Why the Soda Tax makes us angry; people do what they're forbidden - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2255127/pagenum/all/

<comment><USER2> Soda taxes are also a regressive tax on the poor, as are almost all consumption taxes. Let's see, back of the envelope math: I drink about $5 of soda a week, stipulate a 3% effective tax rate, that implies I 60 cents of soda taxes a month, or less than .02% of my income. By comparison, a poor mother with two kids might well buy $25 of soda a week (three mouths plus they consume it more than I do), paying $3 of sin taxes per week, which could be over a full percent of her income.

The prospect of that _enrages_ me, _far_ more than my opposition to tax increases in general.

<comment><USER3> The whole point of the tax is to discourage consumption. If Ms W. Queen can't afford the tax to feed concentrated diabetes inducer to her little angels, then good! Success!

Non-diet soda is almost as bad as cigarettes and we should tax the freaking hell out of it.

<comment><USER4> It depends on how high the tax is and how elastic the demand for soda is. If the soda tax isn't high enough than people will continue purchasing and pay the tax. An extra couple of cents on a can of soda likely won't change consumption and will only hurt the poor more.

I am guessing that the elasticity of soda is a lot higher than cigarettes so it would take a lot smaller of a tax to change behavior. And to be honest most sin taxes are really not there to change consumption they are their to make money because they know people will pay for it.

Look at the recent increase in the cigarette tax that is supposed to pay for S-Chip. They don't want smokers to smoke less, because that would reduce revenue and prevent them from paying for the program. They set the taxes at a level that will maximize revenue and not greatly affect consumption.

Update: I just read here [http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/137417-wall- street-strateg...](http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/137417-wall-street- strategies/27919-soda-tax-a-health-concern-or-just-another-tax) that the new england journal of medicine says that the price elasticity of demand for soda is -.8. What that means is that demand for soda is inelastic. This means that soda is just like any other sin tax. It is not meant to actually reduce consumption. It is meant to create revenue. Yes some people will consume less, but the vast majority will not consume less. So I hate to say it, but this isn't a tax for the health of the American public, but a tax for the wallet of government.

<comment><USER5> There are two purposes to a sin tax: reducing consumption or compensating society for the loss caused by the sin. A perfect sin tax is set at such a level that no one needs to care which one occurs.

If a soda drinker inflicts $0.03 / soda on society, the perfect sin tax would also be $0.03. In such a regime, I don't care how much soda you drink since you are paying for your own health care via the sin tax.

<comment><USER4> Yes, the externality is being paid for in that instance, which depending on your viewpoint is a good thing. But if that is the case that we only want to pay for your stupidity in drinking soda, than they shouldn't be pitching something that is for the health of the people, because it isn't.

Which brings us to the entire problem of a government run health care program. Anything deemed bad for us will be taxed and pitched as the fact that it is for the health of the people instead of to cover the costs of your choices on society.

And yes, I realize that a person who drinks a soda in a free market healthcare system still affects the cost of my insurance, however it is to a far less extent than when I am the one paying for my neighbors drink.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ironically, many NYC public schools have Snapple machines (I think the city has a deal w/ the company) with all sorts of sweet beverage enticements. The older students often go to MacDonalds, which seem to thrive in poor neighborhoods near schools, because the cafeteria lunch is so bad. It seems Bloomberg emphasises how the tax revenues could be used to fight obesity because he realizes a tiny price increase will have no real effect on consumption.

I also find it ironic that the federal gov subsidizes the production of corn syrup while local governments try to tax its consumption.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've never understood these types of taxes. Whether it's the fat tax or the cigarette tax.

If you have a real need for additional revenue to support specific programs then why base that revenue on something that you would like to end. If you get what you say you want (i.e. reduced consumption) then your revenue decreases which will force you to find another source of revenue.

This really only makes sense if they know there is no way that it will reduce the activity they are taxing. In that sense I think the author is wrong. I do believe there is a small group that will react quite strongly to taxes like these but there is usually a larger group that seems to support them. They don't see it directly having a huge affect on them so it's easy to get behind it and feel good about it as you are helping to make people healthier.

Of course if the revenue gained by taxing these products was ONLY used to fight issues caused by them then the tax could potentially be successful because as usage waned then you think you'd need less revenue to support the resulting effects of consuming those products. That usually isn't the case however as most of these taxes get passed due to immediate budget shortfalls.

If you have real budget problems then the only answers are to either cut spending or tax something that is consumed by nearly everyone. However, taxing something that effects everyone is much harder to get approved which is why they go for the easy targets.

<comment><USER8> _If you get what you say you want (i.e. reduced consumption) then your revenue decreases which will force you to find another source of revenue._

The cynic in me would say that there's no real end to the list of behaviors our government would like to engineer out of the population.

The benefit to them is two-fold; a possibly short-lived, but endlessly repeatable, source of income, and a populace ever more willing to accept government manipulation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The title posted here distorts the meaning of the second sentence of original paragraph, which says, "Higher prices are bad. Being told what to do is worse." As the article points out, being taxed is _not_ same as being forbidden.

Also, there seem to be _two_ agendas for the tax: 1)raising tax money and 2) discouraging consumption of "empty calories." I can't tell from the story whether legislators have prioritized between the two.

If it's the first... then bottled water (who virtue/worth is a whole other discussion) could be taxed as well.

If it's the second... then aspartame (or plain water) ought to be favored over sugar/corn_syrup by the tax. And that is rather like taxing cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, etc.: essentially taxing risky (or costly-to-public- welfare) behavior.

</comment><comment><USER10> I can see how a ban can continually generate reactance, because you'll be reminded of it every time, but a consumption tax will probably only see a smal reactance at the start, and as soon as people forget about it, consumption levels will drop accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER11> how about the tax for cigarettes?

<comment><USER12> I think most of these "sin" taxes are taxes first with a justification added later.

The cigarette tax may be morally justified as a way to reduce smoking and save lives. According to the CDC smokers tend to live around 14 years less than non smokers.

However, I've read that the justification that "smoking cost society money" is not factually correct. Premature deaths due to smoking tend to occur earlier and more rapidly and thus are cheaper than supporting someone into their old age followed by a long hospital stay before death.

