Twitter suspended our Open Data project's account and wiped all our followers - <AUTHOR> http://www.openbenches.org/blog/2018/05/twitter-suspended-our-account-and-wiped-all-our-followers/ <comment><USER2> There's a fair bit of criticism for relying too much on Twitter in this thread, but I think the article brings up a good point:

>Yes, I know. We should redecentralize and put our content on Mastodon, or the BlockChain, or some other convoluted platform which has no users. But that's just not practical for a small project. We have limited technical resources and have to go to where the people are.

Despite there being better technical options, those options can't be considered just on their technical merits... User adoption is also crucial.

<comment><USER3> User adoption on Mastodon can be pretty big depending on the project. Look at the number of followers F-Droid has on Mastodon compared to Twitter.

[https://mastodon.technology/@fdroidorg](https://mastodon.technology/@fdroidorg)

[https://twitter.com/fdroidorg](https://twitter.com/fdroidorg)

<comment><USER4> I know of absolutely no people that use Mastadon. There might be a niche somewhere that uses it, but I can't help to think that it would hurt rather than help any hobby project to choose Mastadon over Twitter.

<comment><USER5> I used Mastodon for a while, and it was a pretty good experience. I guess I just found it wasn't my crowd; every other person with something interesting to say turned out to be a "demi-girl otherkin fur-friend," or something like that, and while I am happy for people to have a place to do their thing — exercise your liberty, fur-friend! — I came to feel a bit out of place. It seems like its strong secondary focus on trigger warnings and safe spaces draws too narrow an audience to achieve wide adoption.

<comment><USER6> That depends heavily on the instance you choose. There's much, much less of that on the instance I'm (mainly) on.

And if they're saying interesting things, why do you care if they turn out to have a different lifestyle from yours?

Pick a different instance and try again.

<comment><USER5> There would probably be instances that I would fit into better, but discoverability is also a problem. I also had a hard time figuring out how to make multiple instances visible at once in a single interface, either on mobile or desktop; I'm not sure if that's even _supposed_ to be possible.

As far as why I care, it's because these interesting people very understandably want to talk about their lifestyle choices, and I don't really want to hear about it. (Just like how I'm okay with people smoking in their homes, but I find their smoke distasteful.) It made the signal-to-noise ratio for me a little too low for pleasure.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure about having simultaneous visibility of multiple instances, I just follow the people in whom I'm interested, and their toots turn up in my instance. That's part of how federation works. Discoverability _is_ a problem, one that people are working on, but you can find people and follow them, and then others on that instance over there can be safely ignored.

And if there are people who say really interesting things mixed in with stuff you don't care about, that's a problem everywhere. There are a few things you can do. One is that you can use regex's to filter out stuff you're not interested in. Another is that you can choose to follow only people who _don 't_ talk about the other things, and trust that they will boost the things that you care about from others.

But it's a social medium, so there will be a mix. You can control it to some extent, but I've found the tools in Mastodon to be much more powerful than those in Twitter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A similar thing happened to a much bigger, also innocent, account recently: [https://kotaku.com/nintendo-fan-account-flagged-on- twitter-f...](https://kotaku.com/nintendo-fan-account-flagged-on-twitter-for- image-of-ma-1824999104)

</comment><comment><USER8> I can almost buy the need to have automated account suspensions, but shouldn't the appeal at least be human reviewed? When your appeal logic is:

      if (true) {
        deny_appeal();
      }

...it might give people the impression that there's nobody behind the wheel. I guess this is what "building services that scale" means.

<comment><USER9> Twitters bot detection "algorithm" is:

For 1 to accounts do ban account()

A bot will not appeal the ban, while human will appeal!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> An "open data project" that stores all of its data on Twitter? Not that Twitter's in the right here, but this seems like a bad move...

<comment><AUTHOR> We don't. We syndicate to Twitter. That's where we get the most new users.

All the data is on openbenches.org and GitHub.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I run a bot swarm that tweets transit delays in Boston and this has been affecting some of the most prolific accounts (i.e. the one that tweets bus delays), that being said, it's been super easy to get them reactivated and I havn't lost any followers.

</comment><comment><USER12> Always figured that you get what you pay for, but in fact, Twitter/Facebook/Google aren't nearly that reliable in the long term.

<comment><USER13> A remarkably poor hueristic.

Though you _should_ carefully examine just that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I would assume Twitter suspended the account due to the rate of posts. Granted, you are allowed 2400 tweets per day, [1] so the account should not have had any issues....

[1]: [https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter- limit...](https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-limits)

<comment><USER15> I think the image-post all-caps multi-level text followed by a link with just a number at the end might have been spammy looking to a crap machine learning algorithm

<comment><AUTHOR> That's possible. We get the text from Google's OCR product - and a lot of benches are in all caps.

We could try to shift it all to sentence case, but that might lose the meaning of proper nouns.

Thanks for the suggestion though, that's the first thing which has made sense about the banning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm saying it again, don't build a business based on someone else's data. At any point it could disappear, along with you.

<comment><USER17> What's a good alternative you would suggest?

I often have a similar problem and the fact is that most users hang out on platforms that suck like Twitter, Facebook, etc.

If I build my business on a decentralized platform like blockchain etc. I immediately lose 90% or even more of my target audience.

If I build my business on my own datacenter the cost and maintenance involved is staggeringly high.

Do you have a reasonable alternative that would allow small players like us to host large volumes of data (say about 1 TB to 2 TB) while completely controlling the ownership of the data?

<comment><USER18> They had, in their own words hundreds of followers.

At the time of this comment, the fediverse has about 1.2 million accounts. It's not that hard to get hundreds of followers there.

<comment><USER19> Twitter has hundreds of times more accounts. It depends on the audience, everyone's mileage may vary, so on and so forth, but as a general rule of thumb, if you're drawing from a pool that's 300x bigger, it's going to be easier to get orders of magnitude more followers. This is not Mastodon's fault; network effects are what they are.

Having said that, anecdotally I find it very hard to get people outside of a relatively narrow demographic to get on board with it. More than one fairly technically literate friend of mine has stopped about at the point where they're confronted with the choice of what instance to create an account on, especially if they choose and then get told "no, that instance is full, go create one somewhere else." It's not clear that the instance, at least theoretically, doesn't matter.

Note I say "theoretically," because it turns out it _can_ matter. If the instance you choose is maintained poorly, your experience may be worse. (This is in fact my experience.) And it's not clear how to migrate between instances while keeping your social graph intact. Mastodon has a long way to go in terms of user experience to be accessible to people who aren't dedicated enough to the idea of a decentralized Twitter alternative to put up with this stuff.

Last but not least: it's hard for me not to notice that in the year or so I've had a Mastodon account, it's been _very_ hard for me to discover people to follow, especially after the occasional burst of new users dies down. The people I followed are, except for two or three folks who are clearly dedicated to it over Twitter for philosophical reasons, mostly...just not using it now. (Of the two dozen people I followed, my timeline is now pretty much just content from two users, one of who is only "there" because his blog crossposts automatically.) You know where most of them are still active? Twitter.

tl;dr: it might be great for a project like OpenBench to _also_ be on Mastodon, but not _exclusively_ be on it.

