing. Sometimes a counter I hear is "Yeah but every function needs it's own connection". I counter that with the contention that even with a traditional setup, a good abstraction means only one or maybe two functions actually talks to the database -- everyone else should be getting their data from that function. Also if you do it that way that one function can do some smart caching (which survives at least a few minutes with serverless).

<comment><USER9> > If you end up with enough traffic that it actually becomes a problem, it > would have been a problem anyway because you'd be running a lot of servers > with persistent connections in a more traditional model.

I think this is the part I disagree with. DB connection pools are much, much smaller than than the total # of functions that touch a database in any reasonably complex application.

Yes, scale is always an issue, but it seems to me that in this serverless world where you have 1 connection per function you run into scale issues a lot(order of magnitude?) faster than the "traditional" way.

> a good abstraction means only one or maybe two functions actually talks to > the database

In a serverless world, does this mean you would run a handful of functions with DB connections, and other functions would proxy db requests through them? I can see that working ok I suppose.

<comment><USER11> For what it's worth, what we've been doing is building a separate service for talking to the database, which itself maintains a single common database connection pool.

I can't say yet whether that turns out to be a good idea or a poor one. (I'm not the one who designed and built it.) One notable feature of our implementation is that it eliminates all possibility of using transactions -- a design oversight that worries me.

<comment><USER10> You could build the transaction support into the database service. Then when you need to write multiple things, you put them into a queue as a single work unit, and let your abstraction deal with taking the work unit off the queue and putting into the database in a single transaction.

This has the added effect of making your system more reliable because you'll be using queues and you have a shorter window when a process can die and hang a db connection that is trying to roll back.

<comment><USER11> You certainly COULD (and if I were designing it I would have either done that or allowed callers to request a transaction in which case a connection is temporarily reserved for that client and a token returned which can be used to continue the transaction). But the people designing it DIDN'T do either. Which is part of why I question their design.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Great project - best of luck to team Serverless!

</comment><comment><USER13> This is definitely a step forward for software development. I'm interested to see what people build with it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Miguel. We're going to release more about our plans for the next steps in the Framework soon. I'm currently writing those and will share with the community in the very near future (CTO of Serverless here)

<comment><USER14> Hi, I have been using sls since 0.5.6 and I love using it. It's a pleasure to work with, and the community on Gitter is generally eager to help.

That said, 1) What's the schedule on the documentation for best practices for SLS in production?

2) What's an example workflow ? (something involving multiple devs, testing, CI etc.)

3) And lastly, What's the timeline on adding support to Google Cloud Functions (in alpha) and Azure Functions?

<comment><AUTHOR> > 1) What's the schedule on the documentation for best practices for SLS in > production?

These are the goals for the next releases, giving you better tooling and best practices to go from a few services to many services.

>2) What's an example workflow ? (something involving multiple devs, testing, CI etc.)

Thats still relatively standard, with good testing, CI, CD , ... but we'll also add more blogposts and docs around that.

> And lastly, What's the timeline on adding support to Google Cloud Functions > (in alpha) and Azure Functions?

Can't give an exact timeline, but we're working with both to be ready once GCF goes into production and working with Azure to get support into Serverless as well. Really also depends on talking to more users to understand how they want to use those providers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Good work on the funding.

I saw a link on the side to sign up for a beta of the serverless platform, so I did but just keep getting redirected back to the blog post. Is anything supposed to happen?

</comment><comment><USER16> Nice work! I am delving into setting up services on Lambda at the moment, and it can get really fiddly and messy. I like the way server<framework scaffolds projects and makes deployment a one line option. Interested to see where this goes.

</comment><comment><USER17> So it Server _less_ Framework that seems to be considerably tied to AWS _servers_.

EDIT. Only writing this because its in fact possible to imagine serverLESS framework these days (web workers, p2p etc), but this seems to be just about more volatile servers.

<comment><USER18> 'Serverless' as currently jargoned is used to connote that the developer does not have to think about servers (or VM's or containers) directly. The 'serverless' buzzword does not mean that there are not servers somewhere doing useful work.

<comment><USER17> Sorry, can you elaborate in which way this is "does not have to think about servers"? Because almost the first thing on their tutorial is some messing around with AWS.

<comment><USER19> Serverless is really just an a community term for 'function as a service'. There are servers... you just upload discrete bits of code to the platform which executes them on demand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I hope something like "AWSless" will follow soon :)

</comment><comment><USER21> Best of luck!

</comment><comment><USER22> Does anyone else find the period in "V.1" odd? It seems like it should be V0.1, not V1.0.

</comment><comment><USER23> horrible name</comment>


Ted Chiang: Realist of a Larger Reality - <AUTHOR> https://www.publicbooks.org/ted-chiang-realist-of-a-larger-reality/ <comment><USER2> Ted Chiang is the reason I started writing fiction. A few months ago I got the chance to meet him and have him critique one of my stories, as well as pick his brain on his process. I wrote about it here for those that are curious:

[https://tinyletter.com/jamesyu/letters/meeting-ted-chiang- an...](https://tinyletter.com/jamesyu/letters/meeting-ted-chiang-and-slow- writing)

<comment><USER3> Do you still enjoy it and how do you keep your love for it? I took up writing for a bit years ago because I love stories and reading, but I quickly found out I hated actually writing. I enjoyed ideas, intros, getting started...but none of the rest of it and it felt like work and a bother. I stick to reading now and wonder how common it is to have fun ruined by work when you aren't realistic about what its like on the other side. Like people who love taking photos...then learn to hate cameras as they struggle to earn shooting weddings and instagram models.

I love Chiang and wish he had more and longer stuff. Quality over quantity I guess.

<comment><USER4> do you jump right into writing? Do you write long or short stories? Do you scribble stuff just for fun?

writing is a continuous process as well as a developed skill. You should write stuff just for fun, just for picking up your own language and structure. Then write short stories that are easy to manage.

For larger books you have to create a solid structure first. Characters traits, genealogy and interactions, world lore for fantasy, timeline flowcharts, anyway all the backstage setup so you don't get lost or contradict yourself. It is a lot of effort, but is just a natural continuation of the first two exercises (writing for the fun of it and writing short pieces).

<comment><USER5> There are lots of successful authors who just jump into longer works and make it up as they go. Building background can help, but is not mandatory. There are very few absolutes in writing.

That said, writing for an audience beyond yourself is work, just like anything worthwhile.

<comment><USER4> sure, but I wrote that in the context of someone jumping in and feeling overwhelmed

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ted Chiang's two collections of short stories are near the top of my list for best fiction of this century.

Anyone with an interest in technology and humanity will find them to be a phenomenal read.

<comment><USER7> It's really the humanity of the books that gets me. Division by Zero is one of his pieces that I find myself thinking about all the time for that very reason. It just captures this somberness about how relationships can grow and change and sometimes end.

I do now have a Ted Chiang shaped hole in my life after finishing his collections. I just haven't found another author that really gets into the heart of what sci-fi can be.

<comment><USER8> Try Greg Egan's Axiomatic. I picked it up from a free books charity knowing nothing about it, and found the author to be a little "harder" than Chiang but with the same focus on the humanity to be found in sci-fi.

<comment><USER9> For a taste, make sure to check out _Closer_ , available here: [http://eidolon.net/?story=Closer](http://eidolon.net/?story=Closer)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you're undecided on reading Chiang's work, I would suggest checking out the movie Arrival based on one of his short stories.

I found it to be a wonderful adaptation and inspired me to dive into his works. I've found a joy reading his work that I haven't experienced in reading sci-fi since coming across Philip K. Dick when I was much younger.

<comment><USER11> One interesting thing about the movie Arrival is that they actually completely flipped the message of the story in their adaptation!

An explanation of the differences is ROT13 encoded below to avoid spoilers:

Gur zbivr Neeviny vf fhcresvpvnyyl onfrq bss Grq Puvnat'f fubeg fgbel "Fgbel bs Lbhe Yvsr". Obgu vaibyir gur neeviny bs nyvraf ba rnegu naq qrgnvy n yvathvfg'f nggrzcg ng haqrefgnaq gurve ynathntr naq ubj yrneavat gung ynathntr nssrpgf gung yvathvfg. Ubjrire, gur rssrpg bs yrneavat gur nyvra ynathntr vf pbzcyrgryl qvssrerag va obgu fgbevrf.