<comment><USER13> I agree. If the government needs tax money for schools and is having a hard time getting it from the taxpayers directly, it's easy to just pick an emotional justification like "helping make society healthier" by "reducing" smoking or soda consumption. The actual consumption doesn't go down but the tax dollars do go up. The poor get poorer.

And what about the people that consume soda in moderation and in addition to healthy food? I have soda every day. I also exercise every day and am in very good shape. Not everyone who consumes soda is obese or diabetic. If you really want to punish someone, why not do it in a way that doesn't affect everyone else? If you want a "fat tax", why not do it based on the health of the individual?

<comment><USER14> That's not practical. The government would have to keep track of your health and communicate it with every retailer.

<comment><USER5> They could also just give you a fitness test once a year at the IRS office and tack your unhealthy choices onto income taxes.

For the middle class, this would be more optimal than taxing soda, since it rewards the outputs rather than the inputs. For the poor (who mostly don't pay taxes anyway), this wouldn't work so effectively.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Your comments make me not want to be a HN member, I would think most of you would have a better understanding of economics rather than the Keynesian crap they teach in school.

anyway, most studies show being fat is far healthier than being skinny or morbidly obese.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/health/07fat.html?ex=13520...](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/health/07fat.html?ex=1352091600&en=df140405014189b6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)</comment>


Bottled water 'is immoral' - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/17/eawater117.xml <comment><USER2> "Drinking bottled water should be made as unfashionable as smoking, according to a government adviser"

Yeah, and I think that telling other people what to do with their lives in order to prevent the emission of miniscule amounts of CO2 should be as unfashionable as smoking too, but hell, what would I know?

<comment><USER3> I have a little theory about this. When one issue moves into the mainstream, the avant-garde of the self-righteous find a new issue to focus on. They need to, in order to preserve their identity of being distinct from (morally superior to) the masses. It's analogous to music hipsters who immediately discard a band when it becomes popular.

<comment><USER4> if you cause harm to others, and are aware that you do so, you act immorally.

<comment><USER5> Then "immorality" is so prevalent that calling something immoral is pointless.

<comment><USER4> you have to include the effects on yourself as well.so in the case of the bottled water you don't have to drink poissoned water instead of bottled water in order to act morally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> FTFA:

'A BBC Panorama documentary, "Bottled Water: Who Needs It?", to be broadcast tomorrow says that in terms of production, a litre bottle of Evian or Volvic generates up to 600 times more CO2 than a litre of tap water.'

And?

How much CO2 does a liter of tap water generate, and of all the ways I could reduce C02 generation, where does bottled water fit in?

Does the use of bottled water create more C02 than, say, raising farm animals for consumption?

Is it more harmful than printing newspapers? Reading Web sites?

This is not to argue for or against drinking bottled water, just that the choice of battles to fight seems goofy.

<comment><USER7> You know, the questions you're asking are valid. But one might well ask "When there are other sources of clean, potable water available, why is it necessary, or even desirable, to drink water imported all the way from Fiji." Is Fijian water qualitatively that much better than it justifies the relatively monumental effort of transporting it to Manhattan for consumption?

I certainly won't deny that there are trendoids who glom onto this sort of thing as the latest cause célèbre, but to pass it off (as some commenters are doing) as mere trendy moralism or yet another "cause" repugnant to whatever brand of libertarianism is hip this month, is to ignore valid questions about the justice and justifiability of your actions.

<comment><USER8> Well I'm going to do my part to save the environment. I'll cycle to work; thus eating more food and respiring less efficiently and producing more CO2. I'll also eat more healthily, get more greens in me and protein; thus producing more methane which is 25 times worse than CO2 emissions.

Also, for when I do need to drive, I'll switch to a hybrid. However, that requires a large amount of lead and acids that are extremely harmful to the environment and it also takes more energy to produce an hybrid car than is actually saved in the average use of the car.

I will personally help destroy the environment by doing EVERYTHING I've been told should SAVE IT. I fucking love irony!

<comment><USER7> Contrary to what I suspect was your intent, you aren't being clever. You're just reinforcing the point that every choice has consequences...some intended, some not. For instance, the net increase in CO2 from your "cycle to work" respiration would, I suspect, be less damaging than the total net consequences of building, maintaining and driving a car. It'd be cheaper, too. Eating more greens might well make you fart more, though that's less than certain, but it would surely be less than the methane produced by the beef cattle that less- healthy eaters consume so voluminously.

Perhaps with some expansion, your reply could have made a serious contribution. Instead, it comes off looking glib.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A doctor told me that if you don't have a water filter, _you_ are the water filter. That being said, the difference between the quality of most municipal tap water and bottled water is marketing dollars. In some countries, it is a fact that you have to boil the water before drinking it. I was so nervous about avoiding sickness on my last trip to a Latin American country that I used bottled water (on my doctor's recommendation) to rinse out my toothbrush and avoided salad.

</comment><comment><USER9> This reminds me of the people who shop at Whole Foods yet dont recycle and celebrities who drive hybrid cars yet live in 10k sq. ft. houses where the AC/heating bill is hundreds/month. Classic human paradox of how hard it is to do everything right and/or people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

</comment><comment><USER10> Bottled water "is portable"

<comment><USER11> It's potable as well

<comment><USER10> Yah, as soon as I wrote it I wanted to start a brand "portable potable".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What exactly causes the 600x CO2 increase from production of bottled water vs. tap water? Creating the plastic bottle?

<comment><USER13> Presumably driving it around in trucks?

<comment><USER14> Both, probably. Both plastic and the cost of shipping scale roughly with the cost of petroleum.

<comment><USER8> CO2 is irrelevant, even if production is switched to biodegradeable plant- based oils and shipping is done over short distance with a renewable energy source, people will still complain about bottled water.

They complained before global warming was even thought about, and they're just using fantasy CO2 statistics to bolster their claims. In fact, in some areas with low access to water, governments spend millions merely pumping water up elevations. I know where I live they have to do it, and we're only slightly up hill from the supplier. I wonder how much CO2 they're putting into the atmosphere by using vast quantities of power to pump water up a gradient, which is less efficient than merely moving it.