<comment><USER18> So to break things down as I think we're partially of the same view:

1\. To start with the end, nobody's suggesting they're exclusively on Mastodon (which is not the only Fediverse tool, there are others), and they absolutely should syndicate far and wide. However, posting to Mastodon/Pleroma/Whatever first and syndicating the content elsewhere means that if this happens again, they don't lose tweets.

2\. Drawing from a pool 300x bigger doesn't make for 300x better interactions. Generally Fediverse SNR seems to be better, but this is more or less so depending upon interest and representation. Bear in mind OP's twitter account had followers in the hundreds, like my Mastodon account does. I have thousands on twitter, but I only interact with maybe 50-100 people there.

3\. WRT your friend, there's now [https://joinmastodon.org/](https://joinmastodon.org/), which will guide them to an instance. Your friend is not required to use Mastodon to participate in the Fediverse. There are other tools out there. They're all linked (you can use Pleroma and read Mastodon toots for example). The whole point of the fediverse is that it isn't a walled garden and that you own your content.

4\. There are tools to assist with migrating Mastodon accounts but they're early stage. I agree this sucks, but in it's defence it's because Mastodon is new and expanding and the tools are improving.

5\. This was the bit I wanted to talk about:

> it's been very hard for me to discover people to follow

Yup. I completely agree. The solution however is right under your nose. The way to find people to follow in the Fediverse is:

1\. Search for hashtags you're interested in.

2\. Find people using those hashtags and check out their feeds.

3\. Look at who they follow and check those people out.

This is how every social network pretty much used to work, and fundamentally is down to the fact that in the fediverse you own your presence, your data and your network which means you are responsible for it. There's nobody pushing for engagement, nobody making money from filling your feed with ads. The price is personal responsibility.

If you think that's too high a price to pay, that's fine. Stay in the walled garden with curated content and risk having all the content you produced for corporations for free so they could sell ads to be pushed to you and your friends erased at the drop of a hat without explanation.

And you can say it'll never work, it'll never replace twitter or facebook. But HN will never replace Reddit and Lobsters will never replace HN, yet both are doing pretty well for the communities they serve. Once you bend your head around the concept that fediverse communities as a whole have no interest in replicating Twitter or Facebook it starts to make a lot more sense.

<comment><USER19> We may not be on the same page, but we're probably at least on adjacent pages. :)

I should be clear that I like Mastodon despite all my complaints -- it's just that I often feel as if I like it more in theory than practice. I've had better luck with Micro.blog, which is a different approach to the same problem (i.e., own your own content), built on top of webmentions and syndication feeds. But I'm not sure it's really a _better_ approach, just different.

<comment><USER18> Oooh Micro.blog looks interesting. Is it open source?

<comment><USER19> I don't think the timeline bits are, although I think it's under consideration. (Sorry for being extremely fuzzy there.) I know you don't actually have to pay for hosting with them, which I don't think they do a great job of communicating yet -- a hosted Micro.blog is actually just Jekyll with a web front end, and there are people using their own Jekyll setups, or WordPress, or a few other solutions. (I'm pretty sure the timeline is actually built on top of JSON Feed and webmentions.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Unrelated: Openbenches, you don't have a single picture of the greatest benches in America? [http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/03/...](http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/03/IMG_0841.jpg)

<comment><USER11> I think you are confusing it with this bench [https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/jamacia-pond- bench](https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/jamacia-pond-bench)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Same thing happened with my @busplungebot . All it did was post articles where about about buses plunging off cliffs have occurred. Hell, I think I was the only follower.

I haven't even bothered to log in and fix it.

</comment><comment><USER21> _Despite the promises, the followers never returned.

We only had a few hundred, not bad for a parochial project on the psychogeography of memorials, but now we had zero._

They currently have 396, including me.

<comment> martin-adams Maybe you were looking at the following, not the followers. I see 222 followers.

<comment><USER21> No. It's up to 427 currently:

 _OpenBenches.org @openbenches Made with in Oxford by @edent and @summerbeth openbenches.org 393 Following 427 Followers_

<comment> martin-adams Very strange, I now see 396 following and 257 followers. Social blade confirms the follower number too. I wonder if there's some Twitter caching going on.

<comment><USER21> No clue, though the count I currently see is 458, fwiw.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I love it how they have "automated systems that remove spam" that somehow remove innocent accounts like this one but completely fail to remove blatantly obvious spam.

I don't expect the system to be bulletproof and remove advanced spam rings, but when obvious spam is allowed to stay on the platform I'm wondering what the idiots at Twitter are really doing.

<comment><USER23> Hold on, I've reported multiple _extraordinarily obvious_ spam rings before, with accounts as old as 2013, and I've even kicked up a stink here when Twitter employees show up, and I was told "bots don't violate the TOS."

I just checked, it's still there [https://mobile.twitter.com/ksfAKBARI](https://mobile.twitter.com/ksfAKBARI) check followers/following for a massive ring of obvious spam.

<comment><USER24> It took a lot of effort to get twitter to do something about the crypto spam accounts targeting elon musk. SO obvious yet none of their systems seemed to catch it.

<comment><USER23> They're doing something about it? I saw some yesterday.

<comment><USER24> They've definitely been a lot less common. Two months ago the first few dozen comments were all botnets saying they received the money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If I was looking for a sneaky way to get huge number of followers, this kind of sob story might be the way to do it. ;)

</comment><comment><USER26> Seems like Twitter's 'automated systems' are to incrementally ban every account, for unspecified reasons, then re-instate those who figure out how to object.

(Of course, if this were a conscious strategy, they'd probably be better about not destroying following/follower state through a cycle.)

</comment><comment><USER27> "The BlockChain"? What's that?

<comment><USER28> no one knows

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Another casualty of betting business on someone else's platform.

USE someone else's platforms for what they're good at - gather leads and connections and steering them to the platform you own.

OWN your data.

<comment><USER30> Please read the story before commenting next time. They did not _build a business_ on Twitter. It's not even a business, and they were using Twitter for publicity, exactly as intended. Having a major arm of your project's publicity platform wiped out arbitrarily is still shitty, and still Twitter's fault.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> What was actually lost? Aren't followers just a number? Did they interact with you in any meaningful way? Did they contribute to the project?

My experience is that even thousands of Twitter followers amount to no real contribution to anything.

Anybody here with a different experience?

</comment><comment><USER32> So what's the current feeling on HN towards stories like this one?

They seem fairly repetitive and uninteresting: users use something with no customer service, automated system goes haywire and bans/blocks/disables/inconveniences their account, the only way they have to get it resolved is to make some noise about it, they then return to using the service, nothing changes.

At this point I'm tempted to flag stories like this one that don't have some kind of new angle or widespread interest, but thought I'd see how others are feeling about it first.

<comment><USER33> I don't understand the reason for flagging it. I get the impression that you are flagging it for not being novel or unique. I can relate, but that is concerning in itself.

The general concern here could not be anymore relevant, and discounting that merely because it lacks novelty seems at least decadent and at most snobery.