Va gur zbivr, yrneavat gur ynathntr pnhfrf gur yvathvfg gb tnva gur fhcreangheny novyvgl gb frr vagb gur shgher. Va fgrerbglcvpny Ubyyljbbq snfuvba, gurer ner n ohapu bs npgvba fprarf jurer gur cebgntbavfg vf enpvat ntnvafg gvzr gb erynl n zrffntr sebz gur shgher gb gur cnfg.

Ba gur bgure unaq, va gur obbx, yrneavat gur ynathntr erfhygf va n fuvsg bs crefcrpgvir sbe gur yvathvfg. Gur yvathvfg qbrfa'g rknpgyl orunir nal qvssreragyl be erprvir nal arj vasbezngvba. Gurve bhgjneq orunivbe vf rknpgyl vqragvpny gb orsber gurl yrnearq gur ynathntr. Gur qvssrerapr vf gung gurve vagreany crefcrpgvir unf fuvsgrq terngyl. Guvf vf fbzrjung cuvybfbcuvpny naq pna or n ovg pbzcyvpngrq gb pbaprcghnyvmr, ohg Grq Puvnat qbrf n znfgreshy wbo rkcynvavat gung arj crefcrpgvir va gur fgbel.

<comment><USER10> Very interesting. I loved both but for some reason I did enjoy the short story better (I'm definitely not always a "The book was better"-type person either), and I think this explains why. I'll have to go and check them both out again and keep this in mind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> These stories are all amazing (talking about the anthology with story of your life) and out of them came one of the best sci-fi movies in a long time.

My favorite story though is the one with the two people who become super intelligent and go to war amongst each other. That one was crazy.

<comment><USER13> It ended rather abruptly but possibly fittingly.

The narrator on the audiobook (Todd MacLaren) is the same as the one who narrated Altered Carbon, one of my favorite listens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It takes an incredible skill set to create a short story and hold a reader's attention, all the more so when science-fiction is involved. Given the relative paucity of his output, he clearly approaches his work like a master craftsman - slowly building and removing all the excess.

<comment><USER15> I find his stories really cut to the core of an idea with so little excess, as you put it. The ideas he explores are so well chosen too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I love Ted Chiang. My favourite is "Hell is the absence of God" from the collection "Stories of your life". It drew me in.

<comment><USER17> Basically every story in that book is a gem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> He is a good writer. I love the story "Tower of Babylon".

</comment><comment><USER19> I used to avoid sci-fi because of non-realism. Not my cup of tea to read insanely powerful tech used in really disappointing ways (e.g. Sophons from Three Body Problem writing timestamps), or for example societies in 2030 that are culturally unchanged from 2010.

Then I tried Blind Date with a Book, which is where the book gets wrapped in brown paper and labelled with some hints about the book, so you know what kind of book you're buying but not the title or author. I ended up unwrapping Chiang's Story of Your Life, the short story collection. Chiang ended up pulling me back into sci-fi. Every story had sci-fi elements that were thought-provoking without being unbelievable, not to mention phenomenal worldbuilding, which I am a real sucker for.

Even if you're not a sci-fi fan I'd recommend several of the stories in Story of Your Life -- Tower of Babylon really left an impression in my friend group, to say the least.

<comment><USER20> I really enjoyed Ursula Le Guin's scifi for those reasons. The technology in Le Guin's stories basically doesn't matter; her stories revolve around relationships and culture. As an example, a story that focuses on a 2 planet system that has a slavery based society. On one planet, the slaves rebel. But even after their successful rebellion, the freed slaves fail to acknowledge that their women are essentially still slaves since they lack all basic human rights. Another story is about a planet/moon system where a few hundred years prior an anarchist culture secedes from the planets staunchly capitalistic culture, and then moves to the moon. The story follows a physicist/mathematicians life in an anarchist society. Another story deals with the toll that war has on people with telepathy. They have empathy for their enemies, but none the less they are in a situation in which they must kill those they have a telepathic connection with.

All the plot lines I talk about are in the collection of books belonging to the "Hainish cycle" series. Every book in the series is very good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm going to counterpoint. I didn't dislike Chiang's stories, but none of them really blew me away either.

Generally the feeling I always get from his stories is the writing is very good, but the stories have always been executed by others, better.

I read his stories and didn't mind them. But I don't see myself going back and rereading them like I would for Philip K. Dick, Harlan Ellison, etc.

I happily passed the collection on to someone else and don't feel any need to replace it.

</comment><comment><USER22> I loves his new collection of a short stories, some are better than others, but overall there are a ton of unique ideas on display. The Merchant and The Alchemist's Gate is such a great time travel story in particular. I didn't enjoy the one about digital creatures (it went on for way too long!) or the one about the child-bearing device.

<comment><USER23> "Anxiety is the Dizziness of Freedom" was really stunning for me, personally. Also enjoyed the titular story, though I had already read it before the collection came out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> A short story of his in audiobook form:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLsGfN-F2rs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLsGfN-F2rs)

Not /the/ best narration, but I enjoyed it all the same.</comment>


Countries ask Google to drop "launch now, fix later" policy - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/countries-ask-google-to-drop-launch-now-fix-later-policy.ars <comment><USER2> Was Microsoft and Adobe CC'ed?</comment>


"5th State of Matter" Recreated on ISS for Longer Than on Earth - <AUTHOR> https://news.yahoo.com/quantum-fifth-state-matter-observed-space-first-time-090312178.html <comment><AUTHOR> "Paris (AFP) - Scientists have observed the fifth state of matter in space for the first time, offering unprecedented insight that could help solve some of the quantum universe's most intractable conundrums, research showed Thursday.

Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) -- the existence of which was predicted by Albert Einstein and Indian mathematician Satyendra Nath Bose almost a century ago -- are formed when atoms of certain elements are cooled to near absolute zero (0 Kelvin, minus 273.15 Celsius)..."</comment>


After Tens of Thousands of Pigeons Vanish, One Comes Back - <AUTHOR> http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/26/after-tens-of-thousands-of-pigeons-vanish-one-comes-back/ <comment><USER2> > Mouritsen thinks, that the reason those warblers left Tennessee was not > because they heard wisps of a distant superstorm but because of changes in > atmospheric pressure.

Sound _is_ changes in atmospheric pressure, and we're talking about infrasound which is really low frequency, so there's not exactly a sharp distinction here.

<comment><USER3> TLDR - the pigeon problem coincided with high-decibel infrasound from sonic booms from the Concorde SST. That suggests they were temporarily deafened in that frequency band. (At 11 octaves below middle C, they're sensitive to anything over 0.1 Hertz.)

<comment><USER4> Is it actually possible to be specifically deafened at such a low frequency? There's no resonance down there, and it would be so much lower energy. I would expect all other hearing to be severely and possibly permanently impacted before infrasound could be deafened.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd like something that keeps pigeons off my balcony. Surprisingly little works. I have a motion detecting sonic alarm that doesn't work - maybe it's in the wrong frequency for pigeons. I wonder if a motion detecting laser frightener would work better. Kickstarter anyone?

<comment><USER6> Have you tried a feline alarm system? Worked for us.

<comment><USER5> Thanks. I'd like to give that a try. Do you have a link to the type of model that has worked for you?

<comment><USER6> I'd get one used or second hand, since they tend to be better at detecting the birds.

<comment><USER5> sure, but 'feline alarm system' is kind of vague - what type or model worked for you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've got a feeling in a couple decades the military will declassify how they used some kind of new ULF device to talk to submarines and it had a power level equal to nuclear weapons.

And that as a side effect it screwed up all kinds of wildlife.

<comment><USER8> Just plain sonar is bad enough, and that's been public knowledge for a while:

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-military- sona...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-military-sonar-kill/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> For sure this is interesting, but it's curious that articles of this sort are appearing on HN with increasing frequency. There used to be purely tech news, now it seems that anything interesting qualifies for an up vote.

<comment><USER10> "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

<comment><USER11> A post like the parent and a reply of the guidelines happens multiple times per weekend. I wonder when the complainers will notice the pattern and accept it.

<comment><USER12> New people come along all the time. I was also confused by the guidelines. Possibly they need to be in a more prominent place.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Darkmail kickstarter has 53% to go with just 7 days left. - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ladar/lavabits-dark-mail-initiative?