<comment><USER14> This is not some competition to show the wrongness of the other side. These are questions for action.

I'm having trouble seeing how one could design a pumping system so poor that it's cheaper to ship water via truck in miniature plastic bottles produced in industrial parks on average thousands of miles away. Even an Archimedes screw is close to optimal energy efficiency if you have a gear system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Part of the problem is that our socialized, monopoly municipal water suppliers provide unhealthy, bad tasting water.

<comment><USER16> The United States has excellent drinking water, pretty much everywhere. Issues of taste are usually caused by old pipes on the "last mile" of the water's path. So, buy a Brita filter. That's a market that actually makes sense.

<comment><USER8> IMO Brita filtered water tastes worse than the water out of the tap. My parents bemoan unfiltered water, I'm the opposite. For the life of me I can't drink filtered water because I don't find it refreshing as it taste clinically sterile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So what should one drink while driving long distances? Will they install water fountains at gas stations?

</comment><comment><USER18> Well the way I look at this, we're paying for it right? Supply and demand, people.

<comment><USER7> Actually, the argument being made is that you're _not_ paying for it. The externalities -- degraded environment, pollution, economic damage, etc. -- are being passed on to the powerless in other countries, or to future generations. In economic jargon (or as much thereof as I remember from college) there are negative externalities which are unaccounted for in the current market price.

I believe one of the arguments being made is also that if those externalities _were_ incorporated into the price, bottled water would be much less appealing on the basis of cost.

<comment><USER19> Precisely. The 'correct' thing to do to strike a balance between freedom and preventing damage is to levy a tax to 'cancel out' the externality. If people really, really want their bottled water, they'll be free to buy it, but factored into that price will be the true costs.

That's the theory, anyway. Calculating those costs may not always be obvious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Some related commentary

[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/a_modest_s...](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/a_modest_sacrifice_for_the_cli.html)</comment>


ZEEF – Filtering the World's Information - <AUTHOR> https://zeef.com/

<comment><USER2> I'm still trying to understand if this can be useful for me. Is anybody else here using it?</comment>


What Is P-Value – A Complete Beginners Guide from Scratch - <AUTHOR> https://www.machinelearningplus.com/statistics/p-value/ <comment><USER2> p-values are commonly misinterpreted as the probability of a type-I error, i.e. that the null hypothesis is true but is being rejected. However, the p-value is actually a random variable. A nice paper covering this can be found in [1].

p-hacking also seems to be an abundant problem, i.e. the replication crisis in psychology [2], and it's not necessarily done on purpose [3].

Regarding the threshold for statistical significance, there are arguments for abandoning the concept altogether [4].

[1] [https://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/000313008X332...](https://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/000313008X332421)

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

[3] [http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_...](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf)

[4] [http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/ab...](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/abandon.pdf)</comment>


Updated Roku players still lack YouTube - <AUTHOR> http://linuxgizmos.com/roku-refreshes-streaming-media-player-line/

<comment><USER2> A lot people really don't care that much about YouTube (me included). The only real downside I see to my Roku 3 would be the lack of LAN streaming. YouTube is not even on my top 10 list of features I care about.</comment>


The Copia Institute: A new, digital-native take on a think tank - <AUTHOR> https://copia.is/

<comment><USER2> I think that based on a sample of my HN comments I should be given free membership.

</comment><comment><USER3> Url changed from [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150311/16383930293/to- ab...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150311/16383930293/to-abundance- cause-solution-to-all-lifes-problems.shtml), which points to this.</comment>


From Europe to Silicon Valley - things I do/don't like about USA - <AUTHOR> http://filipmolcan.com/blog/2012/12/17/from-europe-to-silicon-valley-20-things-i-dodont-like-about-usa <comment><USER2> I think one of the big points that this article misses (I love these kinds of posts, though) is that the United States are _crazy_ diverse. The post talks about it a little with regards to safety on the streets, but I mean in a broader context: Silicon Valley is hardly a microcosm of the entire country. States, regions, and cities have broadly differing cultures and atmospheres, sometimes even to the same extent as going from one country to the other ( _especially_ when it comes to climate.)

Given that the author said he had spent time in a great number of states, I was quite surprised by a lot of his points being seemingly so specific. I think that's one of the US's biggest advantages: five years in one city will leave you a different person than five years in another.

(Also, if you think people are friendly in SF, spend a weekend in South Carolina. You'll forget how not to smile.)

<comment><USER3> I also think it is a bit unfair to the Czech Republic to be compared to such a large country.

When he talks about the traffic lights being placed across the intersection, he should come visit Denmark; that's how we do it here! And it's not that far from Czech Republic, and we also like good beer (unlike the Americans who just drink flavoured water).

<comment><USER4> _unlike the Americans who just drink flavoured water_

Or beer that is hopped to up to crazy levels without any consideration for things like flavor balance and finesse.

<comment><USER5> You can always opt to drink only Mexican beers there. Last time I was in the US, some of these beers were up to the level of European beer quality, some better, some worse, but in the same league.

<comment><USER6> Even in Europe, not every beer is good. There is a term "Eurobeer", and it is an insult, usually targeted at Heineken or SABMiller products (or beers from other breweries with similar quality).

Having better beer than Eurobeers is no problem then. Good beers, on the other hand, are really good.

<comment><USER5> Fair point. I considered only good European beers and good Mexican beers, not some products with high marketing and low quality. Unfortunately, when I was in US I didn't have a luck to try good US beer, and moved on to Mexican beers as soon as I discovered them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The USA is so vast and so diverse that it's very hard to make general statements that apply to all of it. While the author of this post claims to have seen quite a bit of America, a lot of what he says doesn't mesh with my experience on the east coast. I have never paid half price for food if I'm kept waiting, for example, and the weather here is humid and hot in the summer and bitter cold in the winter. Most roads are OK in urban areas but I've seen some truly dreadful roads in more rural areas. Most houses (excluding condos) here aren't glued together, either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, but things aren't quite as rosy here as they are on the west coast, especially in the Valley.

