Why I Regret Making My House a Smart-House (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2013/08/14/why-i-regret-making-my-house-a-smart-house <comment><USER3> Dr Brooks, of MIT Robotics fame, came up with a really elegant solution for the complexity of robots, he called it subsumption. As an architecture it worked by allowing all of the small bits of a robot to be independently functional but merely "influenced" by a higher authority. That worked through a series of behaviors that were built in that could be overridden by external input.

Consider the case of a 'leg'. A robot needs to lift its legs and move them forward in order to achieve forward locomotion. This means it needs a gait where it steps while keeping itself balanced. Brooks created a system where the highest ranked function that could run, would. So if the robot was stable, it unlocked the 'lift function' and if the leg was lifted it unlocked the higher priority forward function, and if the leg was forward it unlocked the higher priority balance function. I really liked it a lot and have used it in other embedded systems since then.

As a result I see the "smart" house system similarly, which is that I would build systems that were self contained, and could see input from outside. Take a light for example, it would have 'on', 'off', 'dim' and 'i don't care'. If you command it to any point, it goes there. Period. If it is in 'i don't care' the house controller is free to tell it to do something different.

<comment><USER4> Subsumption seemed like a cool idea when it was introduced, but it turns out that it does not actually work.

[http://www.cs.uml.edu/~holly/91.549/readings/tla.pdf](http://www.cs.uml.edu/~holly/91.549/readings/tla.pdf)

<comment><USER5> Back then, I said that we needed more structure than Brooks, but less structure than Latoumbe (a professor at Stanford into efficient exhaustive search planning). Before Brooks, there was a long tradition of detailed planning in AI. Brooks totally rejected planning. This is an extreme position, but the planning and re-planning people were having trouble coping with the real world.

Brooks' Roomba is an expression of that model. The Roomba has a few simple behaviors - go in straight line, spiral, follow wall - and a state machine to switch between them. It has no idea where it is. Most later robot vacuums have actual navigation, because Roombas are notorious for getting themselves into the same traps over and over. Both overplanned and purely reactive systems have trouble coping with the real world, but they fail in different ways.

<comment><USER4> > Latoumbe

I presume you mean Latombe? [http://ai.stanford.edu/~latombe/](http://ai.stanford.edu/~latombe/)

> This is an extreme position, but the planning and re-planning people were > having trouble coping with the real world.

Yes. The whole field wasted decades running afoul of Ron's First Law: all extreme positions are wrong. This is why the three-layer architecture described in the link above (reactive behaviors sequenced by a state machine informed by a deliberative planner) eventually became the de facto standard, because it combines both approaches in a way that actually fits the structure of the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wouldn't mind a smart home so long as e.g light switches have the response time (1ms?)! and reliability (1 million switchings without hiccup?) of a regular switch.

The acceptance level for "problems" switching lights on or off is pretty much zero.

If all the smart functions fail, it has to fall back to a functioning dumb home, like escalators become stairs when broken. Not a non-working home like a broken elevator...

<comment><USER7> Fail like an escalator not like an elevator. Brilliant. I'll trade you an upvote for shamelessly stealing that little nugget.

<comment><USER8> Temporarily stairs

\- Mitch Hedberg

<comment><USER9> We apologize for the convenience.

<comment><USER8> Took me 3 times to read your comment (in)correctly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yes, it seems like Control 4 was the root of his problem. My architect aunt always builds homes with similar expensive and locked-in systems and although they do seem to last reliably for years they're 10's of thousands of dollars and locked into a certain set of functionality and hardware. But there are alternatives now.

My $50 Wink hub runs my apartment's 5x $30 z-wave dimmers, 1x $25 front door sensor, and 1x $75 z-wave thermostat and 1x $15 cree xbee LED bulb I cannibalized to drive some low voltage LED fairy lights. That's $315, ordered piecemeal and all delivered amazon prime. It's been rock-solid reliable for about two years. I recently added Amazon Alexa voice control and used the open source 'HomeBridge' node project to add Siri integration (which ROCKS).

There are inexpensive connected-home systems now. Spend an afternoon wiring one up!

<comment><USER11> Strongly concur. We're remodeling right now, and I just had a conversation with my electrician about this. I purchased eight z-wave dimmers and four slave switches for the house, and he raved to me about how easily the install had gone. He says he normally has to spend about $300 on a high-end Lutron model to get the equivalent functionality. I think I've got a convert here. :)

Smart switches have been a godsend when dealing with an old house with old wiring. We had no lights in our living room -- but there were two small ones controlled by a switch on the second floor. Two bookshelf lights, one smart outlet plug, and a smart switch for the second floor + one controller == turn on the living room lights from the entryway, as FSM intended, without running any new wiring.

I've been a little grumpy about trying to be clever with the smartthings hub, but turning all the lights off at bedtime works, and I won't complain much.

<comment><USER12> These are good alternatives until you are building a large house, where you have, say 300 switch legs, 90 dimmers, 75 keypads, etc. You start to realize Lutron is your friend.

<comment><USER11> I'd believe it. Do you have pointers to anything more with experience about this? What falls down?

(That said, I don't see needing to go there. My house has, from a quick mental count, about 52 total switches. I'm probably missing a few, but that's the right ballpark. A 300 switch house sounds like a monster.)

<comment><USER12> Lutron RA2 systems are very reliable. I centrally (home-run) wire all of the switches for future upgradeability, but I have very little issue with their systems. They can run wirelessly, but if its new construction, must also wire.

Unless the application is a Star Wars level system, I recommend RA2, otherwise Lutron Homeworks can be your best friend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> They went for a closed solution instead of using a standard based solution. They also went for wireless dimmer/light switches instead of wired.

If you build for 40 years, stop thinking like a young programmer jumping on the new trend, you need to go with robust solutions even if they cost 10% more. If you build a house, you can even wire it in a way to later add the smart features just where you effectively need them.

<comment><USER6> If you build a "smart home" begin by accepting that all of lf it should be written off and replaced in 10 years.

If the system is wired, chances are only central hubs/displays need to be changed. With a wireless system then ALL the switches and sockets will have to be changed.

<comment><USER14> " _...accepting that all of lf it should be written off and replaced in 10 years...only central hubs /displays need to be changed._"

That seems contradictory.

<comment><USER6> I meant that the "modern" tech must be replaced, if you use wireless then senders and receivers (meaning a central hub and all fixtures) likely has to go in order to support a new standard. With a wired system there is some hope that the wires can stay and carry a new standard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A futile but heartfelt plea: Stop putting computers in shit.

<comment><USER16> Stop putting shit computers in shit.

My house is ~140 years old. We've put lots of smarts into it. Nest thermostats that just work and flip on AC or heat when our phones connect to the house's WiFi. We've replaced all the common area light switches with Lutron Caseta switches. These too remove 3-way wiring by replacing remote switches with little remotes that fit in your now empty work box. They have a hub you can use to connect to the internet, but they also work fine by themselves. In some rooms we use Philips Hue lights because there are no built in lights (or if there is infrastructure for lights, it's for gas lamps). The Hue stuff does need its hub to work. Our smoke detectors are all Nest Protects. They just work without issue. None of this stuff has ever failed, and it can all be programmed by mere mortals using IFTTT. Or controlled by Amazon Echo, which is what we actually do.

<comment><USER17> Wouldn't mind reading in more detail about your setup.

<comment><USER16> made it a blog post: [http://miker.org/this-old-smart- house/](http://miker.org/this-old-smart-house/)

<comment><USER17> Thanks for sharing your setup, pointers to stuff that works like Caseta and Sonos and how you make it all work together are really useful as I'm in the process of working out a smart home of my own. I felt like it might be of interest to others here so I submitted it as a post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The title is a bit sensationalist.

I have < $1,000 invested in home IoT (security sensors, a couple of light switches, garage door opener, thermostat, and the hub) and have been very happy with it.

Personally I see IoT as augmentation not total replacement. Don't replace lights/switches for the sake of it - wait until you have a valid use. Buy devices that use commonly used standards and you should avoid vendor lock in issues.

IoT threads always get the "Why would you need a smart house" answers...

Some of my use cases so far...

\- Remotely control home heating - peace of mind when on vacation and being able to sit at DIA and come home to a warm house is awesome

\- Used "smart lighting" when I had infants in the house during the frequent middle of the night trips to the kitchen/laundry etc

\- Remotely open the garage door - useful if a family member calls in to pick up something when no one is home. Useful when HomeLink in the car fails for some reason.

\- Security system - we've had issues with neighbourhood kids trying to get into an external hot tub. The security system turns on external lights when there is motion and notifies me. If someone tries to open a door/window is sets off an alarm and turns on a small lamp so I don't wake up in pitch black conditions.

\- Water sensors under sinks and by the sump pump - our house was destroyed by a leak several years ago. The peace of mind from having this monitored is worth it alone for my family.

\- Lighting - external holiday lights. Also hooked up the security system to give anyone prowling around a festive surprise (my long term goal is to combine this with opensprinkler...)

<comment><USER19> The water sensor one is a good use case but the others seem a bit weak.

They seem like the kind of technology I could have developed or even bought off the shelf in 1980. I was talking to one guy who says the security sensors to detect footfall were better decades ago.

These are the kinds of use cases I'd like to see:

1\. If my house is broken into, I want intruders isolated such that they have to break down every door before they can be in contact with me. Bizarre that my internal doors should work for my ax-murderer/burglar.

2\. I want my countertops/bathroom to be given a targeted UV wash. Same with handles of doors/fridges etc.

3\. A complete inventory of all food in my fridge and cupboards. I could then try out new recipes depending on what I had in stock. I imagine this is within reach with present day technology.