<comment><USER2> Was to be expected because no solution for meta-data.</comment>


Employers arent just whining the skills gap is real - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2014/08/employers-arent-just-whining-the-skills-gap-is-real <comment><USER2> I disagree with the article's very title: the employers cited and quoted are just whining. First, said employers aren't really saying what they're paying - perhaps they want highly skilled employees on an unskilled employee wage. Second,they're not specifying which skills, just "technical skills" or some such persiflage.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> article's a little dated but still seems relevant. I think a lot of times companies are looking for people who have multiple years experience(so they can come in and teach best practices to the rest of the team) in technologies that have just became popular.

</comment><comment><USER3> Skills gap or education availability and affordability gap?</comment>


5 Grammar Mistakes that Make You Sound Like a Chimp - <AUTHOR> http://www.copyblogger.com/grammar-chimpanzee/ <comment><USER2> Half these things are common usage and basically considered proper by everyone who isn't a nazi. The others are so rare it isn't worth mentioning them.

</comment><comment><USER3> I recall a more interesting article on commonly misused words..

Eg. Bemused means confused only. Not "confusingly amused" as it typically is used.

Peruse means to examine in great detail, despite the fact that perusal time in college usually means skimming over the paper quickly.

I forget them all, but I think pristine and ironic were on the list.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hmmm, this smells like opinion presented as fact to me. For example, 'an historic' is good English (in England, not sure about US-English convention) in the same way as you _can_ say 'an honour' or 'an hour'; ie. because the 'h' is pronounced softly.

</comment><comment><USER5> Wow. An article about grammar that uses incorrect grammar. Certainly makes the author sound like a chimp.

For example:

 _Here's a typical incorrect use:

        'The committee will consist of Bob, Mr. Parsons, and myself.'

In this circumstance, 'me' is the right choice. In general, 'myself' is a word you shouldn't find much use for, so if you're using it a lot, you're probably using it wrong. 'Myself' should only be used reflexively, to refer back to the subject._

Unfortunately his proposed correct useage is incorrect.

The correct usage in this case would be:

'The committee will consist of Bob, Mr. Parsons, and I.'

<comment><USER6> No, it should indeed be "me". The reason is the verb "consist" requires that its objects are in the objective case.

Native English speakers often have a problem with noun and pronoun cases because this grammatical feature has all but disappeared from the language, only its weak remnants remain. This is one place, perhaps the most well known place, where it still appears.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The "an historic" one is a major pet peeve of mine. I've had college professors insist that usage.

</comment><comment><USER8> Actually contains non-common stuff</comment>


Ted Nelson - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nelson

<comment><USER2> Ted Nelson created a YouTube series, Computers for Cynics, which is his history of modern computing technology.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdnGPQaICjk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdnGPQaICjk)

In one amusing video, he proposes that Satoshi Nakomoto, the creator of Bitcoin, is a pseudonym used by Shinichi Mochizuki, the mathematician who found a proof for the abc conjecture with his inter-universal geometry.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emDJTGTrEm0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emDJTGTrEm0)

[http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/top- english.html](http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/top-english.html) [http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/papers- english.htm...](http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/papers-english.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Whew, when I saw the Wikipedia page for Ted Nelson posted to HN, apropos of nothing (that I know of), I feared he was dead or something.

Happily, the pages says he 'is' blah blah blah and not 'was'.

So it isn't yet necessary to figure out the proper way to commemorate the man who added 'teledildonics' to the lexicon (yeah yeah, and 'hypertext').

</comment><comment><USER4> "Teledildonics" is my new word of the day.</comment>


Why Don't Americans Understand How Poor Their Lives Are? - <AUTHOR> http://www.danielsjourney.com/2017/12/21/america.html <comment><USER2> > _In London, Paris, Berlin, I hop on the train, head to the cafe — it's the > afternoon, and nobody's gotten to work until 9am, and even then, maybe not > until 10 — order a carefully made coffee and a newly baked croissant, do > some writing, pick up some fresh groceries, maybe a meal or two, head home — > now it's 6 or 7, and everyone else has already gone home around 5 — and > watch something interesting, maybe a documentary by an academic, the BBC's > Blue Planet, or a Swedish crime-noir. I think back on my day and remember > the people smiling and laughing at the pubs and cafes._ [0]

No, not everyone in Europe gets to live white-collar worker dream of writing poetry at the coffee shop and coming in late. See the people working at the coffee shop, the construction workers, garbage men, etc.

One thing I love about America is that people still get shit done here. One reason that Europe has very few innovative new companies created in the last 25 years is that everyone is at the coffee shop writing poetry.

An old joke - _" Every MBA in America dreams of starting a billion dollar business. Every MBA in Europe dreams of starting a satellite office of the American business."_

[0] From the actual blog the author quoted from [https://eand.co/what-do-you- call-a-world-that-cant-learn-fro...](https://eand.co/what-do-you-call-a-world- that-cant-learn-from-itself-58ae28cefd23)

<comment><USER3> > One reason that Europe has very few innovative new companies created in the > last 25 years is that everyone is at the coffee shop writing poetry.

This does not dispute the central point of the quoted piece, which is that the quality of life of most Americans is very poor contrast to that of the average person in some subset of European countries. I would wager that most coffee shop employees are more concerned with labor protections, healthcare, social welfare, the ability to afford housing and take vacations than whether their country's economy is producing "innovative companies" (read: tech startups?). This was certainly true of myself when I worked in food service.

Even so, this point does not stand well on its own. It may be that Europeans are deincentivized from creating enormously overvalued startups because their quality of life is much better (although I question whether this is worth bragging about, from a US standpoint). Nevertheless, I'd consider things like lack of a single market, fragmented languages and cultures, completely different VC environment, and so on to be much more impactful in that regard.

<comment><USER4> Americans don't believe the onus is on the whole to make sure the individual lives a happy life. We just don't have the collectivist culture the Europeans have. I think this is a great thing, and is why America is where most of the innovation, cultural, and political power is.

I personally have lower taxes, high quality healthcare, and live in an awesome location, and I got all of that through an education and training. That is available to almost every American if they just put in the work.

That, to me, is not just a great thing but the morally right thing. Apply yourself and make a better future for you and your family.

To the people responding to me with the most _predictable_ lines: poverty exists in Europe; so does homelessness; as does food insecurity. Please don't tell me that Europe is some great place where poverty doesn't exist and everyone is living great lives.

It is also possible to be sympathetic toward the most needy while not supporting collectivism. You know what the poor need most? A marketable skill. A good job. Support programs that give people the skills they need in order to compete in a globalized market. It's funny how collectivists never push that though, and instead push for more collectivism.

<comment><USER5> > I personally have lower taxes, high quality healthcare, and live in an > awesome location, and I got all of that through an education and training. > That is available to almost every American if they just put in the work.

I'm sure that's nice for you personally. From what I've observed, this simply isn't true for many in America, who face desperate struggles _despite_ hard work.

<comment><USER6> "If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire." \- George Monbiot

If you believe in the gospel of meritocracy, "hard work = success", then you'd have to believe the reverse ("poor people are poor because they're lazy."). But this ignores the luck factor (that a lot of people are poor because of bad luck, and that a lot of people are so god damn rich because of good luck). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTDGdKaMDhQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTDGdKaMDhQ)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is the blathering of spoiled rich kid on vacation.

> In London, Paris, Berlin, I hop on the train, head to the cafe — it's the > afternoon, and nobody's gotten to work until 9am, and even then, maybe not > until 10 — order a carefully made coffee and a newly baked croissant, do > some writing, pick up some fresh groceries, maybe a meal or two, head home — > now it's 6 or 7, and everyone else has already gone home around 5 — and > watch something interesting, maybe a documentary by an academic, the BBC's > Blue Planet, or a Swedish crime-noir. I think back on my day and remember > the people smiling and laughing at the pubs and cafes.

This is so farcical it's not even worth trying to rebut.

<comment><USER8> It's hilarious that the author is citing television. Is there anyone on the Earth who believes, e.g., British television is better as a whole than US television? They must really like slow-to-never-developing low budget, single camera angle crime dramas.

[Edit: Apparently so! Quite the controversial statement. However, when voting, do consider what percentage of television consumed outside of the US was produced IN the US and vice versa.]

<comment><USER9> The endless interruptions of adverts every 5 minutes does tend to encourage me that the experience of US television is worse.

Some of the actual content is much better, but the experience of watching television in the US is drastically worse.

<comment><USER10> If you are seeing commercials, you are doing it wrong.