<comment><USER8> Not true. Vast yes, but diverse, not so much, unless you're specifically referring to wildlife and not to people. Coast to coast you'll find the same language, the same religion, the same sports, chains, food, traditions, holidays, it's all the same. To you, the differences between a Texan and a New Yorker may be huge, but to outsiders they're the same thing.

Travel the same distance in any direction in the old world and you'll find dozens or even hundreds of languages, completely unrelated cultures, cuisines, traditions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Europeans often comment on flimsy US house construction. Perhaps it's because of the relative newness of most US housing stock. And also the propensity of Americans to tear it down and start over. There's less reason to build for forever in this case.

Another factor is seismic conditions (the OP was clearly most influenced by the Bay Area). Masonry or stone construction is incompatible with earthquakes.

<comment><USER10> > Perhaps it's because of the relative newness of most US housing stock.

No, brand new houses and apartment buildings in at least the Bay Area are of shoddy quality compared to brand new houses built to Northern European standards. Same goes for older houses. Doesn't matter if it's brick or wood or concrete, there's just a huge quality gap.

Some of it is explained by the climate, it always amuses me to see housing ads proudly proclaiming "double glazing!". Meanwhile, over here, triple glazing has been the legal minimum for decades, and older houses were required to retrofit it.

Some of it is explained by the british heritage, they can't build houses on the british isles either.

The rest, I don't know how to explain. I guess people simply don't know how good houses they could be having, and therefore don't crave it?

<comment><USER9> Maybe lowering the cost of construction by setting the quality bar lower is one of the factors behind the higher rate of home ownership in the US?

(I have relatives who, last I heard, live in trailers, err, manufactured homes, which I believe are pretty much unheard of as dwellings in northern Europe.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So you are a straight European dude in your 20s-30s in one of the most lucrative and in-demand industries in the USA in SV/SF. This might give you a slight case of rose colored glasses. You might have seen in your travels to other parts of the country that many Americans do not have this standard of living. To be blunt, it is likely that minority women in the deep south would have a slightly different expierence.

The realitiy of living in the USA is : 1\. Don't get sick. We don't want to pay for you to go see the doctor, even if it would save $millions in medical bills for diabetes/cancer/chronic disease. There is the legal obligation for any emergency room to stabilize you, but then they kick you out if you can't pay.

2\. Don't have kids. Kids cost a fuckton, and the governmnet doesn't really want to pay for it, but they partially do through a clusterfuck of programs (WIC/CHIP et al). There is no legally-mandated Parental leave or anything, that is for those lazy Frenchmen.

3\. Don't be a woman. People will make rape jokes about you all the time (hello microsoft, E3) and that would be just the start of it. Never mind access to affordible healthcare like cancer screening and abortion.

4\. Be christian, or if that isn't possible be Jewish. Just don't be Athiest/Muslim/Hindu/Bhuddist/....

 __If you aren 't Protestat Christian there is no chance you will be president, JFK excepted. __

5\. Belive that USA = #1. Keep that flag flying and that coolaid flowing.

Disclaimer: I'm just a white guy trying to get a PHD/marketable skills so I can leave this country and move 140 miles north to Vancouver. Yes I know Vancouver has a bit of a heroin/prostitution/housing problem, but it's better than the current situation.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'd like to add a few points from my own experience:

Cars: In America/Golden Gate Park, people take their car into the park! They even park it right there, right next to where they have their picnic. Odd but understandable. In Europe cars are antithetical to nature and relaxation, something industrial you hide out of sight, while in the US they are (apparently) integral to it.

Hours. In the US/SF people 'like' to be in the office. It is practically their home when they are not commuting or sleeping. While on the weekends they go on trips to be away from home/the office (I could not imagine raising, rather than merely producing, a family in the US).

(all you say about the weather is true, unless you live in West SF. National parks are fabulous indeed!)

Poverty. Without being a Republican who believes the poor / racial minorities are to blame for their own d*mned fate, it is not possible to enjoy central San Francisco. Never seen so many homeless people in such horrible states of existence (and I am not a Republican but a social democrat, so I was not comfortable with US society...).

(the US is this odd mix between rich and modern and a 3rd world country... also with regard to infrastructure)

Traffic lights (and a lot of traffic) at almost every corner in the city. Perhaps nice if you are driving, but very annoying when you want to enjoy an uninterrupted walk.

Grid-pattern (mostly responsible for the former). Cities look like they were built on a chess-board. Nice if you want to go straight, but not good when you want to go diagonal (in Paris they solved this with diagonal avenues). And forget building diversity or atmosphere, especially in the suburbs (which are 97% of the city).

Houses are indeed quite flimsy. But in East SF there are at least some lovely pre-war houses that have atmosphere (I lived in a room in one, loved it...).

Business / startup opportunities; indeed, nothing beats California (never seen so many things bordering on the silly, fully funded...).

On balance, after a year in the US, I chose to go back to the old world when a great opportunity came up there. I'm a European again :)

<comment><USER13> How do traffic lights hinder your walk?

<comment><USER12> By being red at least 50% of the time (and making cars drive past fast & and making it an offence to cross the street even if there is no traffic (so in addition to watching the traffic one needs to scan the street for police...)).

Also, in many older (& also modern Dutch & UK inner cities) we have a thing called Woonerf ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf)), which means a ~15 miles per hour maximum speed off the main roads inside residential areas, so pedestrians and kids can actually enjoy/play on the roads...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Weather - always sunny. I think OP spending too much time in the SF Bay Area. Bay Area is among a few places in the world that has the best weather year round.

</comment><comment><USER15> _I am able to accept that there might be wolves in woods but not that I will be robed on street._

Some typos are too good to pass up.

</comment><comment><USER16> Not sure why you'd want head on your beer, thats just wasted space...

<comment><USER17> :) It dissipates after a while and some of it turns into liquid so if done properly you should get the "liquid amount" ordered up to the little needle mark on the glass. A different culture. Here in the UK I always get an ale that spills on my fingers when I carry it as it is 100% full...

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This has always been confusing to me: "I have to drink my beer from a paper bag, so there is nothing to be seen. What do you think everybody drinks from their paper bags? Coca-cola?"