4\. Funnel daylight into fibre optic cables and into my lights so I don't use electricity for light during the day. Full colour spectrum too, can't beat free.

One smart house application I liked was smart glass which was able to alter itself depending on whether you wanted to accept radiant heat or reject it. I think these are still prototypes.

The other one I liked was the Toto Intelligence Toilet which analyzed your health from your stool/urine. Having an intelligent cupboard/fridge controlling your inputs and the toilet analyzing the outputs could genuinely put a dent in Western lifestyle diseases. I see no progress on this front except for one presentation from Toto in Japan. They don't appear to sell this anymore.

That magic mirror shit is very visually impressive. The commercial interpretations I've seen are frankly unimpressive. The hobbyists we see on Reddit and HN are doing a great job. Every bathroom and hallway mirror ought to have those abilities.

To date I don't see much that is 'smart' about smart houses. I hope to be proven wrong!

<comment><USER18> >The water sensor one is a good use case but the others seem a bit weak. They seem like the kind of technology I could have developed or even bought off the shelf in 1980. I was talking to one guy who says the security sensors to detect footfall were better decades ago.

Sure they aren't cutting edge but they work and add a minor amount of value/security at home for little cost. I do some hobby things on the side (ads-b tracking etc) but other family members get the most value from the simple IoT functionality.

All of your ideas would be great but the technology isn't affordable it mature enough for consumers currently.

<comment><USER19> > Sure they aren't cutting edge but they work and add a minor amount of > value/security at home for little cost. I do some hobby things on the side > (ads-b tracking etc) but other family members get the most value from the > simple IoT functionality.

Sure, I'm not really knocking what you're doing, it's just that there's a point at which you start to think "Wait, I've heard this before". Perhaps you become a cynic. I think it was the multicoloured light bulbs for the low low price of 200 dollars 99 cents for a pack of three that did me in. [https://imgflip.com/i/1fqj14](https://imgflip.com/i/1fqj14)

> All of your ideas would be great but the technology isn't affordable it > mature enough for consumers currently.

I don't really understand why it has to be so expensive. It's so expensive it's easier to roll your own magic mirror or whatever. I know the raw ingredients like sensors are cheaper than ever.

<comment><USER18> I don't disagree re the Hue bulb. Personally I went for the GE link ($10-15 on sale for a z-wave LED bulb).

<comment><USER20> Those are actually ZigBee, not Z-wave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I plan to have a smart house but when I do it, it'll be using an opensource solution running a software that I can debug myself, setup in a way that it can fallback to just being manual (so switches for the light would need to work normally if the system is not on) and I want things to be wired since I feel that most wireless solutions add too much complexity.

Basically any system like this should not be a liability and should not prevent reselling the house if I ever need to.

I'm not really sure smart house devices are ready yet for non programers to play with but as a dev, it'd be a huge amount of fun getting it to work :)

<comment><USER6> The problem with open source is that the hardware is rarely "open enough", and the software is a small enthusiast niche so it's rarely polished and "complete".

I'd rather accept that the installation has a lifers of 10 years and just buy a proprietary system complete with service and guarantees, then rip it out and replace it all in 10 years.

Agree on wired - and also, smart switches etc have to be usable with standard light switches and power sockets otherwise you are stuck with a tiny selection of ugly fixtures.

<comment><USER22> I should write about my smart home setup, if nothing else, just to give you guys ideas.

I've designed and fabricated light and temperature sensors that I've placed in every room, and lights are controlled by a combination of Sonoff switches (they're great, I've written my own firmware for them ([https://gitlab.com/stavros/sonoff](https://gitlab.com/stavros/sonoff)) and YeeLight lamps (I've written my own library and cli client: [https://yeelight.readthedocs.io/en/latest/](https://yeelight.readthedocs.io/en/latest/), [https://gitlab.com/stavros/yeecli/](https://gitlab.com/stavros/yeecli/)).

My sensor boards ([https://github.com/skorokithakis/esplights](https://github.com/skorokithakis/esplights)) can also output RF and IR so I can control various devices in the room, like TVs and ACs. I've hooked this all up to a small Python script that talks to the devices over an MQTT server, separated the network for all this crap into a vlan with no access anywhere (other than the MQTT server and the OTA firmware upgrade server), and now I can successfully sound like a lunatic with way too much free time on the internet.

<comment><USER23> Sweet lunacy, you make me envy your free time. How do you usually use the system? Automation? Remote control. I get what it can do, curious what you actually fo with it :)

<comment><USER22> Both, I have it set so lights go on and off when someone enters/exits the room, it logs temperature in rooms just because, and I have a task on my phone (using Tasker) with an NFC tag on my nightstand that turns everything off when I go to bed.

It's nice to not have to touch any light switches ever, you walk into a room and the lamp just slowly fades into light.

I know how crazy this sounds (because I roll my eyes at people who say "I have a task on my phone" too), but it's not really very hard to do. I control everything through an HTTP message queue I wrote ([https://github.com/skorokithakis/gweet/](https://github.com/skorokithakis/gweet/)) and a simple Android app I... also wrote... and... I should get fewer hobbies.

<comment><USER23> Appreciate the details. I'd love to do similar stuff but priorities, priorities, priorities.

Was not aware that there are actually useful NFC stuff. Last time someone showed it to me it was pretty meh and I've heard that Android had a terrible implementation (Beam something?). I might be living on old info but I so rarely see anything about NFC except for payments.

<comment><USER22> Yes, there is, you can get dirt-cheap NFC stickers that you can put places and use Tasker to detect them. I mainly fire HTTP requests when a sticker is detected, but I use them for other things as well:

* I stuck one with my wifi password on the back side of a painting, so I just tell visitors who want wifi "touch your phone to the boat on the painting" and they get a prompt to connect to the wifi.

* I put one in the car to set all volume to max and enable bluetooth and launch the music app.

* I put one on the nightstand to trigger night mode in the house and silence alerts and stuff.

You can do various things like that, it's pretty useful.

<comment><USER23> From my reading Apple doesn't allow NFC for anything aside from Apple Pay. Severly limits the usefulness for me sadly. I'd say I encounter 50% iDevices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've taken a very different path to a smart home - and I don't have any regrets. First - the house was built as any dumb-house would be - 3 and 4 way switches really are, with copper in the walls. I wired for alarm, but didn't bother to hook it up right away.

What is working now? The alarm is connected to a raspberry pi so I can hook into it. Now it arms/disarms at a set time each day so I don't have to remember to do it. It can text/email me when states that I care about have changed - like when the power is out, or the alarm goes off.

Z-wave - for a few light switches that really matter to me, mostly outside lights. Most are on a cron job to do what I want, but a web UI lets you take control.

Wi-fi thermostat with an API - no 3rd part website needed. Why can't they all be this way? I can turn the system off when I'm out of town and fire it up before I get home. I also wrote some stuff to log usage each day along with the weather. Adding the alarm system status with the HVAC status and it will text me if the A/C is running and a window is open.

Garage door, custom GPIO hack to the opener. Now with the alarm status it can make sure it is shut each night. I can open/close it from a web page, but that is rarely used.

Alexa skill - this is the latest piece and the only one that needs Internet to keep working (except sending email, of course). It ties into all the other pieces and gives voice control to the parts that make sense for me. I won't let it disarm the alarm, I just don't trust a 3rd party to do that.

I pieced this together so I could learn and have something to play with, but now it is just nice. The best part is if something quits working, I'm not left in the dark like the guy in the article - I just have to get off my butt and hit the light switch or walk out and open the garage door.

I have something against smart home stuff that requires the company to stay in business and keep their servers up and running, but that comes at a cost - <USER2> have to roll my own. At least I know who to complain to when it is broken.

<comment><USER25> Your raspberry pi note is interesting. My house has an alarm system in place from the previous owner which I've turned off and is not in use. I've been curious to know if there was anyway for me to utilize the fairly complete set of sensors without involving the original alarm company.

<comment><USER24> I'm using an AD2USB ([http://www.alarmdecoder.com/catalog/product_info.php/product...](http://www.alarmdecoder.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/29)) to get an old school Ademco Vista 20p hooked up to the pi. Once you do that they have a decent python project ([https://github.com/nutechsoftware/alarmdecoder](https://github.com/nutechsoftware/alarmdecoder)).

Thanks to projects like these, the old, hardwired systems can be connected and be useful for more than they were intended. I don't mind my vista 20p once it is up, but they can be pain to setup the way you want. The good news is, once you do that you likely will never touch it again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I worked as a programmer working with one of biggest home automation hardware companies in the world. Unfortunately, based on my experience, I don't think the products are yet at a point where anyone who doesn't full understand the hardware and software that's going into their homes should have a "smart home".

People who spent _millions_ on their systems were consistently disappointed and upset due to a combination of hardware and software failures with no fallbacks.

<comment><USER27> That company is migrating away from the complex custom programming model and toward having components that just work together upon installation.

<comment><USER26> You're absolutely right. But there are still several issues:

\- Their hardware is _expensive_. Orders of magnitude in some cases above alternatives. Part of the justification for the cost has been the flexibility and customization options available.

\- Their hardware failure rate is abysmal.

\- Their customer service is non-existent and all purchases/returns must go through dealers.

\- Most homeowners want to integrate with 3rd party systems: hvac, pool/spa, security. These generally require a programmer to some extent.

\- They just don't get it right a lot of the time. I've dealt with plenty of their devices that are just support to work out of the box. They generally don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The author of the article should have titled the post, Why I regret going with Control 4. There are any number of more DIY style solutions that at this point blow the control 4 features out of the water at a 10th of the price.