<comment><USER11> I'm confused by this, how do you avoid commercials. From watching the off NFL game there's even like pre-commercial commercials. "Brought to you by <some american car company> and <drink> the official drink of <whatever> and McDonalds - I'm loving it".

<comment><USER12> tivo, netflix, amazon prime, hulu, etc.

I don't watch network tv anymore. Well, I don't actually watch TV at all, but you get the picture.

<comment><USER11> I don't know about Tivo, but are all of the rest of these not available in Europe...?

<comment><USER12> Well, I'm using Tivo just to refer to any timeshifting device, there are plenty. I thought the others were available in some form in EU, but I could be wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A lot depends on your particulars. I'm a minority and the US is great because I can earn opportunities my relatives in some other countries would not be allowed. In some other countries, your ethnicity/background/religion would get in the way far more than in the US.

This is not to say we don't have room for improvement, we do. Just that we're more meritocratic than certain other first world countries. I know this just comparing experiences, stories, outcomes from many friends, cousins, co- workers in other countries. (Also, I've lived overseas for work many years and got to see things firsthand.)

Is it a grind? Yes. Stressful? Yes. But meritocracies [wherever you are on the spectrum] are stressful because you are competing for outcomes rather than being born into them.

...And then there is US healthcare. I don't know _what_ to say about that...

<comment><USER14> > In some other countries, your ethnicity/background/religion would get in the > way far more than in the US.

I completely disagree. I'm from Europe and applied to a few American-based companies and they all had these ridiculous forms related to anti- discrimination and the like. Is it that big of a problem in the US? That's whay I'm asking myself when I have to fill in those forms. Why do you have to know my ethnicity? Why do people in the US _constantly_, and I mean CONSTANTLY, talk about their origins? Literally no one cares in Europe, but it's always said in the US. "Native-american btw", "african-american btw", etc. I personally think this is an issue in the US, but it isn't that big of an issue in Europe.

> This is not to say we don't have room for improvement, we do. Just that > we're more meritocratic than certain other first world countries.

I personally think that this is an illusion. Europe is in my opinion a lot more meritocratic than the US from my visits. I think the US is very hypocritical when it talks about immigrants as the whole of the US is made of immigrants, just all from different generations. Europe doesn't currently have a problem with building a wall to keep the Mexicans out or anything.

<comment><USER15> _Europe doesn 't currently have a problem with building a wall to keep the Mexicans out or anything._

This is plainly not true. EU has a lot of its own walls. It's just the fact that it lacks long land border with countries from which major migration flows originate is what makes it a lesser topic for debates.

Why do you think migrants coming from the Middle East prefer to cross Aegean sea, instead of going by land? Because land border is all fences, barbed wire, and even landmines with not a single gap.

And limiting migration is very hot political issue in many EU countries currently.

<comment><USER16> > and even landmines with not a single gap

Really? Are you talking about the landmines in Croatia that weren't fully cleared after the 1990s Balkan war? People were actually providing maps with the approximate locations of the fields so they can be safely bypassed.

You make it sound like Europe is planting mines to keep migrants out. If the reaction of a small minority of European countries (2-3) seems exaggerated when faced with over 1 million (!) immigrants, then the fact that over 7000 people [0] were killed at the US-Mexico border just over the past 20 years should really shock you to the core.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_deaths_along_the_Mexic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_deaths_along_the_Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border)

<comment><USER17> On that wikipedia page you linked, the 7000 (or 10000 since 1994) deaths are from all combined sources. The vast majority of those seem to be from exposure to the elements (for instance hypothermia is one of the most common causes of death) or accidents. If you read the part of that page that talks about Border Agents' use of force, around 17 deaths are listed, with an additional 10 left disabled. Your use of that source is a misunderstanding at best or dishonest at worst.

<comment><USER16> Which is no different from the landmines that "Europeans" (one country) "use" (still have them after an atrocious war) to keep migrants out. This was my point.

It felt like a "whatabout" reaction and no effort was made to remove the impression that mines are actually employed with the purpose of keeping migrants out.

<comment><USER17> I understand. I wasn't supporting the person you were arguing against, just pointing out that the US Border Patrol hasn't killed thousands of migrants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As an American who has lived in Europe for 5+ years: the single biggest issue with the States is that everything is filtered through a money-first mentality.

Reading a book? It better be nonfiction, because fiction "isn't real" and won't help you get ahead. Writing a book? It's only a success if it's a best- seller. Studying a new language? Only worth it if you can monetize it somehow. Hate your job? Not a problem if your salary is high enough.

This baseline mentality underlies everything and injects a market in to places where it doesn't belong. Europe certainly has its own issues, but at the very least it allows for the possibility that life isn't primarily a series of financial decisions.

<comment><USER19> Is this a real thing? My life is my job, family, side projects, and fun.

I don't know where you lived, but none of the people I know, Engineers and programmers think that they should be reading non fiction instead of playing video games.

<comment><USER20> > none of the people I know, Engineers and programmers think that they should > be reading non fiction instead of playing video games.

Worth noting, playing video games has also been monetized.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The linked blog is by a notorious America-hater Umair Haque, almost all of his pieces are slammed for similar reasons you see in this comments section. It's hate bait, nothing more. (I recommend "Why the Anglo World is Collapsing" /s)

Take a look at his other work to get an idea of how seriously you should take this guy: [https://eand.co/@umairh](https://eand.co/@umairh)

<comment><USER22> I cannot understand why you would call it hate bait.

[but please look at the actual article, not the link in the header· NB: I have no knowledge about the author other than that article. But the article is what's being discussed here.]

He is, for example, pointing out that history shows that the way to progress is by "lifting one another up, not keeping anyone else down" and rejecting the "I rise by pulling you down" philosophy, which is exactly the reasoning of the groups that are currently destabilizing factors in some Europan countries.

In other words - it's the opposite of hate bait.

<comment><USER21> Cmon. Take this passage, right at the beginning:

>There is a myth of exceptionalism in America that prevents it from looking outward, and learning from the world. It is made up of littler myths about greed being good, the weak deserving nothing, society being an arena, not a lever, for the survival of the fittest — and America is busy recounting those myths, not learning from the world, in slightly weaker (Democrats) or stronger (Republicans) forms.

He makes a bunch of accusative statements that are _intentionally_ designed to provoke bipartisan outrage, hence clicks and shares on forums like Hacker News. It's absolutely hate-bait.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It all comes from the individualism and egocentrism and bullying of US culture. "It is made up of littler myths about greed being good, the weak deserving nothing, society being an arena, not a lever, for the survival of the fittest". You've been raised and thought to only think and work for yourself and consider your interests first...Until someone gets cancer and you have to launch a GoFundMe campaign and hope it'll not ruin your entire family. We sure have a lot of issues in Europe and by no mean are perfect societies or have the greatest companies. But at least we help each other, we support the less fortunate, we protect the weakest. And that's how you improve quality of life, life expectancy, a build a better society overall. I'm happy to give a significant part of my income to the government if it helps people survive and live better. And what you don't actually realize is that people are doing the same for you, because you might one day need it. Now why don't we have as many unicorns as you do in the U.S.? Because we're a bit more precautious and risk- averse, it's true.We don't go as fast and as strong as you. We first think 'Is this possible? safe? legal? right?' and then go on making the thing. While you just go, build it and ask questions later... which is an amazing fearless mindset which allowed you to accomplish incredible thing but which also leads to Facebook fucking up all over the world, Amazon treating their employees like slaves, or Boeing killing 350+ people because a 2nd safety system is too expensive.

<comment><USER24> Fantastic comments and very true. This echoes my time spent living in Europe.

As an "American" with a British father, and having lived overseas for much of my life, I still value European social mores and overall cultural far more than my American side. If I could only convince my wife to move to somewhere besides Texas. Vermont is first on the list, followed by anywhere in south rural England or Spain.

Europeans tend to not get starry-eyed like Americans. I don't need or want a sports car and big-assed house. It does nothing for me other than put me behind the power curve financially. I'd rather have universal healthcare, 6 weeks paid holiday and the ability to travel cheaply in the EU bloc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Americans don't travel. If we did, we wouldn't buy the myth of American exceptionalism.

But then, we are largely becoming a country controlled by global financial interests rather than the population. Money is the deciding factor in our elections, and the most concentrated forms of wealth out there are sovereign wealth funds and large multinational corporations whose executives are largely above the law. Which means you don't need to be an American citizen to have a voice in the political process that affects the quality of life for hundreds of millions of us.