<comment><USER13> That's another thing that varies from state to state. In some states, like Nevada and Louisiana, public consumption of alcohol is quite legal, and often commonplace.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder why Europeans feel physically unsafe here while simultaneously finding us extremely friendly. Is it just a normal reaction to being a stranger in a strange land?

<comment><USER20> Ozzie here. It's not just being a stranger in a strange land, your country has some dangerous edges. My experience in California:

* The police are like military. I saw a couple of incidents, and concluded that if the police pull you up, it's best to drop to the ground and obey. Pretty scary.

* I didn't realise that nobody walks when I first arrived. It's pretty easy to end up in the wrong neighbourhood if you go for a long walk. Ie, packs of young rugged looking dudes eyeing you off.

* Bums in San Fran. I've never seen first world poverty like that. Very confronting.

* The missus visited LA, turned off one exit too early and ended up in Inglewood. Her descriptions of the neighbourhood were... colourful.

On the plus side, the nightlife was really safe. In Australia I'm used to constant fistfights and violence around clubs/pubs. On the flipside, I got the feeling that everyone was being so polite and respectful because ya never know who's got a gun. That's not really a relaxing feeling.

<comment><USER21> I wouldn't worry about people carrying guns in bars... not something I've ever seen happen. I've spent a good deal of time in Oz and the bar brawling culture there is just not something we have here. It happens sometimes, but usually when it looks like something's going to break out a half dozen people spring up and try to diffuse the situation. 98% of the time it never gets past the shouting-of-threats stage. In Oz it always went from zero to bloodspray in short order.

<comment><USER15> Depends where you are in Oz. In Melbourne, you don't have bar brawls. There is some violence late at night outside the nightclubs when they close, but the 'bar brawl' is largely myth here.

<comment><USER21> I can confirm I don't recall ever seeing a fight in Melbourne. Pretty much everywhere else, though...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As non American living in US, I can agree with most points.

</comment><comment><USER23> Wow, if he likes the corn tasting steaks from usa... I'm sorry for the cows in Europe.

<comment><USER24> In central and eastern Europe (I mean outside France, Germany, UK) _beef tastes like shit_ , no matter how the steak is prepared, unless you're happy to end up in a place with "american (style) steaks" (that are usually made from beef imported from UK or USA) or good French cuisine. It's basically a whole different animal, not a metaphor: the cattle are never the famous and tasty american Back Angus or anything similar, their meat has a _totally_ different texture and flavor, and by different I mean _horrible_ (usually... I'm sure a French cook can make a dead rotten rat taste divine with all those marinading and sauces, but that's a different story...).

...now about lamb and pork steaks, it's different story, but beef steak in any "non beef loving country" is always _crap._

<comment><USER6> The cattle in Central and Eastern Europe is grown for the milk, not for the meat. That is the reason, why it tastes like shit. If you want a good steak there, get an Argentinian.

Of course, there are exceptions. In Prague, you can have good Czech-grown steak from cattle-frown-for-meat (go to Cestr).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wish I could down-vote...

<comment><USER26> Don't worry, I'll happily give you one for your pointless no-content snark.

<comment><USER25> thanks</comment></comment></comment>


Compilers Explained Using the Ten Hundred Most Used Words - <AUTHOR> http://sodiumdreams.com/post/41326757510/how-to

<comment><USER2> Brilliant! I love how using the ten hundred words makes the text more readable and less readable at the same time. The paragraph on the AST is my favorite.</comment>


How Google Inbox shares 70% of its code across Android, iOS, and the Web - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/11/how-google-inbox-shares-70-of-its-code-across-android-ios-and-the-web/ <comment><USER2> We've been using a similar approach for libGDX [1] with great success for the past 3 years. HotSpot on Windows/Linux/Mac OS X, Dalvik on Android, RoboVM [2] on iOS and GWT on the web. We had to add quite a bit of functionality to GWT to make things work, like (very hacky) reflection. You can now share 100% of your code across all these platforms with minor restrictions due to GWT (threads, missing JRE classes/packages). Without the web, all platforms work pretty much the same. Many smaller and bigger studios have used this approach quite successfully.

I wonder if the Google folks ever looked into RoboVM as a replacement for j2objc. It's a full AOT compiler, sharing the class library with Android with access to all iOS APIs (think Xamarin for Java/JVM languages). I tested j2objc when itmwas published as a potential way to get our libGDX stuff working on iOS, but it was extremely limited in its capabilities. Kinda reminded me of Oracle's terrible ADF.

[1] [http://github.com/libgdx/libgdx](http://github.com/libgdx/libgdx) [2] [http://www.robovm.com](http://www.robovm.com)

<comment><USER3> It seems to me that RoboVM+libgdx is utilized heavily for the game industry. Correct me if I'm wrong, most games don't use UI components (most of the time it's a full-screen game) the way regular apps do so I'm wondering if RoboVM is a good fit for Rich-UI mobile apps?

<comment><USER2> That's correct, most games will never touch the native APIs, except for things like IAP or Facebook/Game Center/Google Play Games Service integration.

RoboVM gives you full access to all iOS native APIs in idiomatic Java. Have a look at the Javadocs [1] to get a feel for how that looks like. Currently not wired up to the Apple docs, but that's on our roadmap. We have quite a few ports of official Apple demo apps [2], a simple hello world looks like this [3].

You can even extend ObjC classes as if they were Java classes and/or implement Protocols. Binding of native APIs (C, ObjC) is accomplished via something called Bro, which is annotation-based and a lot simpler and faster than using JNI.

So, yes, i think RoboVM is a good fit for Rich-UI mobile apps. Performance is great (we use LLVM), and the bindings are pretty complete. We currently lack interface builder integration, but that's on the short term road map (and for anything other than a quick prototype you don't use IB anyways).