SmartThings or wink hub, some ge z-wave switches, some chrome casts audio's, a google home, and a nest or ecobee 3 thermostat, and this guy would have have been fine.

<comment><USER29> Maybe for now, but problems will arise sooner or later when the products get not longer supported or discontinued. Of those things you listed there's a high possibility most of those won't work anymore in 10 years. And you normally build houses for longer timespans and don't want to change basic controls (lighting, heating) short intervals. I wouldn't invest a large amount in Smartthings or Google products for those reasons. The Z-Wave might be one of the more reasonable things, as the protocol and device classes are standardized and most devices are interoperable. But with the so much fragmented home automation domain (there's KNX, Z-Wave, Z-Wave Plus, Enocean, Zigbee HA, Zigbee LL, and dozens of others) it's even questionable how long classic Z-Wave will survive.

<comment><USER30> SmartThings is Z-Wave and Zigbee compatible. SmartThings is just a hub to control devices that work on those protocols. If you decide you don't like SmartThings anymore for whatever reason you just replace it with a different hub that also supports whatever protocol you've got devices for.

<comment><USER31> SmartThings relies on their cloud setup in order to execute the logic for the smarts you have inside your home. This is why it might take more/longer to get a command to execute. One hub that has all the logic locally, inside it, and that you can program it with Lua is VeraPlus by Vera Control.

<comment><USER32> The SmartThings has the logic inside too; cloud is just used for setup. I can pull the Ethernet and power cables, and it works fine, triggering my water shutoff valve when a leak is detected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've always felt like a smart house is a solution begging a problem and this really just confirms it. I'll take my house dumb and functional. Two things I'd like that I don't have:

\- A master light switch by the front and back doors,

\- A heating controller that I can control remotely, so I can turn it on when I'm on the train about an hour before I get home (my work routine is quite fluid), rather than have it on a regular schedule.

Both of these are fairly simply fixed but the fact that I've never bothered to do either probably says everything about how much I really value them.

I do not and never have liked locked in systems. If I have to call someone to figure out why the lights in my house aren't working properly this is going to make me very miserable, very quickly.

</comment><comment><USER34> This problem space was very different in 2013 vs now in 2016 going on 2017.

Today, all the things he's talking about can be covered in a consumer system plus iOS or Android app.

My recommendation is to start with Lutron Caseta switches for lights which look and behave precisely like traditional switches with all the traditional benefits, but are also readily integrated into a smart home set up. You can use it all either way, and both ways are fine: Luddite friendly.

For the primary media room I'd use Logitech Harmony Smart Home Hub and remote[1]. After a decade of fooling with dynamic remotes, these days I prefer the one without a screen because visitors "get" the traditional icon buttons.

Then, depending on your choice of mobile device, I'd build out multi room audio and multi TV video using Airplay for an iOS household or Chromecast for an Android household. This way the playback point is visible to the mobile OS and available across apps.

I'd add Echo Dots for room by room voice control if interested, because Alexa pays attention all the time while Siri may need to be poked before listening, and it's good at discovering all these smart home control systems.

The cost delta from good Lutron dimmer switches to the Caseta line is small. The cost delta from a good universal remote to the buttons-only Harmony is almost nil. The cost of Chromecast or Apple TVs per video or audio playback point is reasonable, as is the cost of Echo Dot per room.

None of this approach involves a lock in to a service contract with some home automation company where even their control panels cost more than iPad Pros, can't do anything else, and are obsolete and unpatched a couple years later.

1\. For primary media room: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JHQZSHW/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JHQZSHW/)

2\. Lutron Caseta starter with the right smart home bridge/hub: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LWX1PFW](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LWX1PFW)

</comment><comment><USER35> It's really important to eliminate single points of failures in home control systems. I've wired my apartment with Insteon controllers, which are capable of talking to each other without needing a central controller. I also have a server setup that can control all devices from my phone or Siri. When the centralized server fails to work, I can still control devices via the Insteon switches that talk directly to the devices.

If you're interested in building out such a system check out the home- controller nodejs package, InsteonUSB PowerLinc modem, and of course any insteon devices.

In my opinion the best home automation systems are decentralized networks of devices that can work independently or cooperate with each other.

<comment><USER36> The fun part though of those independent communicators is when they have minds of their own. :D I decided to use an old Insteon controller that I hadn't been using for anything for my Christmas lights, and it was really hard to figure out why it kept turning on and off by itself. For some inexplicable reason it was linked to my thermostat. :/

But in general, yes, it's awesome that my Insteon remotes work even if my home automation software on my PC crashed out, and that my thermostats and light switches all operate normally when the Internet is down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I just remodeled and used this - [http://www.insteon.com](http://www.insteon.com)

Every plug, light switch, door sensors, HVAC, cameras. Simple iPhone application to control. Single hub controller everything talks to.

This does not have all the bells and whistles that the zwave, zigby, et.al. have but it just works. They do support HomeKit from Apple but not for all devices yet (door sensors).

Same company that did the original X10 stuff for automation in the 80s.

Not unhappy.

<comment><USER38> Does it require full internet access to work? That's my biggest gripe with my Nest thermostat: it requires a round-trip through their server just to control the temperature, even when I'm on the same network.

<comment><USER36> The Insteon Hub is cloud-based, generally, it uses an app to talk to their web server. Individual components don't have any network capability, just the hub. It is, however, possible to use local software with an adapter with Insteon, though they don't give it a lot of attention anymore, because they want to compete with the trendy new companies on the block.

I use Insteon completely locally running software I wrote more or less myself on my desktop PC.

<comment><USER37> Link please?

<comment><USER36> Link to what specifically?

<comment><USER37> I was under the impression there is a doc someplace that talks about the local interface. My google foo failed me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> While I have avoided smart housing like the plague I think it is, I have my own peeve:

Hardwired 10 Gb Ethernet throughout the house.

Best ISP: 2.4 Mb to the house.

<comment><USER40> Do you live in the middle of nowhere or something?

<comment><USER41> The best ISP an hour from Austin still advertises that they are ten times faster than dialup.

<comment><USER39> Not to mention the spotty Google Fiber throughout the downtown. I love Austin. It's like Santa Cruz but with much better beer and BBQ.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The lack of standardization, all the things that can go wrong, overzealous 3rd parties, uneeded 'notifications' etc. etc..

A) Aside from possibly turning the lights off after you forgot. B) Surveillance if you live in a really bad hood C) Possible optimization of heating/cooling to save$ ...

I just don't see it.

I'm never worried about A. B ... well that's another issue. A decent thermostat would solve C if it was a problem.

I just don't see the grand utility in any of it, including Alexa or the Google in-home thing.

If I have a weird question I can ask my iPhone Siri - which I never do anyhow.

The opportunity for home automation is I think limited, and it's inherently plagued with platform integration issues.

I have better things to do with my time.

<comment><USER43> A few simple use cases:

Remote heating control. Go on holiday, leave the heating in frost-protection maintenance mode in the winter, turn it on again at the airport. Come back to a warm house, but plenty of energy saved.

Sunrise/sunset lighting. I have the lights in my office set up to turn on around dusk and turn off around 3am if I haven't already gone to bed. This works so well I hardly ever think about it now. It also means the house looks occupied when I'm away.

Motion-sensing light switches. I experimented with these, but it's a harder problem than it seems. I set up a PIR switch in the kitchen, and being able to walk in/out while carrying plates/food/things without having to hit the lights manually is amazingly useful.

Problem is PIR sensors have a limited range and are easily confused by various domestic heat sources. I was going to experiment with multiple sensors and more reliable software, but got distracted by a house move. So that hasn't happened - yet.

I still think user tracking combined with light level sensors would be amazingly useful. Switches on walls are probably going to be redundant when automation really arrives.

Colours and such are much less interesting than having smart lights that work so well you only have to think about them when you want them to do something unusual.

Having said that, I have mixed feelings about voice control. I have Alexa controlling some of the lights, and I don't find it very natural. This may be an unusual view, but I think speech is a channel of emotional communication, and tone carries a lot of information.

It's second nature when talking to humans, but talking to machines falls into some kind of social uncanny valley. It's impossible to do it without being reminded that you usually think about tone while talking, but now you don't have to - so of course you still do, but think you shouldn't, even though you can't stop.

<comment><USER44> That's a significant time, cost, and effort you're spending on what amounts to micro-optimizations though. Using a standard light switch is maybe half a second of effort. (Not an improvement over getting your light-control ap out.) It only makes some sense if you live in a huge space where you have to walk for 5 seconds to get to the switch or your heating takes 2 hours to warm a room.

Color me cynical, but it seems like a big hassle to solve a non-problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> > The system will shut off if it reaches 104 degrees to protect itself. Every > time I touch that thing its hot to begin with. I got it to cool down enough > to go back on, and now its been suggested I install a hole and a fan in a > closet packed with HVAC and A/V equipment.

This is funny to me - of course a closet packed with HVAC and A/V equipment should be cooled! It's a server room!

As someone designing a smart building - the key is to find protocols and systems that 1) work with open protocols such as Z-wave, and 2) always have a hardware interface that works as a failsafe, so that even if the controller completely malfunctions or if the internet malfunctions, everything will still be fine as a 'dumb house'. Or 3) Use specific technologies from companies whose entire business model depends on the technology working -- say, Sonos.

So. In the building I'm designing: Z-wave light switches are normal switches, yet wirelessly controllable and will report their status back to the controller. Z-wave thermostats can be controlled locally and globally. Sound systems are Sonos. Ethernet ports are mostly PoE as to allow for future 12V devices. An alarm system is installed by a dedicated alarm company. Everything is designed to work without internet or wifi or the z-wave base controller.