Without even taking a stance on the issue being discussed, I think we can all agree that these sorts of issues that come up in our society and seem to affect all of us are in our noblest interests to take concern with.

I say we let these articles live.

<comment><USER32> The danger with low-effort topics like this is that they can take over a site (see e.g. [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well- kept-...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens- die-by-pacifism)). At a guess, there've been several hundred submissions like this to HN over the years, and yet this is an approach to business that established companies and startups alike continue to follow. There's no sign that any of this noise is changing the actual business practices at all, and the problem is common enough that the /r/videos subreddit has had a "YouTube Drama" tag for certain videos for quite a while now.

But, okay. It looks like the general opinion is that it would be inappropriate to flag them.

<comment><USER33> I can see where you're coming from. Repetitive formulaic content can definitely contribute a lot of noise on sites like this.

But, I think these articles are not the result of formula or even a superficial trend. I can't imagine what the motive would be. Until further notice, these articles seem to mostly be coming from a place of genuine concern.

What if the reason we keep seeing the posts is that the problem is simply that significant?

Speaking from a more personal perspective, I am surprised that the problem continues like it does. It seems like the exact sort of societies are built to prevent. It can ruin livelihoods, can happen to anyone, at any time, the causes are blackboxed, and there is almost always no recourse.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Postmates Secures $141M in a 'Super, Super Difficult' Fundraising Effort - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-31/postmates-secures-141-million-in-a-super-super-difficult-fundraising-effort <comment><USER3> Really hard to see the defensible "moat" in the business models of these delivery companies. As the article says, Uber uses its balance sheet as its weapon, but the flip side of that is it will be hard for any new investor to get much of a return in any future round -- its hard to see its defence against a disrupting competitor. Even Lyft, which looks weaker, easily scoops up the same drivers as Uber.

All of which means it's not clear if this is a difficult fundraising market or not. It certainly is for these undifferentiated delivery companies, but for tech startups? Not seeing it yet.

<comment><USER4> > Really hard to see the defensible "moat" in the business models of these > delivery companies.

Couldn't the same be said about a lot of the "unicorns"? For example Dropbox or AirB'n'B don't have significant network effects and anyone with some cash can copy their software and directly compete with them (the same way Lyft is competing with Uber). The likes of Facebook and Twitter are an exception.

<comment><USER5> Dropbox has a mild network effect, as soon as people use it to share files with their friends and colleagues. Once Dropbox gets established inside a business (often because it's easier to use than internal IT), they're probably quite secure.

<comment><USER6> I'd say quite mild, since if Dropbox prevented me from sharing files to anyone over the web, half its utility is gone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _" It has said it intends to be profitable, without tax-related expenses, by the end of next year."_

That's a bizarre interpretation of "profitable".

<comment><USER8> I agree, very bizarre way to claim profitable.

As for the other comments mentioning EBITDA. The Tax in EBITDA is income tax.

 _You cannot be taxed out of being profitable_.

The tax rate is not >100% so if you are profitable before taxes you are profitable after taxes. Just less so.

I have no idea what postmates means here by "profitable, w/o tax-related expenses". Maybe something like sales tax they collected that must be remitted? (that's not technically an expense either but they don't seem to know what they are doing or saying at the moment).

<comment><USER9> > _The tax rate is not >100%_

Lol welcome to New York. Even ignoring the cost of preparing reams and reams of paperwork, a flat $4 tax on, say, bagels could very well flip margins negative.

<comment><USER10> There can't really be a $4 bagel tax. And if there were wouldn't shops just pass the cost on to consumers (similar to the "Obamacare surcharge" many restaurants seem to be tacking onto bills currently)?

<comment><USER11> There isn't a $4 tax on bagels in New York, and yes, if there were it would just be transferred to consumers. Much like the local cigarette tax.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I can't conceive of mainstream success for Postmates outside of bubbles like SF and NYC - because it's just too expensive: Delivery fee (with very frequent 'surge pricing'), service fee, and prompts for tip. I've never placed an order under $30 for a meal just for me.

And that's fine if you make 6 figures and don't cook very often, why not be a regular Postmates person, but I just don't see how that works outside of certain neighborhoods in certain cities.

<comment><USER13> Loads of people use alternatives here in Sydney and Melbourne (including Uber Eats). Doesn't hurt that Uber Eats doesn't charge a delivery fee and has no minimum (for now).

Not really sure if we count as 'the bubble', but people have shifted from calling restaurants (or Dominos) directly to using these services to 'upscale' and discover more restaurants.

<comment><USER14> Who are these people who have shifted? Are you living in a bubble yourself? I certainly haven't seen this shift happening among my group of friends.

I feel this is more of a he said she said kind of argument. Would love to see some data here (in terms of whether these deliveries are net additions vs. replacements of existing chains that deliver) but unfortunately, Postmates hasn't published anything yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I find Postmates competing primarily on food delivery quite odd. When I originally started using Postmates, it was for pretty much for everything but food. When I ordered food from it, it was for the likes of food trucks, where I just needed to dispatch a courier and make a free form order. Unfortunately, Postmates discontinued support for these features.

The kinds of things I ordered before the modernization of Postmates were USB- to-Ethernet adapters, Macs, soldering irons, and more. These were typically high priced goods that I needed in a short period of time to keep up some service.

<comment><USER16> My team of ~5 people orders from Postmates every weekday for lunch and our order is missing items about a third of the time. It's not uncommon for one of us to reorder via Caviar's Fastbite service, where the food is on-hand and delivered within 5 mins in SoMa. When we tried Caviar's non-Fastbite service, we noticed the same problem with missing items. Does this happen to anyone else? We've been having this problem for months and I'd think that one of these companies have got it figured out by now.

<comment><USER17> I find it bizarre that you're consistently using a service which is bad 33% of the time. I feel like I'd have given up after a couple of weeks - <USER2> honestly convenience is what you're paying for and only getting some of what you order is the opposite of convenient.

<comment><USER16> It only happens to 1/5 of us 1/3 of the time. :) Plus Postmates at least reimburses us for the missing items.

<comment><USER17> If it's me I'm annoyed and hungry, if it's someone else I'm annoyed and guilty.

1/3 of the time lunch is wrong and there is absolutely no excuse for it. If you went to a restaurant and they could only get your food served correctly a third of the time you'd stop going back pretty fast I reckon

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's going to be interesting to see where they allocate the money. They're in a very tough market: competing with Uber for drivers and Amazon for drone deliveries. Literally, the most inauspicious position to be in, second to competing with Google or Elon Musk.

It's funny that selling the company was their priority, and that they had to hire an investment bank to look for funders.

<comment><USER19> It'd probably more accurate to say Postmates is competing with Prime Now, not Amazon Air lol

<comment><USER10> I didn't downvote you, but the blasé and pedantic tone to this comment is probably why you're getting downvoted.

<comment><USER11> It's funny how the "lol" can change anything. I didn't think there was anything particularly wrong with the tone until I reached the very end.

<comment><USER20> Even then it sounds more like "lol this is ridiculous" and not "lol you're a lil incorrect"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Overcoming less-than-favorable unit economics when a business is at scale is never fun.

That said, I appreciate this startup's continued hustle.