[1] [http://docs.robovm.com/api/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/](http://docs.robovm.com/api/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/)

[2] [https://github.com/robovm/robovm- samples](https://github.com/robovm/robovm-samples)

[3] [https://github.com/robovm/robovm- samples/blob/master/HelloWo...](https://github.com/robovm/robovm- samples/blob/master/HelloWorld/src/org/robovm/samples/helloworld/HelloWorld.java)

[4] [https://github.com/robovm/robovm- samples/blob/master/HelloWo...](https://github.com/robovm/robovm- samples/blob/master/HelloWorld/src/org/robovm/samples/helloworld/viewcontrollers/MyViewController.java)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The part of cross-platform mobile dev that increasingly drives me insane is duplicating the persistent data model code across platforms. I'd be very interested if the Inbox people can share how they approached this (hint!).

Generally the SQLite approach feels quite lowest common denominator, mainly because on Android the SQLite wrapper is so clunky. Get over that and you're into raw files territory, which has made me consider things like building LevelDB for bundling in.

<comment><USER5> The way how I do this is by having written a code-generator that takes a simple YAML like file with a data model description and generates SQL models/NOSQL models for backend storage, POJO access code to that and POJO access for a rest API; then an angular backend that accesses the api and locally stores it and directives to display it; then an android sqlite local database wrapped in a content provider to access it, async task helpers to retrieve the content via sync providers and adapters to display them. I haven't yet started with iOS.

Any wellfunctioning code that I have written I pack into my content generator and give access to via the YAML. The whole thing has gotten really ugly and desperately needs refactoring (it's in Perl and I am rewriting it in Stringtemplate) but it does help me with:

\- the changes in the model that cascade down the frontends

\- fixing a bug in one application that needs fixing in several others

\- the fact that multi-platform model really is stressful since the brain needs to switch rapidly between different languages and platform APIs and this allows me to write code once and perpetuate data model changes on to all platforms.

So I think, take code of yours that works and wrap a codegenerator around it. It's better than using a framework where you don't know what's underneath. All the code is something you know and built.

<comment><USER4> I've considered extending protocol buffers to do it. If you already have protobufs for on the wire (it tends to be what I use) then it should be possible to auto-generate a schema and all the code for keeping the same data inside a DB. Have annotations in the proto files which do things like hint about primary keys, indexing etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I always get amazed when I see software architectures like this. How one learns the skills required to architect such huge project? Where you learn all that?!

<comment><USER7> Break it down to small, high level abstractions for properly crafted, high yield components.

It requires experience, vision and talent. It's perceived as very difficult because it's basically the same approach as academic research, but instead of being applied to general problems, it's a general approach for a set of very specific technical constraints.

Oh, and most people screw it up badly on most occasions.

<comment><USER8> > It requires experience, vision and talent.

Also a team of solid engineers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How Google Inbox shares 70% of its code across Android, iOS, and _Chrome_

FTFY

<comment><USER10> I think the claim was that arrays were too slow on Firefox and that's why it's Chrome only right now. Take that for what you will, but I think that was their claim.

<comment><USER11> That was an easy example a gave of one of the minor hiccups, and it wasn't Arrays, but Sparse Arrays, which we were abusing. It's a case where using standard APIs, not proprietary APIs, leads to gotchas because of implementation differences between VMs, which normally don't manifest themselves in smaller apps, but do in large sophisticated apps.

The real blocking issue is very bad rendering performance, but that has been worked on for months now and you should see the results soonish. That's harder to illustrate in an HN thread. I've still got scars from the last discussion on this, so I'd advise people go read those old HN threads for insight. :)

<comment><USER12> What are you doing that makes performance that bad? It sounds like GWT is generating bad code...

<comment><USER11> It's nothing to do with JS code execution, the problem is in the rendering engine, essentially too much repainting and rendering stalls, and too little GPU accelerated animation paths.

Javascript is in a very good state these days in terms of cross browser compatibility, and while CSS support has converged between browsers in terms of correctness, CSS support has not converged on performance between browsers. Safari, Chrome Firefox, and IE have wildly different animation performance hazards on the same markup and debugging this often isn't trivial, for example, finding out that the GPU is stalling on texture uploads deep inside of the render loop.

One bright point, is that apps like Inbox are forcing these issues to the front, as is libraries like Polymer/Material Design. As the issues are raised and fixed, jank free rendering on mobile web platforms improves, hopefully reducing the need for native apps.

<comment><USER13> Why is poor performance in one browser a reason to completely drop support for that browser? If it works correctly albeit slowly, why not support it anyway? Then the slow experience is motivation for the browser vendor to improve it as well.

<comment><USER14> Because users aren't going to blame the browser vendor for the poor experience?

<comment><USER12> Users won't get to use the site at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Very interesting approach. I've read that people have the feeling that the web UI of Inbox is slow in comparison to the Android and iOS app. Maybe GWT is not that good?! Does somebody else have this experiences or can say that is not true? Thanks

<comment><USER16> > _Google wants developers to write the logic once in Java, transpile it to > other platforms, and then make the UI natively using the SDK for each > platform. That way the apps look and feel native to the platform they 're > on, and the UI should run a lot more smoothly._

The article seems to suggest that GWT is being (should be?) used for logic only. If the Web UI is sluggish, it _probably_ isn't GWT's fault (disclaimer: I'm not a Googler & I have never looked at the Inbox code)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Google Inbox shares 70% of its code across Android, iOS, and Chrome

In case you are starting now with a new app then i think the best bet would be to use React native where you would get to reuse 100%[1] code across the platforms.

Google wrote separate UI code for each platform but react native does that conversion also by itself and leaves you with even lesser work\code

[1] - as claimed by react team

<comment><USER18> I don't believe this was claimed by the React team. In fact, I distinctly remember Tom emphasizing that they're going for "learn-once, write-anywhere" rather than chasing the pipe dream of "write-once, run-anywhere".

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Nice to see GWT making an appearance. I used that a lot, in exactly the wrong way, but this use of it, to build backend 'model' code that can be shared, is right in line with its sweet spot.

I always worry about transpilers like this, though, because when there are issues, you get to debug in three places (original code, derived code, and translation code).

<comment><USER20> Source maps help a lot with that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Could have just used React Native if it was out already ;)

<comment><USER22> Or perhaps their own projects like Angular and golang.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I tried to use j2objc and I thought it was the biggest POS. The ObjC code it generated was so strange and hacky that debugging it must be a nightmare. I was pretty new to ObjC back then and I knew I wouldn't learn anything using it, or get anything to work. And of course it can't be used for any UI stuff.