I'm coding a Slack-based interface, which has the added benefit of being interface + human-readable logging system in one.

<comment><USER46> What Z-wave switches are you using? Do you recommend any ZigBee switches (that function similarly)?

<comment><USER45> After a ton of research, I'm using the HomeSeer HS-WD100+ and HomeSeer HS- WS100+ (Dimmer & Switch) - they have Instant Status, which means that if they're turned off/on by hand, they'll poll the base station with their updated info.

Looks like they were recommended by the Wirecutter also! I feel quite justified in my research. ([http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-z-wave-in- wall-dimmer/](http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-z-wave-in-wall-dimmer/))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> My parents bought a house with a similar system installed, albeit from Crestron. It has been a constant source of frustration and disappointment. The AV control that they installed which cost a pretty penny is totally inferior to my harmony hub / chrome cast / fire stick / echo setup which cost me a fraction of the price.

The biggest problem is once you install these systems you're effectively locked in forever. Abandoning the system requires so much new hardware.

</comment><comment><USER48> > What I would like, is to come in from a long day in my shop and have a house > that works. I have grown weary and no longer care how smart it is.

Here, I think we find the problem.

The author doesn't know the system, he didn't build it, and has little use for it.

I don't think a smart house ever made sense for him.

The only places it does make sense, to me are:

* Health. Monitoring health, or enabling someone to better care for themselves.

* A project, by someone who wants to control and automate parts of their house, but will never truly be satisfied.

<comment><USER49> How does the project part work long term? I could put together something as a project, and probably maintain it a low effort long term, but what happens once I want to sell the house? Do I replace back all the switches back to dumb ones? Teach the new owner how to use it long term? (yeah, good luck) Leave it as is, potentially decreasing the value of my house?

<comment><USER36> I took all my smart hardware with me. I kept the originals or got cheap replacements, and sold my old place as a perfectly normal, working house. (But not a smart one.) When I moved, I already had most of the equipment to make it smart!

I also took my LED light bulbs, those suckers are coming with me for life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> How resilient are smart systems to voltage surges? Do you risk blowing out all of your smart switches and outlets during surges? There is the possibility of installing whole-house surge protection, but that only protects against external surges, and their clamping voltages are probably too high (so that it lasts a long time, since the MOVs sacrifice themselves) to protect the smart circuits.

<comment><USER12> Definitely need to protect the processors/servers on a location by location basis from voltage surges. The switches and outlets will be fine.

<comment><USER50> The smart switches and outlets have microcontrollers and other fragile logic and will convert AC to low-voltage DC. A normal light switch will tolerate quite a bit of a surge, but these switches will not be happy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Back in the 90's, I considered going all smarthome. In the end, I didn't and am glad.

But I did run RG6/cat5 to every room in a star configuration. I had little use for it at the time, but have grown into it, and that turned out to be a worthwhile investment.

Wifi has gotten much better over the years, but wired connections still work better. For example, my Grace Digital media player is incredibly flaky with wifi, but works like a champ when wired (read the Amazon reviews on it). I bought it knowing it needed to be wired, and it was no problem for my setup.

The lights are all conventional, and just work. The dimmer switches regularly fail, but they're cheap to replace with units from any hardware store.

</comment><comment><USER52> Aren't these things going to break and you end up doing maintenance every couple of months in a useless turns-your-lights-off-for-you system?

<comment><USER53> One reason to do DIY home automation with stuff from the industrial automation world, at least for the core components. Parts made to run decades in a factory will survive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Because "please wait while your lightbulbs perform a firmware update" Because you can't secure that shi... stuff? Because why? Because when I need an internet connected toaster I will give up on tech, on life, on humanity. Because the last thing we all need in our homes is more technological annoyance.

</comment><comment><USER55> Horrible scrolling experience, zoom on mobile devices is also disabled

</comment><comment><USER56> The real regret here seems to be overpaying for technology in the home when it's evolving quickly and the price is coming down, and not knowing it was preventable.

There are fantastic ways to have a flexible, affordable, and manageable automated home. Fittingly, it's not guaranteed because of a brand name.

The evolution of the smart home is never going to end, and single platform smart home owners are only starting to realize they are screwed. Any investment is relatively outdated quickly and the strategy to manage the tech through the life of their home is a pain compared to say a furnace, hot water, etc.

I got Insteon 6 years ago when it was the most capable & economical, and now want to mix and match components. It's totally possible as long as you have a vision of how you want your life to improve from the tech, and not installing home automation for its' own sake. Often I'll add a few pieces at a time after thinking it over. Maybe not for everyone.

Where home automation is headed is who can mix and match old and new generation equipment together into one cohesive experience.

Apple Home, Google, etc can keep trying to add to the mess of adding more platforms instead of connecting them. There is no one platform that can, or will hit every need, type of living and price point, so this mess will keep getting worse.

On the other hand, tech will keep getting cheaper, more capable and simpler to use, and more importantly, configure.

The reality I'm arriving at is homes will need one (truly) universal hub/appliance that is platform and equipment agnostic, like a furnace, or water tank, except to run anything you may want in the home. Add to that one universal software that works on any platform that comes out, and can tie to any standard. There's some good in-roads being made on this front and it's exciting to finally see. Even things like Harmony Hub are very encouraging.

The kicker? It needs to get orders of magnitude easier than what's out there for the average person. Since I'm not about mass adoption of premature technology a gap (and opportunity) will remain for a few years yet. Some of the latest entry level home tech is getting better, but it simply does not do the type of integration that true home automation allows, and in my estimation, is the benefit.

Now that we've had a taste of how tech could make our homes easier and more enjoyable to live in, our needs and desires may be outgrowing what's available. Hope someone comes along and pushes the industry forward quickly instead of iterating through products slowly.

<comment><USER57> I agree with your thoughts about HomeKit and Google Home. I also can't help but include the relevant XKCD: [http://xkcd.com/927/](http://xkcd.com/927/).

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Yah I figured this out quickly. The only things I use are a dumb but Wi-Fi thermostat and wemos for a couple automated lights.</comment>


Ask HN: What personal finance advice would you give your 25yo self ? - <AUTHOR> Or if you could go back in time, what would you have done differently, what lessons have you learned ? <comment><USER3> \- credit card debt is an emergency and optimizing any other money stuff while you carry it is like rearranging your sock drawer while your house is on fire

\- save 25x your annual spending and never work again

\- start by saving at least something (even 1%) and save 50% of all future raises

\- long commutes are for fools. So are new cars--buy used.

\- spend on things that you value. I've given myself a tech budget for years because good tools matter to me

\- host a dinner party instead of eating out (most of the time)

\- If you have a gamblers mindset to investing, carve out a small portion (10%?) of your money and use it for risky investing. I call mine the 'casino fund'. Track your returns.

\- read voraciously about finance and early retirement. You only need about 20 books or so to gain a background that is easily more valuable than your college degree. This is a good start: [https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/wiki/books](https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/wiki/books)

<comment><USER4> Agree generally with these points except for the buying used cars.

Buying new, inexpensive cars are a much better investment if you plan on owning them for a long time.

Used cars don't last as long, and they carry more risk. The amount of money spent on repairs can be unpredictable.

<comment><USER5> I've heard cars sold by rental car companies are like new, but cost about half as much.

<comment><USER6> Rental cars are hit or miss. You either end up with the one that didn't get much use outside the average business trip... Or the car that was abused. My last car was an ex-rental car, and it deteriorated very quickly after I signed the loan for it. Be careful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Don't leave disposable income hanging around as savings in a no/low interest bank account. Invest it in an index fund with low fees (Vanguard, etc.) or better yet, figure out an asset allocation and invest in a few accumulating funds.

A good piece of advice I picked up from Rami Sethi (when it was still worthwhile reading his blog) was think about how much of your free time per month do you spend on various activities (Facebook, Gaming, etc). How much of that free time is devoted to thinking about your personal finance? If it's less than you think you should be doing, schedule it in.

Also starting reading [https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/](https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/) regularly.

<comment><USER8> I disagree with your statement about not having savings in a safe (usually lower-yield) account.

Index funds are usually a good idea in the long term, but right now (June 2017), I would not put a penny in the stock market - it is ridiculously overpriced.

<comment> UK-AL People were saying that 3-4 years ago, and its gone up. Your trying to time the market.

<comment><USER9> January 2011 article: "Stock Markets are 'Overpriced': Robert Shiller" [http://www.cnbc.com/id/41288407](http://www.cnbc.com/id/41288407)

Stock markets in the developed world have risen too much, Robert Shiller, economics professor at Yale, told CNBC Thursday.

On Wednesday, the Dow bounced above and below the psychologically-important 12,000 for much of the session. But stocks look expensive, Shiller said.

"I would say the market is overpriced based on fundamentals … I'm talking about the US and probably Europe," he said.

[The market has almost doubled since then.]

<comment> UK-AL Exactly my point. Everybody was saying they were overvalued, and were about to crash. Yet they went even higher and still going higher almost 7 years later.

Thus you can't time the market.

Don't trust experts telling you to enter and exit.

<comment><USER9> Yup, I was agreeing with you. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Marry well. What I mean is this:

Your spouse should have a career or should think of having a career of his/her own. Its not about having a lot of money, its to eventually have someone as a financial backup in case things go wrong. Works for both partners.

I love my wife but financially I am in trouble. I make enough money but she has no career aspirations. Her family is quite poor and I had to get mortgage for a house for her parents. In future I will also need to worry about their health expenses.

This effectively means I can never get out of the rat race.

<comment><USER11> > I had to get mortgage for a house for her parents.

You married your wife or her parents? Why would you do such thing.

<comment><USER12> You don't think children should care for their parents?