</comment><comment><USER22> Here in Berkeley, we're getting indefinite free delivery from Uber Eats. The war of attrition has definitely started.

<comment><USER23> In SF, UberEATS has a rolling $5 off per delivery for the month of November. Last I checked, deliveries were a flat $5 so this counteracts it. It's been that way for ~2/3 weeks now.

<comment><USER24> All orders were $20 off including free delivery for the last week here. Still free delivery now that it's over.

Previous to that were free uber rides, free uber helicopter rides and all while still paying the drivers the same amount.

It is a shame to me, because we are a small city in a relatively remote location that had been incubating it's own smaller scale food delivery services. Some really cool platforms that could compete with Uber in all metrics but one: the ability to spend big to create incredible brand presence.

Everyone is now super excited about UberEats because it is cheaper and makes us feel like we're just like the cool kids in San Fran. Meanwhile these smaller companies will likely fizzle out, as our city just doesn't have the capital to invest and compete.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Honestly, I am shocked they were able to raise at all. I've used Postmates and Cavier a few times, but as soon as Uber Eats released, I haven't used either since. I exclusively use Uber Eats now and use it more frequently than I ever used Postmates or Cavier.

I have to guess the investors (Founders Fund - Thiel) know something I don't, because seems like a lost battle from my porch.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is all following an eerily similar script to kozmo.

</comment><comment><USER27> > Postmates raised $141 million in a financing round led by Founders Fund. The > San Francisco VC firm, co-founded by billionaire Peter Thiel

So much for the Silicon Valley boycott of Peter Thiel.

I wonder if they would have raised from Thiel if they were in a position of strength, and had other options.

<comment><USER28> I honestly don't think the 'boycott' was reflective the majority's opinion. Unless someone can compile a list of people who've said they outright weren't going to do business with Thiel.

<comment><USER29> We are a YC S16 company and will not take money from Peter Thiel. May not be the majority's opinion, but that seems irrelevant.

<comment><USER30> That's an unusual stance for someone who is a CEO of a company for "rekindling passion for public service in millions of local government employees" and is worrisome.

You wouldn't support people like these government employees to have freedom of political opinion?

<comment><USER29> It's not about political opinion or because he supports the Republican nominee. He has a plethora of public comments revealing a shocking lack of empathy or caring about the greater good.

This isn't about politics. We're specifically apolitical ([https://octopoedi.gitbooks.io/employee- handbook/content/Comp...](https://octopoedi.gitbooks.io/employee- handbook/content/Company%20Policies/politics.html)).

As I choose investors, it's very important that they are aligned with the impact we want to have on the world. Thiel is, to be generous, no where fucking close.

<comment><USER30> That's fair and respectable. E.g. Martin Shkreli would probably not be a suitable investor for you.

However: "He has a plethora of public comments revealing a shocking lack of empathy or caring about the greater good." Very much "citation needed." If anything, I've seen Thiel genuinely want to improve our world.

<comment><USER5> Peter Thiel is on record _on his own blog_ as describing votes for women as a bad thing.

[https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter- thiel/educatio...](https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter- thiel/education-libertarian)

<comment><USER31> and starting in just the second paragraph:

"Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible."

<comment><USER32> This idea is nothing new.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." \-- Winston Churchill

<comment><USER33> From his own blog: "Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron."

He's mad that women can vote because they don't vote libertarian.

<comment><USER32> > He's mad that women can vote because they don't vote libertarian.

I don't see the problem with this unless he's proposing a constitutional amendment to have their right to vote removed.

<comment><USER33> It's a problem when he influences the political process with his money and holds totalitarian political beliefs.

<comment><USER32> Anyone with money can influence the political process with money, regardless of their beliefs.

Are you going to limit speech to that with which you agree with? You either trust democracy or you don't, and quite honestly I don't. People are disinterested, apathetic, and uneducated on the issues.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Southern California just saw its longest streak of bad air in decades - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-smog-streak-20180921-story.html <comment><USER2> Truck traffic in LA is by far the problem, not so much the car traffic (though that is horrible, based on the population).

Ships come into Long Beach, the containers are offloaded, the trucks begin a lumbering journey to points East. Belching all the way.

I'm not making up the claim. California rules put in place over ten years ago had trucks retrofitted or whatever, and this change to TRUCKS ONLY was like removing 30 MILLION cars from California roads. There are not 30 million trucks in California, though sometimes it appears so.

[http://4cleanair.org/DieselTrucks.pdf](http://4cleanair.org/DieselTrucks.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Don't forget that in 2015 the NAFTA requirements that allow Mexican trucks on US roads were fully put into effect so now we've got heavily polluting Mexican trucks on Southern California roads now.

<comment><USER4> Is there a quota on that ? If not, I predict this will follow the same pattern it took in Western Europe, where low-cost of labor Eastern Europe companies are slowly taking over long distance trucking. The limiter of the rate of change is the number of available EE long-distance drivers, which the companies hiring have vacuumed clean.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Los Angeles is unfortunate that due to the surrounding geography, thermal inversions are common where air close to the surface is trapped and doesn't circulate. That amplifies the air quality problems compared to say SF where the off-shore breeze keeps the air relatively clean.

<comment><USER6> This is relatively straightforward to solve. You take the existing CA gas tax and have it increase a couple of pennies every single month indefinitely. Gasoline in California is still about 1/2 the price in Europe.

By making the tax small and gradual, everybody can _PLAN_ around the fact that gas is going up instead of the dislocation from when gasoline prices whipsaw.

The problem is that we have _zero_ political will to do this. People will attack the gas tax instead of attacking the lack of transportation options.

<comment> swingline-747 That won't work in the real world, it will just tax the poorest people and accomplish nothing tangible. There's very inelastic demand for travel by car in LA because everything is so spread out, making other forms of transport unworkably moot. People have to work and live, so they're just going to hate you for making their lives harder while they have no workable options. Heck, the auto industry even had the 19th/20th c. era local commuter trains ripped up so they wouldn't compete with the automobile.

<comment><USER7> Demand for travel by car is elastic to the tune of about 1 billion annual VMT per penny.

[https://www.brookings.edu/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/jpube-v...](https://www.brookings.edu/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/jpube-vmt-paper.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A neat perk of iOS/watchOS 12 is that it now supports Air Quality in the Weather app/Siri, which has been very useful over the past few days!

<comment> another-cuppa Why is it useful? What do you do about it?

<comment><USER9> It can be useful if you need to make a decision on how active to be outside. It's usually not a good idea to be running/cycling (for fitness) or other similar activities outside with very poor air quality.

<comment> another-cuppa So if the air quality is bad, you'll drive. I see, very useful.

<comment><USER9> Or not run outside. Or if I cycle, not press hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If interested, here is a link to the air quality index, as measured by purple air monitors:

[https://www.purpleair.com/map#11/34.0244/-118.4531](https://www.purpleair.com/map#11/34.0244/-118.4531)

The map extends worldwide, but only reports data from those who have purchased their monitors.