Any opinions from anyone else who tried using it?

I checked StackOverflow and there's only 21 questions with the tag ([http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/j2objc](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/j2objc)) so that put in the nail in the coffin for me. As an aside, that's how I make most of my decisions between frameworks and libraries, I just pick the one the highest amount of SO tags!

<comment><USER24> Why do you care if the generated objC is "hacky"? Correctness and performance is all that matters surely?

I've stuck to using GWT generated JS in a hidden webview on iOS, rather than J2ObjC.

I've found the process of compiling code on J2ObjC to be difficult and laborious. It may have improved but on initial investigation I ended up hacking a script to try and generate the correct command line for my project. Not to mention downloading and unpacking each library jar by hand.

GWT on the other hand integrates easily with Maven, pulls in all your dependencies and filters out unused methods.

Additionally, the code can be run anywhere else JS is available, in our case Windows Phone and Xbox One.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> There seems to be solid success cases for implementing cross platform apps. Tivo recently redid its entire UI codebase in Haxe, and it's opened up a whole bunch of new platforms for them. [http://www.slashgear.com/tivo-on-xbox-one- and-fire-tv-possib...](http://www.slashgear.com/tivo-on-xbox-one-and-fire-tv- possible-after-adobe-ousted-11337096/)

I'm sure it's a painful process, and it might slow down development for a while. But, the ability to push changes across the incredibly fractured mobile/web/native front end landscape seems like an incredible advantage.

</comment><comment><USER26> What about something the other way around. Swift to Java?

</comment><comment><USER27> I would imagine that something like this could be done with ruby using RubyMotion (builds native iOS and Android apps) and opal (compile to JavaScript).

</comment><comment><USER28> Does anyone know if theres a particular reason that I must activate my invitation with the mobile app in order to use Inbox on the web? I was looking forward to trying it out but its incompatible with all of my devices. Is Google just trying to push people with invites to try out the mobile application or is there some technical reason behind it?

</comment><comment><USER29> I wonder if they considered Xamarin?

<comment><USER20> Google doesn't write a lot of C# code, but they do write a lot of Java. This is a case where they looked at Xamarin and said "we want that" and built their own, only for Java.

Another big language at Google is C++, which also has a cool cross-platform client story. Emscripten for web, Android NDK, iOS can use C++ libraries directly.

<comment><USER30> Android NDK is a world of pain.

I do get the security part, I also like how both Android and Windows Phone 7/8 share architecture ideas with IBM i.

However, it would be nice to also expose the framework to the NDK without forcing everyone to write their own bindings.

Or at very least, expose other Android internal C++ libraries like SKIA, as part of the public NDK APIs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> J2ObjC is actually open source for years, they just moved the project to github.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is big time problem when you are developing product which should support cross platform. The day will be awesome when we will say "Code once Deploy Anywhere with Native Experience!

</comment><comment><USER17> can anyone point to resources to refer in case I like to write my own c# to objective C converter? looks like this is the next big wave in cross platform computing. It is truly amazing, Saves you ton of time.

Zuck also mentioned about facebook working on cross-platform platorm in last year's f8 conf.

</comment><comment><USER33> Hopefully they will add iPad to that list soon. I hate having to use gmail on my ipad still.

</comment><comment><USER34> wi h eventy per ent o t e code one c n re lly do a ot.

</comment><comment><USER35> So, not Dart, not Go.

<comment><USER36> Eat your own dog food, they say.

<comment><USER37> They do. The problem (or solution?) is that they make a variety of dog foods.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> 70% is impressive?

where is this perception that proper cross platform development is an unsolved problem coming from? well written software has a platform layer which is usually small unless your product is trivial.

you also don't have to pay through the teeth with towering technology stacks.

maybe its connected to the fear of low level programming, or the fact that Google seem to not like using the established cross platform technologies, and made some pretty questionable decisions about the android development platform - like not giving a C/C++ compiler through the NDK for a long time despite the fact that everything they did was built on a foundation made with one so they obviously had it.

maybe they need a lot of platform specific code, but tbh i find that 70% a very unimpressive number. i would not even be impressed by 95%, i'd just call that 'normal'.

maybe this makes more sense of you are constrained to rapid application development, but given my experience with that a lot of the rational there is fallacious... i don't think i could build a cross platform app in a week without dropping down to C++/ObjC/Java and minimising the amount of Obj-C and Java as far as possible.

i suppose an important argument is that targetting the web with server side native stuff rather than client side java scripting things is a bit of a nightmare and lots of people don't even realise its an option...

<comment><USER39> >I would not even be impressed by 95%, i'd just call that 'normal' probably, if you don't develop UI stuff.</comment></comment>


Heyday App Is a Journal of Your Life That Writes Itself - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20131205/heyday-app-is-a-journal-of-your-life-that-writes-itself/

<comment><USER2> congrats on the launch! and to think this was the original intro to the company and product: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4727245](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4727245)</comment>


I Can't Design in the Browser (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.sazzy.co.uk/why-i-cant-design-in-the-browser/

<comment><USER2> Problem with designing in code is that it starts to influence the design too much if there's friction in implementing a certain look.

The advantage with Photoshop is most things take a similar amount of time , so you're not subconsciously changing the design based on what's easy / hard , but just what end result is best.

Ultimately if there are multiple break points then I think each should be 'designed' , not just left up to the whim of how its turns out in css.

<comment><USER3> _> Problem with designing in code is that it starts to influence the design too much if there's friction in implementing a certain look._

Depending on the goals of the project, that isn't necessarily a problem per se. One of the things we've been working on at my current employer is finding that nice balance between "amazing, interesting designs" and "not impossible to implement". What's fun is that if you get the balance right, design and development flow into one another so perfectly. Avocode with Sketch helps a _lot_ with that, mind you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm kind of allergic to doing things just because the sake of it, even with design. Start with what you have, which is pure text. Then you look at the text and you ask your self, how do I make this more readable? Design is about function and not about looks. If you begin the design process in photoshop your starting of in the wrong end, because then you start with looks before function. I can however understand why people tend to do this, because it's therapeutic and relaxing to just throw painting on a canvas, and you feel good about it, but will it lead to good design? Most often not.