<comment><USER11> They should. For their parents.

<comment><USER12> I don't think it is fair for the sole earner in a relationship to say "Sorry, I will only support my own parents, yours are SOL".

Seems to be a very self centered view, and not respectful the relationship he is in with his wife. When you get married, you take on some responsibility in caring for members of their extended family as well.

<comment><USER13> Conversely, it is not fair for someone who needs to support their parents to expect their spouse to carry the entire burden. That is, in that situation, there should be no sole earner to say such a thing.

<comment><USER12> I agree unless they discussed being a sole earner household and agreed it is what they wanted (usually because they want one parent to stay home and raise children). If they have no children, or no immediate plans to have children, then I would agree they should both be working.

<comment><USER13> Given the social climate in the US, if there are no children or plans for children, that removes about 80% of the incentive for getting married.

And I certainly don't think that anyone from a younger generation should be buying anyone from an older generation an entire house. The parents or parents-in-law can have a bedroom, pay you rent for it, and as long as they're living under your roof, they can live by your rules. Isn't that what they told you when you turned 18 and you couldn't afford your own house?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm only 30, so it's not like 25 was particularly long ago for me. But since then, I've gotten married, which is a major life change (overall for the better for me!).

But if I could go back to age 25, before I was married, I'd have told myself to travel to more far-flung places. Being married, I have to:

A) Agree with my wife on where we want to travel

B) Have time to travel that works for both of our schedules (which is difficult to find... plus we have to spend at least some of our time off going to visit our respective families, and now I have two families to visit instead of one)

C) Have the money to travel. In our case, we have two incomes, but still, it was much cheaper when I'd travel with friends and cram four people into a cheap hotel room.

I'm not complaining here. I'm fortunate to have spare income that let's me travel quite a bit with my wife and it's really a fantastic experience to travel with your partner. But there are trade-offs that I simply didn't have as a 25 year old. So those places that are far away and hard to get to? See them while you're young.

</comment><comment><USER15> Travel as much as you can. It will get harder to find opportunities to do so as the years go by and responsibilities increase.

<comment><USER16> Travel does not necessarily appeal to all.

<comment><USER17> But it does to OP's 25-year old self.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Have enough in savings to walk away whenever you want. I've been stuck in jobs far longer than I wanted because I'd neglected my emergency fund and didn't have the cash on hand to walk away.

Now I make sure I have a year's living expenses available outside of my investments. If I get tired of my job, I can just quit knowing that I have the cash to float myself for a while.

A year may be more than you need but at least six months is a good minimum. You'll have the cash to cover a job loss, car troubles, most medical expenses, etc. on hand without going into debt. And an emergency fund should be liquid and save, not invested and at risk. You may only get 1% in a savings account but view the low returns as the cost of insurance, since that's effectively what an emergency fund is—self-insurance.

</comment><comment><USER19> People.

Meet and keep in touch with as many people as possible. Switch jobs, travel the world, volunteer and always _always_ make new connections.

The best financial (and personal) gains you will make in life will come from the right connections.

<comment><USER20> Surround yourself with people who like to learn through experience.

Experiences will turn into knowledge which could possibly turn into opportunities.

</comment></comment><comment> m-i-l I reckon I got most things right, but as this is specifically "what would you have done differently, what lessons have you learned?" the big one for me is: don't invest in individual stocks, invest in broad (ideally low fee, e.g. passively managed) funds instead. Growing up in an era of privatisation, reading the financial press with all their information on individual companies, seeing all the stock market pundits with their various stock picks, and so on, buying individual stocks just seemed to be "the thing to do". But at the end of the day, unless you spend an enormous amount of time on it, you are very unlikely to be able to out-perform the market. In my case there were many bad investments I could arguably have avoided, e.g. all the dot com stocks I bought on 15 March 2000 and banking stocks I bought on 25 April 2008. But I did buy a lot of BP shares on 15 April 2010 (5 days before the Deepwater Horizon explosion), and I don't think any expert could have foreseen that. Individual stocks are far more of a gamble than funds.

<comment><USER21> Let's be honest... research shows that even if you are a trained professional making a career of picking stocks, you STILL probably won't out-perform the market.

<comment><USER22> I've heard that a lot. Put it on S&P 500. No hedge fund will be able to beat that.

Consider the fact that S&P 500 is made up of 500 companies, there will be a top 100 and a bottom 400. There are some sectors that grow better than others. e.g For the past couple of years the entire Tech sector has done phenomenally well.

I like picking stocks, learning about companies, their products, competition, reading financial statements, P/E ratios and speculating. Its fun!

It does feel like a gamble at times so I do a 50%/50% split. Half goes to a wide index, and the other 50% is split into smaller chunks that goes to stocks I have picked after a lot of reading and thought.

For the past 3 years I've beat the market but 3 years is a very small sample so I may as well very much lying to myself. In anycase I enjoy it.

<comment><USER23> Individual stocks, to me, is like gambling. With enough knowledge and foresight and luck you can really make a pretty penny.

I like the idea of also investing in funds. AI and professionals are already watching and picking these for you; it feels like investing as well, may have lower returns but typically much safer.

A mix of both seems very healthy and what a lot of able-bodies are doing right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm not 25 yet but this is my (current) course:

1\. Reduce all bills/belongings to bare essentials to live minimally.

2\. Pay off all debt while maintaining $1,500 emergency fund.

3\. Save 6 months living expenses.

4\. Invest in yourself with excellent groceries, gym membership/local park visits, medical/hygiene care and other healthy habits.

5\. Invest in Vanguard's Total US Stock, Total International Stock and Total Bond ETFs (% as age) and don't touch it.

6\. Invest in building your own business - tech or otherwise.

<comment><USER25> $1500 emergency fund is LIGHT. It should at least be 3 months bare minimum living expenses. $1500 wont even cover a lot of people's rent/mortgage bill for one month.

<comment><USER26> Did you read his next point? Emergency fund is for when your car breaks and you have to take money out of savings to fix it.

<comment><USER23> When an emergency fund and X-months living expenses are compounded I really don't see the use of an emergency fund. Assuming someone has good enough credit to be able to borrow for short-term fixes in times of need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I travelled a lot and figured out very soon I should never ever contract dept or have a strong commitment (house, children, etc) too soon. I'm still amazed so many people regret doing that, being young don't mean being dumb, why did you do that?

Anyway, my advice would be:

Start meditation sooner.

I would give myself many other advices about risks, people and self- acceptance, but I would have not being able to listen to them at that time.

That's the problem with advices, you must be in a place in your life where you can actually use them.

But I would be able to meditate and figure it out, since that's how it happened.

Replace that with any tool that helped you develop yourself.

If you don't have such a tool, find one quickly that suit you.

Oh, and yes, travelling help, so do so. But you'll reach a limit in what it brings to the table. You need to find a better tool on the long run. Just like money helps, but has a max amount after which it won't make you happier.

<comment><USER23> That's good for you, some people shouldn't have those kinds of commitments. It certainly doesn't mean they're being "young and dumb" though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> First, don't get married.

If you can manage to get that one done, you can actually act on the rest of the financial advice in this thread. If not, you will have to be in unanimous agreement to do anything wise with money (i.e. keep emergency fund, plus six months living expenses in liquid savings), whereas foolishness may be undertaken unilaterally.

<comment> J-dawg This seems like rather bleak advice but it is a very good point. It can create so much tension if you're not 100% on the same page financially.

Also, if you plan to have kids and are likely to be both the higher earner and not the primary child carer, the potential downsides of marriage are enormous.

<comment><USER13> My spouse seems entirely incapable of keeping savings, so the rational financial advice I would give myself is to get divorced, so that I can lose only up to 50% of what I earn, rather than 100% of it. It doesn't help that I don't seem to be getting anything else out of the deal any more.

It would have been a whole lot easier to just not get married in the first place. If you can't stand being single, at the very least, make the other person's debt situation a deal-breaker before getting too involved with them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Do not go out and buy <sports car> and proceed to spend <stupid amount> of money on it trying to make it cool/fast when you are 22. And then immediately after that do it again with another car. You could almost buy a house.

<comment><USER29> Disagree on this one. I learned a ton working on my car as a kid. Though maybe we have differing values for <stupid amount>..

<comment><USER30> Parent defined it as 2 * <stupid amount> almost = house.

<comment><USER5> But a house in which market?

<comment><USER31> Whatever market you're going to buy a house in

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Eat out less (the value for money is extremely poor in the UK)

Contribute more to an index fund.

Save harder for a deposit. High rent/shared housing is horrible.

Don't try to keep up with the Joneses. There'll always be someone richer, with a nicer car – you can't win that game. You weren't born in to money, don't even attempt to act like it. Live below your means.

You need to treat yourself far less often than marketing companies would have you believe.

<comment><USER23> Keeping Up With the Jones' is a concept that doesn't seem highlighted enough. Especially when you are at a stage in life where you have the financial means to attempt so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> "You dont need to spend $50 on that video game. Or that one. Or that one. Actually, just give me your wallet, you can have it back in 10 years."

Also, start mining bitcoin.

<comment><USER34> Disagree, video games are some of the cheapest forms of entertainment per hour.

<comment><USER35> Sure, but there are plenty of great games available for less than $50. And if you can wait a year; you can probably get today's great game for significantly less than $50...

I know some super financially conscious folks who purposely stay one "Game system behind". Nintendo Switch is coming out? Buy a Wii U and collect games for super cheap. Hour of entertainment at a fraction of the cost.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Stop going out eating and drinking so much. Don't work for pennies on the dollar in exchange for equity.