<comment><USER11> Whoa, what's going on in Utah? [https://www.purpleair.com/map#6.74/39.975/-111.145](https://www.purpleair.com/map#6.74/39.975/-111.145)

<comment><USER12> Geography and local weather patterns, similar to Mexico City in that regard where the city sits surrounded mostly by mountains and frequent broadly local temperature conditions trap air in the valley.

<comment><USER13> There's also a 113,000 acre fire burning currently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I read somewhere that a single fire in the area pollutes more than all of th cars combined for a year. I don't know how much of this is true, but if it is, it seems climate change is having a much bigger impact already that we simply choose to ignore.

<comment><USER15> Winds blow east and most people live very close to the coast making fires significantly less of an issue. [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:California_populatio...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:California_population_map.png) Big wildfires are also concentrated in areas with few people. [https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&mid=1ZpcZ8OMZh1G1...](https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&mid=1ZpcZ8OMZh1G1XwRmt9GaCwH6f-g&ll=38.37852090873982%2C-118.9441938415527&z=7)

The real issue is transportation pollution occurs right where people are. Further, you get inversion layers over cities which traps the pollution. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(meteorology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_\(meteorology\))

<comment><USER14> Do you live in the area? It doesn't sound like it. If you live anywhere near San Fernando valley then you'd be quick to acknowledge the impact fires have on the area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is all about a bad wildfire season right? Even Seattle had many bad air weeks this summer.

<comment><USER17> Wildfire-related smoke has been bad, but non-wildfire-related ozone has also been bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> When are we going to acknowledge that commuting to a city center in this day and age is a ridiculous thing to do. I would wager most of LAs output is in the form of info services that can be done from home or the burbs. I remember when gas prices were at an all time high at one point and nobody was dissuaded from driving less. People would simply complain more but suck it up and go about their routine anyway. And who can blame them?! SoCal is not traversable by any means other than an automobile. There are nutjobs who will fight tooth and nail about public transportation, specifically buses, but any resident will tell you what kind of people use those services and they can't be convinced to. I reckon fires and geography have a lot to do with everything but unless there is a dramatic shift in public policy, ain't nothing going to change.

</comment><comment><USER18> Looking outside of my window, I've seen the haze/fog/smog, but can't make out if it's because of polluted air or if it's just condensation- the kind you'd expect to see in high altitudes.

<comment><USER19> Devices for measuring the concentration of particulates (PM10, PM2.5, and maybe PM1.0), TVOC (total volatile organic compounds), and HCHO (formaldehyde) are fairly affordable nowadays. You could get one of those.

The air quality indoors is usually even worse than the air outside if you aren't using some filtration system. New-ish buildings release formaldehyde, laser printers release particulates and ozone, 3d printers release VOCs and particulates, and there is lots of dust generated by inhabitants and their pets.

Sadly, the Trump administration did a rollback of emission and fuel efficiency standards. It's a big step in the wrong direction.

Personally, I'd even ban combustion engines within city limits. It's completely insane that we poison the air we breathe 24/7.

</comment></comment><comment> swingline-747 Yuck. I remember the early 80's regularly seeing a visible smog.

</comment><comment><USER20> > Joseph Lyou, a South Coast air quality board member who heads the Coalition > for Clean Air, said he's concerned that although the intensity of Southern > California's air pollution has dropped, its longevity is increasing.

If air quality becomes more consistently bad then maybe wearing a mask, like in some Asian countries, will become more socially acceptable. Sometimes I'd like to wear one but I'm scared people would treat me like I have TB or ebola.

And even on clear days, the air is still bad next to busy roads.

<comment><USER21> Masks help with particulate, which I think is Asia's core problem (from all the coal). But most bad-air US cities struggle with ozone, and I don't think masks help with that.

<comment><USER22> Would just note that it depends on the mask. They often have a large amount of leakage, and can give a false sense of security.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-airpollution- masks...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-airpollution-masks/face- masks-available-to-consumers-may-be-ineffective-against-air-pollution- idUSKBN1I426I)

<comment><USER20> I notice an obvious and immediate improvement wearing a mask in Asia. And according to this article, the masks tested were effective in reducing the amount of pollution inhaled. "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I live here in the valley and you can feel it like taking a punch from Mike Tyson in the lungs

<comment><USER23> However it used to be far worse back when everyone was using leaded gas here in the 70s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Isn't Seattle supposed to be way worse?

<comment><USER25> Seattle's was due to fires in surrounding regions. For whatever reason, smoke just accumulates in the Sound and lingers in the city, even for fires up in Canada. In LA, typically unless there is a fire in the immediate proximity, smoke doesn't really affect it that much. This article seems to be mostly about smog and ozone, rather than temporary air quality issues that don't really have a solution.

But yes, from what I've read, for a couple weeks last month, Seattle had the worst air quality in the world. And if you were here, you'd believe it.

<comment><USER26> Rain also helps with reducing the air pollution

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Ban cars.

</comment><comment><USER28> Can anyone summarise the article for those of us in Europe?

We can't get the LA Times here.

What has changed this year - wild fires? Or is it the problem of ten million cars pissing in the pool with no wind to clear the air. Do tell.

<comment><USER29> I'd do just that but I'm not sure if it's legal in Europe either ;)

Jokes, full article: [https://outline.com/CrmCSK](https://outline.com/CrmCSK)

<comment><USER30> That's a useful site. It reduces the Daily Fail to a single paragraph!</comment></comment></comment>


Head Cases - <AUTHOR> https://theamericanscholar.org/head-cases/#.XXBW9XdFzBh <comment><USER2> Header cases: Fully 1/3 of my viewspace is taken up by the fixed-position, omnipresent header of this site.

Please don't do that.</comment>


Report finds that Human Genome Project has added $1 trillion to US economy - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/economic-return-from-human-genome-project-grows-1.13187

<comment><USER2> > "The question is: what health benefits have people got out of it, and what > will they get in the future?"

Current health benefits have been largely minimal, relative to what was promised/expected (I'm actually not sure if anything was promised, so expected may be a more appropriate word). That being said, looking upon that as a failure is incredibly short sighted and one dimensional.

When the project was started, it was expected to bring about a semi-immediate revolution in medicine. As it turns out, many things relating to genes, genetic regulation, disease, etc. are more complicated than scientists had originally thought, which we discovered _because_ of the human genome project, so this mini-renaissance hasn't really happened. However, to develop new techniques and approaches, new ways of thinking and understanding, we _needed to know about this complexity_.

Arguing that the HGP has failed patient care (in whatever metrics you choose) is the equivalent to punching a horse you bought to take you on an uncharted journey which turned out to be a lot longer than anticipated. You have to go the distance anyway, no one is to blame for the extra distance, and the horse got you a lot further than you would have on foot.

<comment><USER3> I don't know what was promised but to expect results so soon from a project with such a massive amount of data isn't just short sighted, it's hypocritical and silly. The very public that will eventually benefit from the project are the ones who drive the economic and political forces that influence the speed of both preclinical R&D and the regulatory approval process. I believe the process from academic research to market drug is in the range of 10-20 years and that's the time it would take ONE drug that is based off of the human genome project to reach the market.