We need publicly funded elections. Otherwise, corporate and foreign money with zero interest in the wellbeing of American citizens will dominate the politics agenda (just like they have for the last 20-ish years).

<comment><USER26> Money is not the deciding factor in American elections. Hillary Clinton spent twice as much as Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.

<comment><USER27> How does that follow? A charismatic demagogue won against a singularly uninspiring lifetime politician, despite receiving fewer votes (because Electoral College). Money isn't the _only_ factor, but it's still one of the largest.

<comment><USER26> "One of the largest" is different from "the deciding factor"; let's keep those goalposts pinned down please.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This article is blog spam, here's the actual link: [https://eand.co/what-do- you-call-a-world-that-cant-learn-fro...](https://eand.co/what-do-you-call-a- world-that-cant-learn-from-itself-58ae28cefd23)

<comment><USER29> I disagree. The article quotes and links to three different articles (the first of which is the one you have pointed out) and ties them together. I agree that it is not the most substantial post, but I wouldn't call it blogspam.

<comment><USER22> I read the original and didn't get that there were more substance elsewhere. In the end I found it pretty contentless. The link that CoolGuySteve (and seibelj) pointed to is where the real article is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> As an American living abroad, I can subjectively confirm what the author writes. I have a hard time keeping a straight face when returning.

<comment><USER31> When my company sent me to South America to work, it was pretty revealing how American company culture is toxic.

People from the home office in NY were literally complaining about South Americans getting too many vacation days, 1 hour lunches, and a lot of other perks that are guaranteed by law. All of this despite the south american employees making 30% of the NY salary. The head of HR complained about guaranteed 1 hour lunches for the employees because "she ate lunch at her desk working everyday". They were jealous because it was only a 10 minute walk to a gorgeous beach from the SA office.

I was involved in a lot of discussions with HQ about the office and it became abundantly clear, that all the HR and execs wanted to keep the salaries of South American's low or else they would have "too good of a life" and "live like kings" if they paid them the NY salary, despite things like computers and cars costing like 2x the cost of USA. and while rent was cheaper, the difference in rent was only like 24k a year (1k for an apartment vs 3k). I was still living on my NY salary, and would get constant criticism from the home office that I was living too well, despite all the benefits (access to the beach, nice weather, etc) were free.

It seemed like the entire office thought everything in south america was pennies on the dollar. In reality to lead an equivalent life as the USA (modern apartment, nice neighborhood, eat at nice restaurants, have a nice car), its not really _that_ much cheaper, like 20-30% cheaper. Not 66% cheaper.

Anyways, what really opened my eyes was that was _south america_. I think we think of South America as being underdeveloped, but my life was very nice there, and it was very very difficult to justify going back to the USA.

And it really opened my eyes, how blatantly envious American HR employees can get when they see the more relaxed lifestyles of other countries and instead of improving themselves, they seek to tear others down.

<comment><USER24> Great comments and very, very true. I've worked overseas for a number of years and can vouch for what you say.

Americans are too driven. They don't know how to relax. Most Americans don't even take their full holiday time.

What I've done to combat the BS with employers is to set the bar at the interview. I tell them they will get a solid 8 hours of work from me, M-F, 730-430 or 8-5. I don't waver on this, as I have a family. I don't work nights or weekends. I don't accept calls after hours unless it's something that is dramatically critical. Don't call me to bitch about the email server being slow. The shit's in the cloud and I have no control over it anyway. It can wait.

I firmly, yet nicely "demand" an hourly wage in lieu of salary to ensure that I get paid for every second I work. Should I have to work overtime in an emergency, I should be compensated. This all sounds like some harsh demands on my part, but if I don't do it for myself, who will? I have a union mentality towards work because I know that no employer has my best interests at heart.

I tell people all the time to negotiate their own employment. HR departments are willing to work with you within reason, but you have to ask. One way of almost forcing companies to work your way is asking for an hourly salary. Quite a few will comply. No one wants to pay overtime. It's costly. I don't want to work overtime. It's a kind of let's check each other. If I cannot accomplish something in 8 hours, there is always tomorrow. I don't check email after work. In fact, I refuse to put my work email on my personal devices unless you pay a stipend. My device is mine, not yours. You have to pay to play. Yet no one stands up for themselves. Almost no one. You get what you are willing to fight for. And before someone says, well, you deserve to get fired or not hired... why? Because I'm willing to be my own union and "demand" my own terms? It's possible. Not always, but unless one tries, one gets what one gets. I tell the people all the time here, "stop taking your laptop home at night. Are you being paid overtime? If you're not, don't work overtime. Negotiate better pay and working conditions."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> One constant thing in every country is there is always a narrative among certain percentage of population about how shitty their country is, America is no different, usually the people who feel this way are not nationalists.

If you immigrated to US from third world country you would know how amazing this country is.

It always be your choice to live how happily you want to live, you can quit wanting to climb the ladder, you can quit watching news telling you how shitty country is, you can quit watching TV constantly telling you to upgrade your house, car, phone etc.

<comment><USER33> > _If you immigrated to US from third world country you would know how amazing > this country is._

Yes, _compared to the third world country you come from_. But that works for pretty much any other western country. It doesn't help comparing them between each other.

<comment><USER34> Much the same as saying, "If you were unemployed and homeless, you'd know how amazing this job in an Amazon warehouse is.

Look at how many people would rather work here than starve!"

Very true. And yet, there are better jobs with better working conditions. This is not to say that the USA is the Amazon Warehouse of developed countries, but you need to compare jobs to jobs, and developed countries to developed countries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Given the number of Americans and the breadth of places they can live, you're not going to be able to generalize this sentiment. There is Poor as in lacking wealth, there is Poor as in lacking quality, and Poor as in lacking community. Which are we talking about?

There is a persistent social churn in the US. It is a side effect of what we consider progress. Progress is generally an outcome of building businesses that emerge, grow and die. Employees that are valuable to one business may not be valuable to the next, and that transition takes them from being prosperous to being poor and struggling.

One example is the shift from a primarily industrial economy to a primarily service economy. All the factory workers who provided for and raised families in the 50s - 70s came into jeopardy in the 80s-90s as US companies off-shored manufacturing. The families that could not make the transition suffered. They had to buy based on price and low cost won, in spite of the quality.

At the same time, new companies with different business models emerged and the workers of those companies prospered. Consider the semiconductor industry. In the 70s and into the 80s, the US dominated. Then, again, the technology spread globally to Europe and Asia and US fabrication facilities shut down, families were again in jeopardy.

Today, the wealth creation and prosperity is centered on technology companies, which dominate lists of the most valuable companies globally. It is likely that as in the past, these firms will ultimately give way to global competition, and their employees will need to shift.

</comment><comment><USER36> > There is a myth of exceptionalism in America that prevents it from looking > outward

Which is frankly such a common sentiment from every European I've ever met that it's become almost a cliche. Perhaps we are a bit arrogant but at some point don't you have to realize that maybe you're doing the exact same thing in reverse?

All the things he listed out as being of lower quality are completely subjective. The food is worse? Compared to where? Yes, you can get a lot more variety of crappy fast food... nothing is preventing you from NOT stopping at McDonald's though. It's like saying all furniture is crappier in Sweden because IKEA is everywhere...

<comment><USER37> I do think quality of food and dairy is a problem in the USA and it has been a difficult thing for me everytime i have travelled there. When i've been to europe i've found the quality and preparation to be very good and consistent everywhere (big cities and small towns) but not always a lot of variety.

<comment><USER36> Like I said, quality of food varies. No matter where you are that is true, not every restaurant is the same.

I'm not sure what you mean about the quality of dairy? US milk, eggs, and cheese are no different than any of the milk, eggs, and cheese of the same variety anywhere else in the world I've been.

<comment><USER38> There is huge variation in Dairy! French Milk (was) terrible, only UHT widely available, though fresh is now quite common. US milk is nothing like as good as British milk for freshness/flavour (though the latter is subjective).

US eggs are refrigerated, as salmonella is so prevalent. Not so in UK, where they are guaranteed salmonella free (nowadays 'thanks' to Edwina Curry)

And Cheese? Really - I'm fairly sure there is no equivalent of a nice ripe epoisses widely available in the US. Sure, cheap cheddar is just like Monterray Jack, but....