</comment><comment><USER37> In Italy there is (was, as it is not much used anymore) proverb: "Fare i conti spesso, moderar le voglie, spender men di quel che si raccoglie".

It cannot be translated easily, but more or less it amounts to:

Do the (financial) math often, limit your cravings, spend less than you can gather.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm a little late to this but this might help you. I'm an Indian, but I assume you are in the US. Having spent some time in the US this is what I would advice:

\- Go get yourself a savings account and a checking account. Fill only enough amount in your checking account that you need to get by the month. Remaining goes into savings.

\- Buy a home as quickly as you can, in an affordable place in the outskirts. By the time your kids arrive necessary infrastructure will be in place. Also rent is just another form of tax. And having your own home also means some place to rest without financial implication when you are old.

\- Take the 401K plan seriously.

\- Max out other instruments such as the IRA and Roth IRA.

\- Buy a durable, long lasting car. And stick with that as long as it lasts.

\- Healthy life style. Nothing pays as well as good health. Buy a bicycle or play a sport. Ensure your heart is healthy and you are not obese. There are other things to this, like learning to cook healthy food. Remember bad health too will account for a big chunk of your earnings in a place like the US.

\- Be frugal. Frugality means making decisions that pay on the longer run. $5 may buy you burger combo in McD but trust me it will cost you on the longer run. You don't want that kind of frugality. Which is why the learning how to cook makes even more sense on the longer run.

\- Be productive, in all ages. Have free time to network and develop new skills. Never be afraid to start from the beginning or learn and do something new.

\- Lastly save. Save a lot.

</comment><comment><USER39> Take as many risks as you can now otherwise you'll be maxed out in terms of income for the rest of your life. You're young and can live for cheap. Startups, businesses, etc. Don't get trapped in the W2 lifestyle and big corporates.

<comment><USER40> This is really interesting and good advice. Out of curiosity, would you mind sharing a bit about what led you to it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I think about 25 was when was on the cusp of a series of job moves/promotions in the next 5 years. I would imagine a lot of 25yo might be in the same spot (or not - whatever this is my anecdote).

Keep your cost of living the same when you see large pay bumps or raises. This means the big things like car, house/rental, etc. Don't just go get a new car and increase your spending or move to a "nicer" apartment or buy a house because you have the money available. Keep the car, stay in the apartment and save the extra money.

People will stay that owning a home is an investment - maybe in some areas it is - but not all. If home values are relatively flat in that area or grow very slowly then it is a losing proposition. You will be paying property taxes, school taxes and all the other "taxes" of owning a home: maintenance, repairs, accumulating "stuff" to fill it, etc. If the growth in that area is slow then that is all money down the drain - you won't get it back when you sell.

<comment><USER33> that is assuming you ever sell the house.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Every time you treat yourself, with a fine bottle of wine, or a nice sofa, or a great suit, you develop your appetite for "nice" things.

The more money you make, the more nice things you acquire, and the harder it is to imagine living without them. At the furthest reach, it's a private jet-- the crack cocaine of travel.

Develop these appetites with great caution.

</comment><comment><USER43> Slightly older but I'm learning a hard lesson now: make sure to have at least 6 months worth of savings before going fully self-employed!

</comment><comment><USER44> Don't spend money on stupid things. You don't need them.

<comment><USER45> Can you define "stupid things"?

<comment><USER44> What I've spend too much money on: Tech gadgets, DSLRs, LEGO sets, neat things, books I don't read, stuff to put on shelves. Especially if you have too much money. At first you don't think a lot if you need things <$10, when your income grows so does your "don't-think-spending-limit" to $100, then $1000.

Not stupid: Books you really read, long term investing, making experiences.

Today I have a monthly "Make-your-live-lighter-day" where I give away/throw away things.

<comment><USER46> This probably doesn't apply to a lot of people, but I got a ton of mileage out of my DSLR and learned a lot about photography in the process. I mean unfortunately the one I bought (and still have) from 2009 is pretty dated now, I wouldn't consider it a waste(unless you count the fact I could've spent those on bitcoin instead and been a millionaire).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> _Scratches his head mumbling_ What kind of financial advice can I give to some one that has no job...?

Oh yeah, you don't need to save that internship money, I'm good now. Besides, I make like 5-6 times what you are making.

<comment><USER48> That's not really in the spirit of the question. If you're going to tell them that, you may as well tell them which stocks to invest in and who won each world series.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> $10,000 saved in your twenties is $200,000-300,000 in your pocket at age 55

<comment><USER50> That's an interest rate of between 10.5% and 12%. Please sign me up, because I definitely don't know where to get that.

<comment><USER51> S&P 500 (SPY) is around 11% over 30 years. I have a retirement app you can play around with @ DavidMiserak.com/retirement-app

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'm 25, keeping an eye on this thread..

Best financial decision i've made was to buy some ETH (Ethereum) last year.

<comment><USER53> Saying it as someone who has been buying BTC since 2012 and ETH for the past couple of years: buying cryptocurrencies is as good "financial decision" as buying lottery tickets. Repeat to yourself: even if you made good money, it was more for lucky timing than anything. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

<comment><USER52> True, it's a total gamble. Only do it with the money you can spend. Still, it's a special time for cryptocurrencies [https://bitcoinfomo.club](https://bitcoinfomo.club)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Read up on finance, learn about assets vs liabilities.

Understand buying vs renting before doing either.

Keep monthly (recurring) expenses low.

If you absolutely need a car, keep your ego in check and look at mileage & reliability.

Think long term.

<comment><USER20> Great points especially keeping monthly (recurring) expenses low. An increase in income can easily result in an increase in spending.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> \- If a decision comes down to either not having enough time or not having enough money, rest assure there will never be a sweet-spot where you will have both.

\- Always take into consideration mental health cost. Your commute, your work, the people you choose to surround yourself with. Debt in this area is unpredictable and therefore dangerous in the long run.

\- No one has it figured out. Youth will always be wasted by the youth.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER56> Don't get into consumer credit debt. Not huge figures, but I'd convinced myself that I would always have debt so I might as well not care about it. This led to my buying things I didn't really need on credit, whilst just paying for it monthly, forever.

</comment><comment><USER57> Don't move into an apartment that costs 50% of your salary, no matter how nice it is.

<comment><USER45> And if you do, move in with someone who can help out with the rent :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> make a spreadsheet comparing your earnings to your debts and billables, record ALL of your debts and STICK TO THE FUCKING SHEET

<comment><USER51> I find mint.com helpful for exactly this reason.

<comment><USER58> last i checked, mint doesn't do biweekly expenses that well. is it better at that now?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A subreddit I highly recommend (depending on your goals) [http://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence](http://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence)

</comment><comment><USER59> Don't buy so much stuff, it's mostly junk that'll sit in a box somewhere. When contemplating a purchase, honestly ask yourself how much use it will get, and for how long it will be useful.

Rent. Home ownership only starts making sense on a 5+ year time frame, in some markets 10+ years. Having the ability to move for a better job will reap huge financial benefits, and moving for a short commute will allow you to have so much more free time.

Save vigorously, but not so much that you have a dreadful life now, pining for the future when things will get better once you have "retirement money."

<comment><USER23> Or position yourself in a market that's competitive where you can demand higher wages and still benefit from tax/mental/equity-based benefits of having a stable home. If stable is what you want, that is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Max out your annual IRA contributions you idiot. Don't break the glass unless it is to travel or be with family. Set up YNAB so you aren't kidding yourself with rotating card spending. Cap your bar budget.

</comment><comment><USER61> You're asking the wrong question.

What are your personal goals in the next 5, 10, 30 years? What do you plan on doing that requires money? How much money does that require?

Without knowing anything about your goals then any advice you will get (as demonstrated in this thread) will steer you toward structuring your life around saving money and getting safe but modest returns. Is that what you're asking for?

Here is a question you should ask yourself probably every 6 months:

"If I had infinite resources (money/whatever) what would I do?"

Take that answer and then figure out how to accomplish that without infinite resources.

<comment><USER38> >>What do you plan on doing that requires money?

Everything that you will ever plan on doing will require money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> 1\. Understand the basics of asset allocation, taxes and account types. Read Bernstein for primers on these.

2\. Be highly skeptical of most of the financial services industry, especially those selling load funds, insurance, annuities, and who want to manage your money.

3\. Enjoy simple cars, or no car if you can manage. The amount of money I've seen friends and family dump into vehicles over 25 years is staggering. I don't even see cars at this point. I don't care what others drive, and I don't care what I drive so long as it's reasonably comfortable, safe, economical.

</comment><comment><USER63> stop spending so much money on mind altering substances

</comment><comment><USER64> Have fun! Often doing things that are actually fun are the cheapest - <USER2> buying an old wind-up record player and some 78s from the Salvation Army and having a picnic with your friends (or a date!)

</comment><comment><USER65> If you are market timing, remember you have to be right twice, once when you buy and second when you sell.

Ideally, you'll come to realize that trading is a waste of your time, and you should set and forget a regular investment flow into the Wilshire 5000 or something equally diverse.

Lastly, don't let FOMO lure you into into investing in the new hotness of your age. For me, it was Internet stocks in 98-99. By the time you're hearing about it and it's productized in a way consumers can get involved, it's too late.

</comment><comment><USER66> Index investing is great, but don't be afraid of taking risks for things you believe in. Actions where you put something at risk are those that truly show who you are. Constantly evaluate your emotions of fear and greed as to avoid falling into the trap of gambling or the trap of mindless following without the courage to think for yourself. Position yourself so that you either gain or learn from your risks. The only games that matter are those with your skin in the game.

</comment><comment><USER23> If you're handy, and your housing market isn't super-hot right now (read: unaffordable), consider rentals. With the right tenants in a good market, it's quite passive income. And the build up of equity will provide a cash-out option later in life you may benefit from (if you choose to use it).