Furthermore, in order to really be able to effectively work with this much and this kind of information, to effectively hack and play around with it, we need to develop physical models. We need to simulate and study the effects of changes in the genome in a quantified and automated way which requires an even greater level of technology in cloning/in vitro organ growth (the latter of which seems to be steadily progressing every year).

We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the broad philosophical implications of genetic engineering as a civilization, yet alone be able to show drugs and therapies with years of use. The greatest years for the HGP are still to come.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > has delivered $178 [in private dollars] to the US economy for every public > dollar spent

Fixed it for them. The report writer, Battelle Memorial Institute, can't be trusted to calculate the public benefit due to conflict of interest.

<comment><USER5> You're pulling too hard in the opposite direction though.

10-30% of that will come back in corporate or personal taxes, which will be spent again on behalf of US citizens, which will again be taxed again, etc.

If the advantage is 178:1, eventually there has to be a gain.

<comment><USER4> But not nearly as much gain as investing directly in things for the general public.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm continually surprised at how short sighted people are when it comes to research and new fields. I'm sure these are the same people who couldn't imagine how a computer could possibly be useful for anything other than mainframe applications 20 years ago.

I get that the complexity of even understanding human biology is overwhelming[1] much less fixing it when it goes wrong. The reality is that the human genomic project kicked off a revolution in biology that has brought the price of sequencing down 100,000 fold per megabase of DNA [2] and that has opened up a whole host of applications. All life as we know it is based on DNA, many human diseases such as cancer are genetic diseases.

Have some vision, don't be like Senator Chuck Schumer who said that releasing DARPAnet (basis of internet today) to public domain would be a wast of taxpayer's money [3].

[1] [http://www.genomicglossaries.com/images/shenemangenome.gif](http://www.genomicglossaries.com/images/shenemangenome.gif) [2] [http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/](http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/) [3] [http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/16ztsk/til_in...](http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/16ztsk/til_in_1991_when_president_bush_proposed_placing/)

</comment><comment><USER7> It's hard to tell whether HGP was a waste of money (trying too early to do what would inevitably be cheaper years later) or whether it really got us to today, faster. Certainly many researchers were gainfully employed.

Obviously, we should expect that _some_ portion of the funding actually had lasting value. But some of it was bridge to nowhere economic stimulus, scaling up old tech to cover an entire human genome (which obviously has some potential value as well - getting more people into the field, sooner).

<comment><USER8> One of the big reasons it got cheaper over time was because the early work made it easier refine and improve later designs. This is fundamental to most any technology.

A limiting factor was and remains compute power, but algorithmic improvements in bioinformatics outpaced Moore's Law.

Imagine what it'd be like if we were just starting to sequence the human genome now, still completely in the dark on these things. Yes, it might be less expensive, but you'd also be missing out on a decade of groundbreaking research.

The genome is like the worst program ever written, no comments, lots of duplicated code, full of bugs and hacks, and enormous in scale. We've spent the better part of a decade chipping away at understanding it and we're only just getting started.

It was absolutely the right time to do it. We could've started in the 1980s but the compute power wasn't there, but by the mid 1990s you had enough to get by. If you needed a gigabyte of memory you had to fork out, but it wasn't impossible like it would've been in the 1980s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It would be interesting to see a comparative ROI study of several large, publicly-funded, projects similar to the HGP. Such data would be useful in debates about policy, one would think.

<comment><USER10> It would be interesting if that king of reporters started using actual return in their ROI numerator, not the investiment.

I'm quite tired of people claimming that building a bridge to nowhere incresed the economy just because the spending is added to the GDP. And the article uses exactly that kind of accounting.

<comment><USER3> What? The HGP was tiny compared to the number of biologists, computer scientists, and entrepreneurs working in genetics research today, both public and private, funded by both taxpayers and investors collectively. The HGP was simply a loose organization that collected a massive amount of human and capital resources to map the genome. The research done in the project set the ground work and standard for much of genetics work today, not to mention propelled cheaper and faster sequencing technologies.

Myriad genetics is a $2.5 billion market cap genetics firm that built its entire company around only a small subset of the human genome (think dozens out of tens of thousands) and they got started a decade before the HGP did. That one company is just a small taste of what's to come.

It's only a bridge to nowhere if you can't see the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Research by researchers says research spending well-spent.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm pretty sure the $$profits are because of dna finger printing technologies. No cures have been found.

<comment><USER13> Wrong. Genes could be easily compared with non-human homologs, and thus many possible drug target genes were found by similarity to other species.

Medical knowledge thus also benefitted from non-human sequencing projects.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Email programs that support json or markdown content-types - <AUTHOR>

Are there any examples in the wild of email readers (desktop or web) that support markdown and json content-types?
Content-Type: text/json; charset=UTF-8 or Content-Type: text/markdown; charset=UTF-8
It seems like JSON would be a great way to deliver data such as address cards and calendar events, and would leave open room for plugins that can detect and work with custom json types. <comment><USER2> At Nuuton we are working on one. ETA is Spring 2013.</comment>


The Alps seen from the Pyrenees, 381 km away - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/2fxg80/the_alps_seen_from_the_pyrenees_381_km_away/

<comment><USER2> from the comments on reddit, I landed on this nice website on the same topic [1]

They generate the map of the "visible" panorama from this website [2], but I can't find how they built the KML file that can be seen at the bottom of [1], any idea ? or maybe it's an in-house tool, I can't read Polish !

1: [http://www.dalekieobserwacje.eu/alpy-kotyjskie-oraz- nadmorsk...](http://www.dalekieobserwacje.eu/alpy-kotyjskie-oraz-nadmorskie-z- okolic-schroniska-gnifetti/)

2: [http://www.udeuschle.selfhost.pro/panoramas/makepanoramas_en...](http://www.udeuschle.selfhost.pro/panoramas/makepanoramas_en.htm)</comment>


Ford plans to build 1k respirators per month and 100k face shields per week - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/MikeMartinez_AN/status/1242413930414211072 <comment><USER2> I think 3D printing is overrated. If you have a mold shop and an injection molding machine, you can get a mold made in emergency mode within 24 hours (yes, its possible). Optimization can take another 24 hours and some blank shots. If you don't care about aesthetics, you can do it much, much quicker. Then, its 20 seconds per part for next 300,000 parts for dirt cheap. Raw polymers can be sourced rapidly as there is a very strong supply chain around the world.

3D printing said it will change the world in 2011. Then it said it will revolutionize manufacturing in 2015. Its 2020 and it didn't happen. Injection molding is not going anywhere. SLA litho has nicer quality parts but take exceedingly long to print and more importantly - clean/UV bake takes a long time to cure.

One area where 3D printing is _actually_ useful is to be able to print parts that would be impossible to manufacture using injection molding - that cost to benefit ratio must be evaluated and questioned - do we _really_ need a part like this? Perhaps its a dental implant, etc. Then it's justified.

<comment><USER3> I agree. I can't imagine how 3d printing is a solution for mass production unless you have no other skills or materials (but have time). As an individual, if I had to make more than 3 of something I'd 3d print the first (or fashion it some other way), make 1 or more molds and cast the rest.

<comment><USER4> How long would it take to spin up an injection molding line?