I have lived in the US for 8 years, France/Luxembourg for 2 and the UK for the rest.

<comment><USER39> There is no nice ripe epoisses anywhere in the world. If you do actually want cheese that smells like feet, perhaps as mosquito bait, you can get that in the USA. (it can not be nice however) Most supermarkets will stock Limburger, kept cold and double-wrapped with foil to avoid offending the shoppers.

We also have both kinds of edible cheese, mild cheddar and mozzarella.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Many, dare I say the majority, of Americans don't have any desire to have the European way of life, culture or institutions. We like heavily processed Walmart peanut butter on our goddamn Wonderbread made from GMO wheat with jelly sweetened with corn syrup. We like our Budweiser and $10 "Chinese" buffet. We like driving our cheaply registered, insured, and fueled cars. We'd prefer to sit in traffic than wait for a train.

Sure our healthcare could be better but we're working on it and pretty much nobody expects the current situation to persist for all that long.

I and millions of other people like out way of life. I get that the author is entitled to his opinion but my opinion is that his opinion is crap. I hate to be this guy but if he likes Europe that much he should move there, or at least move to a state that's more like it.

<comment><USER41> > _pretty much nobody expects the current situation to persist for all that > long._

I envy your optimism

<comment><USER40> Give it 10yr for most of the old farts in congress to wash out.

Once it's possible for a republican congressmen to admit that Canada has it better without having the RNC fund whoever wants to primary them things will change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Well, the funny thing is that 'America' _is_ the standard in _lots_ of countries, even in places where many things are superior to the US. I've been to the US a few times, and the experience was abysmal. I didn't expect 1Gbps public Wifis in public transportation (well, we have them), but... I mean, super dirty subways and buses that don't go much (moving only with public transportation and foot was a painful experience), super-slow LTE/WLAN speeds (I mean... weren't they supposed to be called 'LTE'?), basically non-existent medical system - (going to the doctor takes a whole day?? We go to the doctor in lunchtime..., and super high prices even with medical insurance), and my list goes on and on.

However in South Korea everybody's saying.. 'Hey let's do it the _American_ way!'

The world is totally insane.

<comment><USER43> " I've been to the US a few times" \- Clearly then you are a registered expert on the United States socio-economic system :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Odd that he includes Paris in that list of superior places. My two weeks in Paris last summmer left me shocked at how filthy it is, how crowded the public transit is, and how unremarkable (compared to expectations). the food is. And I say that as a San Franciscan.

<comment><USER45> See Paris Syndrome [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> From the actual post:

> In London, Paris, Berlin, I hop on the train, head to the cafe — it's the > afternoon, and nobody's gotten to work until 9am, and even then, maybe not > until 10 — order a carefully made coffee and a newly baked croissant, do > some writing, pick up some fresh groceries, maybe a meal or two, head home — > now it's 6 or 7, and everyone else has already gone home around 5 — and > watch something interesting, maybe a documentary by an academic, the BBC's > Blue Planet, or a Swedish crime-noir.

I mean, if you are a Europhile of course the US is going to suck. You can always move to Quebec I suppose? No train to hop on, though.

</comment><comment><USER47> I am European, but I understand why America is the way it is. America is a country of strangers trying to coexist. They cannot agree on what way of life is the best so they cannot have strong convictions, and thus they cannot have government programs as intrusive as countries in Europe. All the good things in our European countries come at the cost of choice. Yes, we have universal healthcare, but it is mandatory and you have no say in the matter. This is fine if everyone is convinced that it is the best solution, but what if they are not?

<comment><USER22> In most European countries you also have access to private healthcare that you (or your employer) have to pay for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Obviously the quoted author has never lived an upper-class American life. Context is important when speaking about America. We have the third-largest population in the world and a larger degree in inequality than most of the countries in our GDP-bracket. There is no better place to live in the world if you are intelligent, determined, healthy, and ideally, rich and well- connected. As for the justice of such a situation, well, this is the perennial American debate: is inequality actually a good thing, or are we in a zero-sum game where wealth is a pie that never grows? See Paul Graham's essays, as always.

</comment><comment><USER49> There are some objective problems fairly raised here (e.g. quality of public transit) but set against the rest of the world, the net immigration numbers simply suggest we are not all as bad as the author makes out.

</comment><comment><USER50> This won't do well on a forum where all Americans are in the top 10% of social class.

Also, don't forget that Europe as a whole is poorer than the US. Sure, it's better to be poor in the EU than in the US but the top class can go much, much higher. A €80k salary is really on the higher end here in Europe, while Americans in IT seems to sometimes start on it.

Even though his points regarding GMO are too extreme, I think food quality and health might be the only 2 things the US is worse at than the EU. But again, you don't notice this if you're in rich in the US.

</comment><comment><USER51> Well, yeah, the Europeans have good work-life balance. But that comes at a price. European rates for software developers are way below what they are the US. Also, there are far fewer big opportunities. There simply aren't any FAANG-tier companies in Europe. They're all American, and there are a few players in that league in Asia. But Europe doesn't have any.

</comment><comment><USER52> The days when typical food and drink in Europe is better than in the US are also mostly gone. Whenever I go to a fancy restaurant in, say Frankfurt, it doesn't measure up to a comparable restaurant in my home town of Chicago (with the exception of ethnic German restaurants, which are often pretty good)

Same with coffee: Twenty years ago German coffee shops had superior coffee to American ones, but whereas American coffee has vastly improved, European shops have in general been content to remain static in quality.

</comment><comment><USER53> Because their lives by global standard are actually very very good?

</comment><comment><USER54> If you look at America like a giant company then the American dream was somewhat alike to company vision statement. Having a vision statement like that seems to have helped a lot in the past, perhaps better than companies with no vision. One of the biggest issues with these kind of top level visions is they are pretty much set forever and even if they are not working anymore it is extremely hard to replace them with something else.

But perhaps it's time to start trying?

</comment><comment><USER55> > Everything I consume in the States is of a vastly, abysmally lower quality. > Every single thing. The food, the media, little things like fashion, art, > public spaces, the emotional context, the work environment, and life in > general make me less sane, happy, alive

This is more a reflection on the author than a reflection on America. There are plenty of extremely high quality things available here and it's not America's fault if OP settles for junk instead

</comment><comment><USER56> > Were we thinking of ourselves most of the time? Or were we thinking of what > we could do for others, of what we could pack into the stream of life?

That final question he's quoting is from the alcoholics anonymous literature. I wonder if he knows that?

Another good one:

> Selfishness - self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our > troubles. Driven by a hundred forms of fear, self-delusion, self-seeking, > and self-pity, we step on the toes of our fellows...

</comment><comment><USER57> I worked a few years in Paris and then in Canada... often for American companies. Even if he exaggerates a bit the points many of my colleagues who did similar stints is that "In Europe you work to live. In North America you live to work."

And don't get me started about food... many Americans think whipped cream is that sweetened white colored oil in a can.

</comment><comment><USER58> Are they really? I can own a 6000 square foot house for $2,500/ month in most of the country. Try doing that in Europe.

<comment><USER59> I mean you totally can, in eastern Europe. But you're missing the point of the article, which is that Europeans supposedly enjoy a more 'rich' life in other ways than material goods. Although I do not fully agree, most of Europe is not that different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Why, just look at Mick Jagger!

This week he could have used the fine health care provided by the UK's government system. Instead, he opted to pay for service in an American hospital.

What's wrong with Mick? Doesn't he recognize superior quality in healthcare when he sees it?

</comment><comment><USER61> I don't think the author understands how extraordinary his life is. His complaint is essentially that there's nothing satisfying on his trello board? That's a great problem to have. It's a good thing he has clean water, an education, an aptitude and the opportunity to participate in the upper echelons of a technological revolution. He isn't living under war, famine or a communist dystopia where his options would be far more limited. He's in relatively good health and perhaps he hasn't yet suffered the extraordinary personal losses we'll all face as our loved ones grow old, sick and die. It's a good time for him. It's a fallacy to extrapolate one's mental state to the entire nation. We are living under the greatest conditions in all of human history. If you can't be satisfied here then by all means go on a soul searching adventure and figure yourself out. It's your journey, it's your time on Earth and it's literally never been better.

</comment><comment><USER62> First world problems meme is taking on a whole new level

</comment><comment><USER63> Don't get me wrong; vast numbers of Americans _do_ have plenty of experience with the world outside America.