But don't rely on it, and don't overextend yourself. Traditional investment strategy is still a very good, solid one.

</comment><comment><USER28> Save for 6 months and buy that $2799 PowerBook with cash instead of paying the minimum payment on that 22% MacMall card for the next 5 years.

</comment><comment><USER5> Good job on hitting the tuition free college jackpot. Keep paying off the rest of those loans, but don't stress out about it. Those will be paid soon enough, but get a credit card before they are. Keep being careful about what you're spending.

Move closer to your office. Even if the rent is a little more, the price is worth it if you don't have to use your car all the time.

</comment><comment><USER67> Max out your 401k, even if the options look crappy.

<comment><USER68> Don't forget your Roth IRA (if your AGI is <= $118,000).

In that scenario I would recommend this priority: 1) Put enough into your 401k to get your full company match. If you don't you're throwing away free money 2) Max out your Roth IRA. They have more investment options than 401k plans. 3) Max out your 401k.

<comment><USER67> Yes, although people starting in a tech job in a reasonable housing market these days should have no problem maxing both.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> (From a 57 yr old talking to his 25 yr old self)

If I had all the money lost from 'stock market corrections' on my investments, I could retire comfortably today.

Stop being a little fishy swimming with big fishies.

The interest paid today is a pittance compared to the risk. Save your after tax money in something with near zero risk until the interests rates rebound to make the reward worth the risk.

<comment><USER50> You think the interest rates will rebound?

Honest question. I'm quite young (27), so most of my impressions of the market have been post-subprime-crisis.

<comment><USER70> > You think the interest rates will rebound?

It doesn't matter. If the bank pays you 10% on a savings account it's because inflation is high as well. In my opinion, bungie4 is giving you advice from a rather cynical world view. I understand it (sounds like bungie4 has taken some bumps and bruises in the market), but I don't agree with it.

A savings account will never give you more than about 1% real (inflation adjusted) returns because it's completely safe.

To both of you, I would say _don 't sell during a correction_. You need to stick with the plan when times get tough. Paper losses are scary, but they are only on paper.

(Funnily enough, folks love volatility when it's in the right direction. Home equity is great, right? But for some reason paper losses send us into panic selling mode.)

<comment><USER69> I'm speaking of Retirement savings plans, in Canada RRSP's and the like, like your 401K's in the U.S., which, in turn are heavily invested in different investment vehicles. When the market goes south. So do they. You have no control over how they are managed. It's not 'only paper' when your balance goes from 100 to 50.

Yup, been burned many times, losing half of your net savings tends to make one cynical. But this post was about what you would tell your 25 year old self. That would be my number one thing. You can choose to ignore it or not. Sounds like you've got this figured out, so you should be golden.

<comment><USER71> You can choose what the money in a 401k is invested in. They don't hold money; they hold financial instruments like stocks, bonds and funds made up of stocks and bonds. If you don't sell those financial instruments when the market is down you will not lose money.

<comment><USER23> Yes, if your financial advisor isn't doing their job you can fire them. Many of them (used to) have skin in the game with your money, too.

Also, lots of folks who lost out on the last recession would be in an equal place post-recession had they left them money to recoup the losses. It wouldn't have been gains, but it wouldn't have been the kind of losses they experienced either. Much easier said than done, though. I don't blame them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Time in the market beats timing the market.

</comment><comment><USER45> This might be dumb and I'm only 23 but if you live in an expensive city/area, get a roommate/SO/whatever for a year or so. Funnel all saved living expenses to loans/savings account. It's not as nice as being alone but man, it's a lot of money saved.

</comment><comment><USER73> This seems relevant in a way: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pay- with-life/fmpb...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pay-with- life/fmpbkddacnibdlnffgbjelegfcgnhdcm?hl=en-GB)

</comment><comment><USER74> THere will be this thing called bitcoin -- you do everything you possibly can to buy up as much as you possibly can then you hold it till 2017... if you don't hold it or lose the wallet you'll want to commit suicide, so don't do that.

</comment><comment><USER75> Save up as much as you can and put it into risk free investments. Wait until there is blood in the streets and put everything into the DAX/DOW/ whatever index or economy too big to fail. Sell out at 100% profit. Repeat.

</comment><comment><USER76> Forget the money, so you can make enough of it doing what you love: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khOaAHK7efc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khOaAHK7efc)

</comment><comment><USER77> By the time I was 25 I already followed all the good advices listed in the comments here.

The only advices missing are predictions that are possible only with actually observing the future (e.g. buy GOOG/AAPL/AMZN).

</comment><comment><USER78> START YOUR PENSION. PAY INTO YOUR PENSION.

Also, put some money aside for savings.

</comment><comment><USER79> Don't buy an expensive car. After a while all cars become a means that takes you from place A to place B. Save that money and invest it wisely somewhere else.

</comment><comment><USER80> Don't waste your time with cash savings. All of it into a handful of low cost index funds with dividends reinvested.

</comment><comment><USER81> \- save in stocks, not savings accounts or funds

\- dont waste money on tv subscriptions

\- play less videogames

\- take greater care of your friends and relations

</comment><comment><USER82> For me this was last year, so just this: Convert all Bitcoin to Ether and then buy more Ether with USD.

</comment><comment><USER20> Cash is king.

<comment><USER23> Agreed. You still have great buying power (locally) when every other merchant out there is demanding their piece of the pie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Don't sell those 1000 bitcoin

<comment><USER84> You had 1k in Bitcoin?

<comment><USER85> Remember, that was worth about $10 at some point (not each, total). I had dozens of bitcoins and sold them when they went up in value by 1000% or so (this was 2011). Still dont regret it, even though I'd be sitting on a quite a bit of hypothetical money if I had kept them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> Should have invest myself instead of giving advice to others to invest in it. Really.

<comment><USER20> Just curious, did you advise others to invest in a specific product, business, market and or idea? Micro or macro?

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> "that girl is poison"

</comment><comment><USER88> Invest that $10,000 in bitcoin.

</comment><comment><USER89> Don't buy that condo.

</comment><comment><USER90> well im not really saving im investing in my own company.

Im building my start up ejgiftcards.com. Its generating revenue with about 20-30% margins. Current revenue is about 50-60k per month.

</comment><comment><USER91> Consider jobs out of your (my) country ASAP, they do pay better.

</comment><comment><USER92> Spend all your money on bitcoin and WAIT. Trust me. Do it.

</comment><comment><USER93> Turned 25 last month, your advices are very helpful.

</comment><comment><USER94> Put $150 a month into a RothIRA. Every month.

</comment><comment><USER95> Want vs. Need

</comment><comment><USER96> Start playing the stock market

</comment><comment><USER97> Do not buy a house.

<comment><USER40> Why do you say this?

<comment><USER97> because it was late 2006

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> The Lottery numbers for the big jackpot...

</comment><comment><USER99> Uh, well it's the same advice I'd give somebody now:

1\. Max out employer's 401k match. 2\. Build emergency fund to 3-4 months expenses 3\. Max out Roth IRA 4\. Pay off low interest loans (if you have high-interest loans, which I don't/haven't then this becomes #1 and pay them off first).

</comment><comment><USER100> Put the irs limit into an ira invested in the s&p 500 and forget about it.

</comment><comment><USER101> yes

</comment><comment><USER102> Go all in on ethereum.

</comment><comment><USER103> Buy redhat stocks it's at like $4. Oh buy apple, google and amazon too.

<comment><USER104> If you want returns from the early 2000s to today you buys Domino's stock. Yes, the pizza chain. Just look at their stock performance and you'll see why.

<comment><USER103> Good call - I just always remember looking at red hat stock in the gutter and thinking I should buy this... so naturally that is what I'd tell myself to do</comment></comment></comment>


The Power of Mathematics - John Conway [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://thewe.net/math/conway.pdf <comment><USER2> This is great! And the best part is, this sort of "visual math" is applicable to _every single field_ of mathematics; by visualizing every equation you come across, you'll find that you eventually gain a crisp (and often intuitive) understanding of the math.

For example: when I think of "x times y", I picture a rectangle whose sides are lengths x and y respectively; so naturally, the area of the rectangle is x times y.

Next time you come across an equation similar to "(x0 + x1)(y0 + y1)", you might try picturing it like this: [http://content.screencast.com/users/shawnpresser/folders/Jin...](http://content.screencast.com/users/shawnpresser/folders/Jing/media/43e220e1-2f69-49c4-a2a3-1a4801f0950d/2011-11-19_1213.png) ... you'll discover all kinds of interesting things. E.g., Karatsuba noticed that (x0y1 + x1y0) can be computed as follows: "Find the area of the entire rectangle (x0 + x1)(y0 + y1); then subtract the area of the purple rect (x1y1); then subtract the area of the gray rect (x0y0); thus giving the answer." This was a major breakthrough in mathematics at the time, because it meant you could calculate the product of two arbitrarily large integers with N digits in less than N-squared time: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karatsuba_algorithm> (and [http://dl.dropbox.com/u/315/books/Karatsuba%20Algorithm%20%2...](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/315/books/Karatsuba%20Algorithm%20%28Fast%20Multiplication%3B%20History%29.pdf) was his original paper).

Another random example: Have you ever played the game "pipe dream", where you have to connect the pipes together before the liquid fills them up and spills out? Well... the way I visualize "integrating a function" is: imagine the graph of the function. Now start "filling up the graph" from left to right --- just like Pipe Dream. The answer is: the total volume of the "liquid" above the zero line, minus the volume below the zero line. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Integral_...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Integral_example.svg))

Visualization tricks are a great way to get a "gut feeling" about "what does this equation actually _mean_? e.g., how might I relate the equation to some real-world (or imaginary-world) phenomenon?" ... you just have to be careful that your visualization is _exactly_ equivalent to the mathematics, since an inaccurate visualization would throw off your intuition.