Aren't there parts that exist that are easier to 3D print, due to overlapping elements or internal geometry which require additional manufacturing steps when using injection molds?

<comment><USER2> Within 48 hours or less if there is a national emergency calling to get it done. The main time sink is CAD work to get the part designed, and then designing mold cavity and runners and getting the EDM die made, and running the EDM process to create cavity. The injection molding machine if run by a competent expert team - they already know most pitfalls of things such as rib/wall thickness, shot weight, run time and temperature for a particular type of plastic. You can run test shots and optimize the injection molding parameters in a very short time.

Alternatively, its possible to just use Aluminium molds for upto 10k parts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's good they're getting made, but the quantity and timeline is problematic. The US has on the order of 100,000 ventilators, and needs on the order of 1 million.

1000 per month won't really do much. It's a start is all.

<comment><USER6> What do you do with 1 million ventilators if you do not have the personnel to operate them? It's not just plugging a tube into the patient's throat and switching that machine on.

Also, i doubt 1 million is a realistic figure. I don't think things will get that bad.

<comment><USER5> Why not? When I run the numbers on what happens if we don't stop this thing, that's where they land.

Perhaps we'll stop it. Then we won't need them. Perhaps we won't. Then we will. I'd rather have them than play dice with a million lives.

The million number already has a discount over the worst-case, by the way. Worst-case, all 330 million people catch this, 5% end up critical, and we need >15 million.

And yes, we would need to train up people to run them. It'd be a real mess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm interested to see who will be able to build the melt-blown fabric machines needed for N95 masks/filters. The last number I saw showed China manufacturing 600,000 N95 masks per day, and 1/3rd of that was from a single factory that broke ground in February. I worry that reaching these kinds of milestones may take much longer in the USA.

[https://www.wfuv.org/content/covid-19-has-caused-shortage- fa...](https://www.wfuv.org/content/covid-19-has-caused-shortage-face-masks- theyre-surprisingly-hard-make)

</comment><comment><USER8> Sadly, by the time we get any production volume of these things we will have missed the critical timeframe we needed them.

</comment><comment><USER9> What I have learned from this crisis is apparently there are a lot more dyslexic people out there than I thought

</comment><comment><USER10> Is respirator the same thing is ventilator?</comment>


How Long Will You Need to Save to Buy a Home In Your City?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2012/08/how-long-will-you-need-save-buy-home-your-city/3085/

<comment><USER3> I really don't understand the obsession with owning a home. So many people I know expend their entire savings on buying a town home or a condo or some other place where you might as well rent an apartment. But the dream of "being a homeowner" is somehow worth it. It's always struck me as something of a con. Any tax benefits you might see are offset by the much higher monthly mortgage payment.

* note my experience is based on living primarily in SF and LA, so if you are willing to put up with Middle America I'm sure you can find much better value

<comment><USER4> Say you take out a $400,000 loan for a $500,000 place (this will buy you a 3BR high-rise condo in downtown Chicago). At today's rates, your mortgage payment will be ~$2,000/month. Your first payment on that house will be $600 principal and $1,400 interest. In a condo, your HOA fee will be maybe $800-1000/month. Depending on your tax bracket, your tax savings will be ~$400/month, which will cancel out your property taxes. So your total cost is $1,400 + $1,000 = $2,400. Market rent for the same 3BR high-rise condo is probably $2,500 to $3,000. Moreover, while your rent will go up 2-5% each year, the interest component of your mortgage payment will actually go down (2-3%/year over the first decade). Finally, when house values appreciate, you'll capture that increase rather than your landlord.

<comment><USER3> I see how you're doing the math, but I think you're presenting it misleadingly to say your monthly cost is $1400+$1000. First of all you left off the $600 principal; you may recoup that in a sale but you still gotta pony it up every month. Second, your $2000 a month mortgage payment seems low on a $500k home. Talking to realtors and friends that have bought, the rule I've been told to go by is plan $700-$800 per $100k for mortgage and property taxes (not including any HOA). So that means a cost of $3500-4000 PLUS HOA dues every month. Even if you are offsetting $1000 of that with tax benefits, renting for $3k still looks attractive, especially if you factor in the cost of maintenance of a period of 10 years or more. Between two homes I've rented I've not had my rent increased once by a landlord in the past 6 years.

<comment><USER4> It's not misleading, it's accurate. Your principal payment is money you'll get back on sale (or can borrow from if you need liquidity). It's qualitatively different than interest or a rent payment that you'll never get back.

My number is roughly in line with the $700/100k figure. I'm assuming 20% down, so the loan is for $400k. If your credit is excellent, and you don't live in one of the high-tax areas, $2000 loan payment + $500 taxes is doable.

As for rent increases, I've never not had a rent increase in 8 years of renting in Chicago and Atlanta. It's standard practice in the city.

<comment><USER3> Well it does matter from a practical sense in that you'll need to write checks for $2500 a month (plus HOA). You may recoup $5000 or so in tax relief at the end of the year, but you still had to come up with that money in the first place (let alone save up $100,000 which is no mean feat, even if you're making a low six figure salary like a lot of professionals in their late 20s/early- mid 30s).

I guess my bottom line with my original comment was, I can think of a lot better uses for the money, time, and effort it takes to buy a $500,000 condo, and to me the returns in my quality of life vastly outweigh any sort of long- term security you might feel from owning a home

<comment><USER5> Don't forget the cost of improvements and remodeling for a home you own? Home owners will probably need to update at least the bathrooms and kitchens before they sell, which can be an investment of >$20k. Not to mention the costs of repair, which you don't take on in a rental...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Surveys like these always highlight how Chicago is underrated:

New York: $275 Los Angles: $236 Chicago: $112 San Francisco: $459 Washington, DC: $164

Housing here is comparable to places like Richmond or Raleigh, except it's got the public infrastructure of a world-class city with 10 million people. Even if you live in the suburbs, you can take the extensive commuter rail system straight to downtown.

<comment><USER6> The weather is a deal-breaker for a lot of people, I suspect.

<comment><USER7> People estimates weather as a major concern in their daily life when considering moving to another city, but that's not really true.

It's like buying a brand new car. Sure it's nice and cool looking, but eventually it becomes just a transportation option to get you from point a to point b. Or it could be like that you're going to buy a house with a pool. However, you'll rarely actually use the swimming pool.

<comment><USER8> Speak for yourself. My happiness went up massively when I finally left Seattle for California. And my feeling about that hasn't changed over time.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I'm gonna second that. Once I moved from the UK to Silicon Valley - <USER2> matter how much I love "back home" and the fact that London truly is one of the great world cities in which to live - there's no way I'm moving back to that weather. It is very hard to leave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> chao- Speaking from a team bootstrapping our company out of Houston, we wouldn't have stood a chance anywhere else, especially anywhere near the Valley. We were running off savings for the longest time, and so a month's worth of expenditures in most places lasted 2-3 months here, easily (the company and team's cost of living all combined, primarily rent). It gave us the time to figure out which way was up with our business. And the times one or two of us had to get some income on the side, employment was readily accessible.

Buying a house might even be in the near future for one of our founders, and that's only possible at the prices around here.