The simple (and unfortunate) answer is that because America is geographically isolated, many Americans literally don't see how folks in other countries live.

Also, thanks to the Cold War, we spent half a century being indoctrinated to believe that socialism is evil and capitalism equals freedom and that's why the American way of life is the best one.

<comment><USER64> I wouldn't necessarily say vast number of americans have plenty of experience outside the US.

For example, only 42% have a passport. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/01/11/the- sh...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/01/11/the-share-of- americans-holding-a-passport-has-increased-dramatically-in-recent-years- infographic/)

<comment><USER63> I'm not sure that number tells the entire story. There's certainly a positive correlation between "percentage of citizens with passports" and "cluefulness about the rest of the world" but I don't think it's a simple, linear one.

In terms of understanding another country, I'm sure we can agree that there's simply no substitute for living there, working there, and speaking the language for an extended period of time.

In a very distant second place, there's having friends, family, and colleagues in other countries. I'm middle aged and my grandparents live in the Netherlands. Unfortunately I've not been able to travel there, but I do have several decades of secondhand experience with their healthcare system so I, at the very least, know there are viable alternatives to what we have in the U.S. in terms of healthcare and lifestyle in general thanks to them and my close friends and colleagues from other countries.

In an even more distant third place, there's tourism. I wouldn't call it a waste of time, but I don't think a week or two of sightseeing and Instagramming it up teaches the traveler much about life in that country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I think this Vox video explains it well. TLDR American TV does a good job distracting people from real issues in order to keep funneling funds to the rich. My guess is European elites are catching on to American tactics and are following suit.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNineSEoxjQ&t=100s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNineSEoxjQ&t=100s)

<comment><USER6> I feel like the UK is there or close to it... the elite managed to fool half the population to vote for economic self-destruction (with a bus!), and hiding behind it is a future with less regulation, which means more chance for exploitation...

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> I found this rather satisfying answer.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

\- John Steinbeck

Are you temporarily embarrassed?

You may not realise it, but you could be a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. Do you plan to someday in the future have more money? Are you concerned that your taxes are too high, because someday you might pay too much tax. Do you ride the bus only because this year you can't afford that luxury car you're going to have? Do you live pay cheque to pay cheque like most people just because you haven't had your lucky break.

You aren't rich and it's very unlikely you ever will be. The economic and power systems of this planet are not designed for you to get rich. The American dream doesn't exist and it never did. Stop being a temporarily embarrassed millionaire and just be a person.

</comment><comment><USER67> But he doesn't mention where he's from?

<comment><USER29> The author seems to be from Dallas, Texas, but the quote in the title is from another post: [https://eand.co/what-do-you-call-a-world-that-cant-learn- fro...](https://eand.co/what-do-you-call-a-world-that-cant-learn-from- itself-58ae28cefd23)

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> In a hyper-capitalistic society, money will be disproportionately allocated to the winners of whatever the society values at that time.

And that disparity causes agony and longing for the have-nots, the hope for better conditions. Some rise, some don't. But it's a constant wrestling match of allocations.

But the positive byproduct of disproportionate money allocation is innovation. That the Haves are able to accelerate their capitalistic interests because of their monetary rewards.

Suffering and disparity are functions of hyper-capitalism, innovation is another byproduct of that system, and no one embraces that system more than America.

<comment><USER69> The "hard work pays off" delusion is woven into the identity of America, making it extremely difficult for the individual to shake off despite all evidence to the contrary. It's convenient for those who benefit from the hard work of others. They can expect hard work, without actually providing much incentive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> The book "Capitalist Realism" by Mark Fisher is very, very appropriate here

</comment><comment><USER71> We live in a society

</comment><comment><USER72> Is this satire?

</comment><comment><USER73> Might not be the typical american, consider myself pretty aware of both me, my fam, and surroundings. Maybe it's all the drugs i did in college but 'chasing the dream is not for me anymore'. My mind was opened to things other than buying cars/clothes/homes, watching the latest shows etc. Hell I still get hours of enjoyment playing old SNES games on my laptop haha.

My family has carved out a little slice of life for ourselves and we are happy. Sure it's hard when you go on social medias (like the wife) and see 'friends' flying around the world, doing 'cool' things. meanwhile we are in midwest working every day trying to raise a little baby. Sometimes it's hard for folks to not get jealous. Let those millenials travel the world on their parents dime. I know people taking 30 day honeymoons going on global excursions. My wife and I paid for our entire honeymoon and spent a week in southern cal...

If you are able to ignore the outside signals, focus on what makes YOU happy. I have done that and apparently have found success in life. I've even gotten lucky with some jobs. Jobs i decided to stick with instead of jumping ship.

</comment><comment><USER10> >I planned on waking up early and revisiting said collection, but slept through my alarm, going from a planned 8 or so hours of sleep to almost 10.

This person and their DHH (dear honorary husband?) obviously don't have any kids. I'm starting to see where her idealized view of life in Europe is coming from. I've been to Europe many times and she is clearly living in some sort of upper class bubble. Why don't upper class Europeans understand how unrealistic their lives are?

</comment><comment><USER74> I'd like to believe the hallmark of a truly great society is that they are capable of shamelessly copying good ideas from elsewhere.

I'm not sure this idea of 'everything [in the US being] lower quality' is going to hold up to close inspection though. He cites life expectancy; that statistic is probably going to suffer from Simpson's Paradox - it is reasonable to expect that the better the poor and are treated, the lower average life expectancy will be. It would be easy to have great life expectancy by raising the cost of living to be so high the poor are all forced to leave.

It isn't to say that America is all sunshine and roses; there are a lot of problems in how people are rewarded and punished for their choices. But it isn't obviously worse and looking in from the outside it does seem to be easier to be the change you want to see in America.

There is also the irony that these ideas aren't being communicated on a world- leading European message board using world-class European software. It isn't that telling, it just made me smile.

<comment><USER75> Is this not being hosted on a Linux box somewhere? Sure, it may well not be, but Linux is common enough that it could be.

<comment><USER74> I can claim that for the list if you want. Torvalds is American and lives in Oregon; most of the major Linux contributors were sponsored by American companies if I recall correctly. Red Hats and IBMs of the world.

America must be doing something right.

<comment><USER75> _America must be doing something right._

It is indeed. And a lot wrong too.

This that you said; "It would be easy to have great life expectancy by raising the cost of living to be so high the poor are all forced to leave." I don't understand. Is that how France did it?

<comment><USER74> I don't know anything about France except that they are a good case study in nuclear power and they are currently rioting in the streets.

Maybe? I mean, rioting on the streets could be linked to high costs of living and I wouldn't be surprised, or it could be something else entirely.

Anyway, the point is you can't just compare life expectancy and have it mean something. It is completely plausible that life expectancy could be higher even if the medical system is worse.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


After 20 years, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy thrives on the web - <AUTHOR> http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/july/online-encyclopedia-philosophy-073115.html?a=1 <comment><USER2> It's sad how rare authoritative, free resources are on the web. It's cliche to say how incredible an opportunity the Internet presents to share the world's knowledge, but the most valuable knowledge, the serious scholarship, is effectively withheld from the public. Imagine how some debates would change if more authoritative resources were easily accessible (I don't want to exaggerate the value of 'authority', but it's a much better starting point than Wikipedia) and cited with a link, such as in HN discussions. Partly as a result the Internet is mostly rumor and popular notions, not knowledge.

I've even turned to SEP for mathematical concepts (to the extent it covers math), for example, because there is no free authoritative resource in that field.

<comment><USER3> > I've even turned to SEP for mathematical concepts (to the extent it covers > math), for example, because there is no free authoritative resource in that > field.

Does [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/) not do the trick for what you were looking into?

<comment><USER2> I use MathWorld too but it's limited for my purposes, which includes conceptual understanding: Its articles tend toward strict definitions and not concepts, some terms I lookup are omitted, and unless you already are familiar with the term defined then it can be hard to comprehend.

Compare, for example:

* [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ModelTheory.html](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ModelTheory.html)

* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/)

EDIT: Replaced the examples with better ones

<comment><USER4> Scholarpedia is another good and authoritative source. The articles are typically written by the person who created the concept, or an active authority: [http://www.scholarpedia.org](http://www.scholarpedia.org)

<comment><USER5> Indeed, one of the most authoritative sources. They should expand the fields treated, imo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; even though I don't use it as much as I did while I was in school, it's still something I read on a semi- regular basis (especially when I need to look something up).