<comment><USER3> Reminds me of how the ancient Greeks thought of mathematics in a purely geometric way. The pythagoreans wouldn't buy a proof that you couldn't demonstrate geometrically, with whole numbers. They couldn't conceive of infinite or infinitesimal entities, so they explained them away, making calculus one of those ideas that "the Greeks could have had but didn't".

<comment><USER2> Mm, fair point. Although, "geometric thinking" wasn't a hindrance; check this out, it's pretty interesting:

For example we can visualize "taking the derivative of the function f(x)" by "rolling a wheel over the top of its graph": <http://dl.dropbox.com/u/315/random_pics/derivative_wheel.png>

The red circle is a "wheel" which happily rolls back and forth along our f(x) graph. The green line is the derivative of f(x). It's intuitively obvious what that green line is -- if you had to fit a flat piece of paper between the wheel and where it touches the graph, then you'd get that line. That's the derivative, also called the "tangent line" or "slope of the graph" at that point.

(The wheel will always touch the graph only once, because we can visualize it as small as we need it to be --- infinitely small, even.)

It's common knowledge that a curve's derivative is zero at its maximum / minimum. (In other words, "when the wheel reaches the top or bottom of a 'hill', then its derivative is zero, aka the tangent line is perfectly horizontal".) So right away, we immediately understand where the zeroes of the f'(x) graph must be located.

But the real power is, we also have a rough idea of how the f'(x) graph _must look_ , by "watching the wheel's tangent line as we roll it along the graph", in our mind's eye.

So that's a neat trick, but why does it matter?

Well, here's one example: It's the most natural and obvious thing in the world that the derivative of cos(x) is -sin(x).

[http://dl.dropbox.com/u/315/random_pics/derivative_wheel_cos...](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/315/random_pics/derivative_wheel_cos.png)

We start at x=0; we see that the wheel is "resting on the very top of the slope", meaning the tangent line is flat, so we know right off the bat that the derivative of cos(0) is 0.

From there, the wheel "rolls downhill"; therefore the derivative "goes negative"; and it goes back to zero when the wheel reaches the bottom of the hill (which we see is at x=pi).

The wheel then begins climbing uphill, so its derivative "goes positive"; and it goes back to zero when the wheel reaches the top of the slope (at x=2pi).

So we see that the graph of the derivative of cos(x) has zeroes at 0, pi, and 2pi; and we also intuitively understand that it's negative from 0 to pi; and we see that it's positive from pi to 2pi.

Now all that's left is to think about the graph of -sin(x). It's exactly what we just described: zero at x=0, x=pi, and x=2pi; negative from 0 to pi; and positive from pi to 2pi. So that's why "it's obvious to us that the derivative of cos(x) is -sin(x)", QED.

So if you've had to worry about rote memorizing those sorts of formulas, I'd urge you to give these visual techniques a shot. You'll never again need to memorize seemingly-arbitrary equations, which is pretty sweet IMO.

Sorry for rambling on; I just get so excited about presenting math "in a visual way". It's a lot of fun, and likely wouldn't hinder the ambitious mathematician at all --- just the opposite, in fact: Feynman, for example, had an arsenal of similar techniques, which probably contributed to his intuitive understanding of the physics behind the formulas and his ability to "see past" the raw equations.

<comment><USER4> Awesome example about the derivative! I think the best part of geometric thinking is running ideas on your "native hardware".

Our brains are massively parallel, visual-processing monsters... and we try to think about ideas linearly, like we're a turing machine. No -- use that GPU! :).

When I think visually, I can immediately grok the idea (it's running in hardware) and my software layer (my conscious thought process) can work on stitching together deeper ideas.

Shameless plug, but I've written about visualizing Euler's Identity ([http://betterexplained.com/articles/intuitive- understanding-...](http://betterexplained.com/articles/intuitive- understanding-of-eulers-formula/)):

* Radians are distance from the mover's point of view

* e is continuous growth

* i is a rotation (so e^i*anything is imaginary growth, i.e. growth in a perpendicular direction)

Combining ideas like this is just so enjoyable! It brings out the natural beauty in learning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is great. The only nitpicky thing I have is this line:

 _This new proof was created by a friend of mine called Stanley Tennenbaum, who has since dropped out of mathematics._

There's kind of a snobbery in mathematics that goes along the lines of Pure Mathematics > Applicable Math > Applied Math > Programming the Math. Theoretical Comp Sci falls somewhere around Applicable. Why is it that he "dropped out of mathematics" and not "decided he liked [whatever he does now]"?

Otherwise, a great read. Math _is_ so much cooler than high school calculus drills make it seem.

<comment><USER6> That's ironic because John Conway does a lot of applied math. I think he might have just been explaining why the audience did not know the name. Mathematics is still a relatively small field.

<comment><USER5> Oh yeah, Game of Life and all that. Oops, thanks for pointing that out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are two well known mathematicians named John Conway. A bit of Googling confirms that this paper is from John H Conway (the one well known in programming circles for the cellular automata game of "Life)), not John B Conway (the well known functional analyst and author of one of the leading textbooks on complex variables).

</comment><comment><USER8> I've only read as far as the first example, and wow, it's beautiful -- you don't even need to read the proof, the diagram says it all.

<comment><USER9> If you read it really carefully, you will notice that it does not say it all. The picture can only be drawn if m < 2n.

You would have to proof that separately. I think you will be able to draw the picture that illustrates such a proof.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Visual proofs are uniquely beautiful.

See the 2 & 3 proofs of Pythagorean Theorem: <http://www.cut-the- knot.org/pythagoras/index.shtml>

</comment><comment><USER11> The first example is pretty cool... Not to nitpick, but as he states the problem:

        Could there be two squares with side [sic] equal to a
        whole number, n, whose total area is identical to that
        of a single square with side equal to another whole
        number, m?

Given that he's speaking of whole numbers, the number zero comes to mind, which satisfies this.

So his whole proof is shot.

\--

John Conway's greatest contribution to my life (as opposed to the game of life), and one I use about five times a week is The Doomsday Rule: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_rule>

<comment><USER12> _"Given that he's speaking of whole numbers, the number zero comes to mind, which satisfies this. So his whole proof is shot."_

Both Wikipedia [1] and Wolfram [2] indicate that there are varying interpretations regarding which integers are included in the definition of the term _whole number_.

Since Conway is discussing two-dimensional distance in order to determine area, his definition of the term would not include integers that are less than or equal to zero.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_number>

"Whole number is a term with inconsistent definitions by different authors. All distinguish whole numbers from fractions and numbers with fractional parts.

Whole numbers may refer to:

natural numbers in sense (1, 2, 3, ...) - the positive integers

natural numbers in sense (0, 1, 2, 3, ...) - the non-negative integers

all integers (..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...)"

[2] <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WholeNumber.html>

"0 is sometimes included in the list of "whole" numbers (Bourbaki 1968, Halmos 1974), but there seems to be no general agreement."

<comment><USER13> Where I study, it's a general consensus that in Math, N does not include 0 unless explicitly included as N index 0. In CompSci on the other hand, 0 is assumed to be included for practical and technical reasons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A bit off topic, but I was always a bit puzzled about how knots are described mathematically. This is a fantastic intro to knots in the mathematical sense.

</comment><comment><USER15> always a good idea to already insult your reader in the second sentence...

<comment><USER16> Ha...I agree but I do appreciate this thread I currently had to review geometry while studying C++ and most of what's explained on the document is what I discovered while reviewing so it's nice to have it documented, now it's time to get the logic down math is everything I'm discovering when it comes to C.S./Programming, it defines how you build Data Structures/Algorithms well apologies for the rant it's just good to see a thread which helps in an area of my current study, and it's true using geometry makes programming and math easier to comprehend</comment></comment>


Why flattening the curve is overrated - <AUTHOR> https://www.pensford.com/why-flattening-the-curve-is-overrated/ <comment><USER2> Economic losses can't be equated to human life, and it's a fool's errand to do so. We flatten to reduce demand on health care. We do so because it's the compassionate thing to do, because human life matters more than GDP figures. Quarantining won't kill people. There will be economic consequences, but quarantine won't leave you with permanent lung damage, either.

Look at how our country's national security policies were forever changed after 3,000 deaths on September 11th. This disease has the ability to take away two magnitudes more people -- hundreds of thousands. We shouldn't be surprised if profound policy changes emerge as a response to pandemic.

<comment><USER3> _Economic losses can 't be equated to human life_

They can, and in fact it's necessary to do so in order to make reasonable decisions. That's why we don't shut down the world during every flu season.

 _Look at how our country 's national security policies were forever changed after 3,000 deaths on September 11th._

And a lot of those policies have turned out to be questionable at best.

 _This disease has the ability to take away two magnitudes more people -- hundreds of thousands._

Correct. We should be quarantining now not because "it will save lives", but because the expected value of the lives it will save outweighs the costs.

<comment><USER2> We instead could compare the number of deaths if we quarantine, vs if we don't, and then choose the path with the least number of deaths.

If for example, we could no longer produce food due to quarantining (not the case, as essential industries are still operating-- but imagine for some reason, we did shut down food production), and 100 million would die vs 200,000-- clearly the better option would be to not quarantine.

So, I don't know if this a debate of semantics, but "economic losses" that would turn into actual loss of human life (e.g., due to starvation) are being accounted for.</comment></comment></comment>