Slightly unrelated: I'm surprised to see the average weekly wage out in Detroit so high ($1,015), given all the tales of woe you hear about it.

<comment><USER10> (maybe there are only a few people employed?)

<comment><USER11> What's strange about the current recession is that unemployment is high (especially for low skilled workers) but productivity (for the employed) is hasn't gone down[1]. This might explain the Detroit number.

[1] <http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/08/ohanian_on_the.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In Indian cities (especially metros), housing prices have risen beyond the reach of the average wage earner. Despite several projects still languishing unsold, the prices have been artificially kept high by greedy builders. This puts tremendous pressure on single income families even if they earn well above median salary.

<comment><USER13> I think Indian cities are suffering from a serious real estate bubble. The value that you get out of a property is really questionable. I'm just talking about services (electricity/water/sewage), road networks, air quality, water quality, public transport, surrounding neighborhoods, etc. Not to mention build quality, finish quality, and other factors. A nice property in New Delhi can cost close to $1M USD. That's say a 3 bedroom apartment in an upscale area. Land, of-course costs a phenomenal amount more. Mumbai prices are even higher.

At that kind of rate, I'd rather put my money elsewhere (you can buy great property pretty much anywhere on the planet for those prices..), especially somewhere that can offer a better quality of life.

.. waiting for it to pop .. if it ever will _sigh_

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Average weekly wage vs Median price per square foot. Smells like data cherry picking.

<comment><USER15> glad i'm not the only one that noticed that. would be really great to hear why they weren't consistent for comparison purposes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Los Angeles. You buy a house and its a trade off between commute and cost per square foot. I HATE LIVING HERE. Often.

I spend 90 minutes in a car every day, and while I love my house, my commute, gas cost, lack of public transportation, etc sucks. It also forces everyone to be so insular. No one socializes outside of work because we have to drive forever to get home.

I had a glorious three years where I lived .75 miles from work and it made the town better.

<comment><USER17> Why don't you move closer to work?

<comment><USER16> Million dollar houses, or small houses with no yards. We have to live in the burbs.

I also did live closer to work but changed jobs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think the author could have chosen better data for this calculation. There are a few unusual factors:

* Why use average income? Why not median family income?

* Why use median $/square foot, and then assume a 2000 square foot house? Why not just rely on median sale price?

I looked up the data for San Francisco, where median family income is $81,136 and median home sale price is $705,000.

Using the same methodology but with these income/price numbers, saving up for the down payment on a home in San Francisco takes ~14.5 years instead of 20.6. I'm not sure how this compares to other cities, but I think it's a bit more reasonable of an estimate of how long it takes to "save up for a house" in San Francisco.

</comment><comment><USER19> Vancouver, BC here.

Medical science will have to make strides in prolonging life if the average person wishes to ever to buy their own home here.

Average Weekly wage = $860.57 Median Price = ~$700/sqft

</comment><comment><USER20> I live in Sydney Australia, so to me these prices look fairly reasonable in comparison.

To give some of you non-aussies an example...

The average price for 2 bedroom victorian era terraces (hundred year old plus buildings) with next to no real land except the land the property sits on in sydney can be anywhere from 800k (AU) to millions of dollars.

Our interest rates are also higher then US.

<comment><USER21> According to [1], apartments in the Sydney City Center are $11K/sq m. If my math is correct, that is around $1000/sq ft.

Outside the city center the prices are roughly half that (so a little more that San Francisco). According to the same data source, average weekly pay is around $1064.

[1] [http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/city_result.jsp?country...](http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/city_result.jsp?country=Australia&city=Sydney)

<comment><USER22> But if you compare figures for both cities from the same site: [http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp?coun...](http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Australia&city1=San+Francisco%2C+CA&city2=Sydney)

You'll see that prices for just about everything are higher in Sydney. Except apples, oranges and tennis court hire.

Salaries are slightly higher in Sydney (according to that site), but not enough to make up for the increase in costs.

<comment><USER20> This is correct.

Its definitely not a 1 to 1 comparison because of the crazy cost of living here.

Theres also the jump in the amount you get taxed (disregarding additional things we have to pay for such as private health care/medicare levy, superannuation, etc), so even if you were earning say 100k a year, you automatically lose a quarter of it before you ever see any of it.

Most people I know that live in the city do not have a salary that exceeds 50k a year, so all of this plus the cost of housing is leading to several generations of renters instead of home buyers. I dont actually know a single person in the city that has a mortgage, everybody seems to be renting because few people can afford to have a mortgage in the city.

I can only speak from my experiences knowing the people I know, but I know many people from all walks of life, so i doubt my view is that biast.

I pay as much in rent for a 1 bedroom apartment in the sydney than I would with a mortgage for a 3 bedroom home well outside of the city.

Heres another example of how expensive things are here that always makes my blood boil - a bottle of coke is going to cost you 4-6 dollars at your typical convenience store.

When i was last in San Fransisco 4-5 years ago, It cost around a $1.50 including tax.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Wanna really have a laugh (or cry if you're Norwegian)?

Oslo $ 970 / sqft

In Norway you have a 28% tax decuction on interest paid, but it seems more likely to be a case of tulip fever. Still 85% own their own homes in Norway.

</comment><comment><USER24> > As the table below shows, in San Francisco you'll need to work 20.6 years at > the local average wage of $1,478 per week in order to save enough for a 20 > percent down payment on a typical 2,000 square-foot home.

Well, it's a good thing that most homes are much smaller than 2,000 sq feet in SF. It's also a good thing that if you are buying a house you probably have a 2nd income.

Those two factors alone should reduce time to save to 7 years or less.

</comment><comment><USER25> FHA loans require 3.5%, and a typical conventional loan requires 5%. There are also housing programs in some areas that will help with a down payment. For example, the House Charlotte program recently contributed $7500 towards a home for a friend of mine.

20% is only required if you don't want to pay private mortgage insurance.

</comment><comment><USER26> Although I understand that there is more than numbers behind the decision to buy or rent, people may find this calculator helpful in deciding: [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent- calcula...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent- calculator.html)

</comment><comment><USER27> It's extremely depressing how expensive property is in San Francisco!

<comment><USER28> At least it is significantly more affordable than in Honolulu even though the prices are more expensive. This is because pay is low in Honolulu, one of the costs of paradise I guess.

<comment><USER29> Also, if you work in San Fran, you can take your high wage and go spend it on a cheaper house out outside the city. You've got BART and caltrain and lots of roads to take you to work. Here in Hawaii there's no such escape.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Wanna laugh (or cry, if you're a Brazilian)?

São Paulo $ 969 / sqft

With an average income of $ 783. And the land tax is probably a lot higher, too. Rio is even higher.

</comment><comment><USER31> Is it a bit weird to compare average weekly wage to median square foot price?

Shouldn't it be median household income?

</comment><comment><USER32> Interesting to see Detroit has a similar average wage as prosperous southern California cities...

<comment><USER33> From what I can tell, the wage data doesn't capture unemployment and is tied to the place of employment. It includes unemployment benefits, but it doesn't factor in people that are not working and not receiving benefits. So it doesn't really do much to capture the overall economic situation of the people living in the reporting areas.</comment></comment>