I'm personally a much bigger fan of curated/academic encyclopedias like SEP as opposed to open encyclopedias (Wikipedia, etc.) so it's good to see it thrive.

<comment><USER7> I agree but are there any other sites such as SEP which are clearly better than Wikipedia in their subject area? I think the level of curation and peer review of SEP is unique. Scholarpedia has the right idea but is not comprehensive.

<comment><USER8> I hadn't heard of this, so on a whim looked at one article at random - "Nordtvedt effect", then compared to the same on Wikipedia. Here's the first three lines of each:

Scholarpedia

 _In the years just prior to Einstein 's publication of his Special Relativity theory Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz showed using Maxwell's equations for the electric fields within an object of distributed charge density that the fields would produce inertia in proportion to the object's electric potential energy content..._

Wikipedia

 _In theoretical astrophysics, the Nordtvedt effect refers to the relative motion between the Earth and the Moon which would be observed if the gravitational self-energy of a body contributed differently to its gravitational mass and inertial mass. If observed, the Nordtvedt effect would violate the strong equivalence..._

The complete Wikipedia article is much smaller than many, but while the Scholarpedia version is _much_ more complete, it takes a long while to get anywhere.

Edit: expanded, changed format.

<comment><USER9> Looking at just those two fragments, I prefer the wikipedia style by a country mile. To me, the scholarpedia style is excessively wordy e.g. "in the years just prior to" and has a tortured sentence construction. Its the type of pretension that stings as you read it whereas I find the wiki style is straight-forward and easy to absorb.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a fascinating example of the academic status quo being incentivized into creating valuable freely accessible knowledge.

I'm curious how being invited or accepted to write an article on topic affects academic prestige and tenure decisions. Is Brian Orend who wrote [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/) considered the canonical living expert on the philosophy of war?

I'd love to know more about the incentives and culture around this. I'm sure there are many insights one can draw about building valuable evolving repositories of knowledge from recognized exports.

<comment><USER10> I'd guess there have been attempts to do something like this in most fields, and this is one of the few that worked. Why?

One hint may be in [http://plato.stanford.edu/info.html#policies](http://plato.stanford.edu/info.html#policies)

"Contributions to the Encyclopedia are normally solicited by invitation from a member of the Editorial Board. However, qualified potential contributors may send to the Principal Editor or an appropriate member of the Editorial Board a proposal to write on an Encyclopedia topic, along with a curriculum vitae." "By qualified, we mean those persons with accredited Ph.D.s in Philosophy (or a related discipline) who have published refereed works on the topic of the proposed entry..."

Also perhaps [http://plato.stanford.edu/info.html#copyright](http://plato.stanford.edu/info.html#copyright) . I don't know how much non-cs academics think about copyright and licensing, but as most accomplished academics are authors, I am guessing it may matter to them that they keep ownership.

"Copyright Notice. Authors contributing an entry or entries to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, except as provided herein, retain the copyright to their entry or entries. By contributing an entry or entries, authors grant to the Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University an exclusive license to publish their entry or entries..."

This is just one facet of course. I'm sure there are many other factors such as possibly the stature of the Stanford lab, and particular personal relationships and technical skill of those involved, good timing, etc. I'd be very curious to hear from those with personal knowledge of the details.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Kudos where kudos are due. I find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy clear, concise, and readable even when dealing with the most complex and controversial of ideas.

</comment><comment><USER12> What I find so amazing is that the SEP isn't for the faint of heart---it is rigorous and challenging to a fault, and rarely ever holds the reader's hand. Amazing it has had so much success, really.

</comment><comment><USER13> I read a random introduction to an article every single day. I was a philo undergrad and use it to keep up to date with high-level philosophical concepts. It's great.

</comment><comment><USER14> Wow! During my philosophy undergrad this was pretty much the only internet site from which we had readings.

</comment><comment><USER15> Flat-out the most useful resource in my Philosophy undergraduate work. Any new concept I encountered would be investigated on this website.

</comment><comment><USER16> Maybe now I will get a decent mark in Philosophy :P

</comment><comment><USER17> this was the best resource for Philosophy 101!

</comment><comment><USER18> A wonderful resource, but unfortunately it lacks an entry on feminism. I find this rather telling about the authors.

<comment><USER19> There are many, including:

[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism- topics/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/)

[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism- liberal/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/)

[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femapproach- pragmatism/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femapproach-pragmatism/)</comment></comment>


Favourite playlist or soundtrack to listen to while coding? - <AUTHOR>

Mine is the LotR soundtrack :) <comment><USER2>
      Programming Electronic & Alternative
      Broadcast by WritheM Radio

[http://grooveshark.com/#!/writhem/broadcast/54ac07fb697167d5...](http://grooveshark.com/#!/writhem/broadcast/54ac07fb697167d5738b4567)

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome thanks!</comment></comment>


Vyspis — a simple sleep cycle calculator - <AUTHOR> http://vyspis.ru/en/

<comment><AUTHOR> I really really liked the idea of sleepyti.me, but thought that the implementation might have been a bit lacking in style and simplicity, so I tried to remake this service in a form as simple as possible. In its current version, Vyspis supports 24- and 12-hour time formats with different syntax and keyword "tomorrow", but I am trying to add new features which will make the experience even better without accidentally making a new Wolfram Alpha.</comment>


Gtkmm now uses C++11 - <AUTHOR> http://www.murrayc.com/permalink/2015/07/31/gtkmm-now-uses-c11/

<comment><USER2> Lambdas really do clean things up nicely in some places. It pains me to have to write function objects at work knowing this.

<comment><USER3> That must be annoying. Why can't you switch to C++11/14?

<comment><USER2> Reliance on certain, newly-deprecated things like gnu hash_map which has performance characteristics important to our specific application.

<comment><USER4> Does -std=gnu++11? not still support the gnu version?

<comment><USER5> You can use hash_map just find in C++11/14 mode, you'll just a nag #warning at compile time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd like to hear more about how the transition was accomplished. Which platforms are no longer supported for example?

</comment><comment><USER7> Thanks</comment>


When Affordable Housing Is Separated by Design - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/11/why-affordable-housing-built-areas-high-crime-few-jobs-and-struggling-schools/602584/ <comment><USER2> Blogspam of

[https://www.propublica.org/article/separated-by-design- why-a...](https://www.propublica.org/article/separated-by-design-why- affordable-housing-is-built-in-areas-with-high-crime-few-jobs-and-struggling- schools)

Original submit:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19999892](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19999892)</comment>


Facebook vs. Twitter, which office would you rather work in? - <AUTHOR> http://yonderful.com/facebook-vs-twitter-which-office-is-better

<comment><USER2> Interesting pictures of the environment. I truly like the new way of business and work environment created by new start ups as well by old and very successful like Google. BY no means it is much more pleasant and productive than corporate environment. But to answer the question: I would rather work for myself and create my own environment the way I want it.

<comment><USER3> I second that notion. There's nothing like working for yourself, and being able to create something special to present to the world in your own way. And watch is grow and succeed. I love startup business and enjoy being a founder. Its my passion. I'm the type of person that would much rather create my own company to compete with Facebook and Twitter, and capitalize on their opportunities than be employed by them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like Facebook better, but either would be a step up from my current office. The company I work for (to remain nameless) was a trendy startup in 1998 but has since grown up and gone "corporate" in the decade since. I bet we could set a record for the most beige cubicles in one building.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was leaning towards Facebook, but the third from last Twitter pic showed someone's desk with Sushi on it. I'm sold. A creative working culture of sushi eaters and bike riders. My kind of people. Facebook looks a bit more flashy, but that's ok. Twitter it is.

</comment><comment><USER5> Twitter's offices seem pretty dark. The video of Schwarzenegger visiting the Twitter offices was pretty dark too.</comment>


This Plasma Ball Can Remotely Operate my BlackBerry PlayBook - <AUTHOR> http://www.i4u.com/46886/plasma-ball-can-remotely-operate-my-blackberry-playbook

<comment><USER2> Projected capacitive screens are more sensitive than you think, and it takes a lot of careful shielding to make them do what they're doing (especially when glued over a noisy LCD screen/backlight).

Sounds like an RF immunity test got skipped here. Note that his iPad2 doesn't have the same trouble.</comment>