<comment><USER5> I am trying to think which companies truly won because of Design. Genuinely curious.

<comment><USER6> Apple - they sell hardware with worse specs at higher prices than their competitors, the design is what makes it worth it.

Skype - people talk about their video/voice support but my friends don't even use that, just the chat UI is better. (Or was - these days Slack is displacing it for the same reason)

Uber, if you count them as having won yet. There are plenty of competitors with the same functionality (at least here in London), I think the incredibly beautiful website is a big part of what's keeping them on top.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The type of paintbrush you use does not need to limit the painting you can create, but it may mean you have to approach it's usage differently.

Wireframes are good; just give me a thick marker and some pencil (or a dry erase board) and i'm set. Sometimes you need to bring photoshop in, but rarely for concept work, more to produce parts.

Also, where / when you stop designing is up to you. If you're not satisfied with the way things look, how you got there is not to blame, not enough iterations is. Start with a solid foundation and add nuances from there, instead of trying to build a full scale house out of paper.

</comment><comment><USER8> I held up the belief that you should design right in the browser and skip the design phase. But I came to the same conclusion as the author: thinking in code is a completely different process than drawing things and trying out how your site might look like. My best advice is: draw on paper first, using just a pencil and an eraser. This forces you to focus on structure and relationship rather than pixel-perfection. Hence, by going analog, you focus on function rather than on design as the critics say.

What you do next is up to your preferences. I think it is worth it to transform your sketches to wireframes. In most of my cases that was still a more open process than fitting the sketches into CSS directly - especially if you have designers, business people and coders involved.

One possible solution for wireframing that was already available in 2012 is Illustrator or InDesign. Both have global colors, symbols for reusable content and are vector-based so you can scale it for your responsive designs.

There are less good ressources on wireframing with Illustrator, but I found these two most helpful:

\- [http://www.designsprint.net/](http://www.designsprint.net/) \- [http://design.tutsplus.com/articles/10-tips-for-building- wir...](http://design.tutsplus.com/articles/10-tips-for-building-wireframes- with-illustrator--cms-19984)

<comment><USER9> In my opinion pen and paper are fundamental. Not just in design, but also in programming. There's a lot to be gained by just thinking over and sketching ideas for something rather than just diving into action.

<comment><USER8> I could not agree more about the role of paper for coding. I used to jump right into action and got lost very quickly in details and gave up soon after. Now I try to slow myself down and do sketches about quite everything. Database design seems to be of a special importance, as it hurts so much the find out later that you did not think hard enough and forgot too many cases that you need to incorporate in your database schema. Slowing down with all screens off and mind on certainly makes a huge difference in my workflow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This post was written before the time of Sketch (Bohemian Coding). A few designers I respect swear by the tool, and as a developer I'm all for it since it respects the way web works. It is a vector-based application, and everything you do in it can be represented in CSS (they even have a 'Copy CSS' function), and if not, complex shapes are available as SVGs.

If you're a designer using Sketch, I would love to hear your experience with it, and also any thoughts you have on how it has influenced your workflow.

<comment><USER10> Sketch is great!

I don't use the CSS export however, and I still use Illustrator or Photoshop for SVGs due to superior export options.

I actually learned a few tricks from my colleague who has a great Photoshop workflow, and Photoshop really can be whipped into shape…

but Sketch is already so close to the mark straight out of the box… but without the bloat Photoshop has acquired over the years as the industry standard for _everything_.

Plus, it's the simple things — the color picker, how it handles border radius, the fact you don't need to worry about layer management, etc.

<comment><USER11> "I actually learned a few tricks from my colleague who has a great Photoshop workflow, and Photoshop really can be whipped into shape…"

I'd love to hear more about this. Do you have any links describing some of the tricks you and your colleague used to improve your Photoshop workflow?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think this is a similar (though more annoying) issue to what we go through in engineering at times. Before coding, my workplace likes to draft up design documents that specify the what, the why, and (sometimes) the how of what we're about to do before we go and do it.

In a way it's like using Photoshop in that the nuances of the language don't really impact the plans at the time, though losing the prototyping can be annoying. But this metaphor does break down because I think the problem she illustrates is far worse.

</comment><comment><USER10> I understand that the typical Photoshop workflow became burdensome, but to fly wildly off the other end of the spectrum and design directly in the browser never made any sense to me.

A critical step in any design process is experimentation, which typically involves bouncing between sketches, high fidelity mockups, content strategy, structure and user flows, and evaluating technical opportunities/constraints.

That said, I think the underlying ideal is about embracing the web for the medium that it is — and not a digital incarnation of print/graphic design. Which is fair.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is from 2012. I'm not sure how relevant it is anymore. As tons of others have mentioned here, tools like Sketch help to bring designs closer to implementation. Also, "design in the browser" was never meant to mean "forgo all other parts of the design process and just start coding." Some people seemed to skip over that.

</comment><comment><USER14> I love that we're in an era where we expect sites and interfaces to be more than just desktop pixel grids. Designing in the browser feels like you're actually crafting something real, the same way a carpenter is refining the actual pieces of wood until it turns into furniture.

</comment><comment><USER15> _If I don't have my design to follow, the whole process breaks down for me. I've tried, goodness knows I've tried, but my designs end up suffering, looking boxy, bland and uninspiring._

I can see there being some users here (including me) who would think that's actually a _good_ thing... unless your goal is to make an extremely artistic site.

<comment><USER16> Even unartistic sites should aim higher than "bland and uninspiring".

<comment><USER17> The point is you probably should be cautious about what designer thinks is NOT "bland and uninspiring".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is a problem for lot of artists and designers I know.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you don't know code then use Photoshop, get it approved by the client and get a project manager to get a developer to come up with whatever it is you have designed. Easy.

<comment><USER20> You may have missed the point she's trying to make.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm not sure she can design well at all. The tiny, light gray text on the white background is painful to read.</comment>


Is Adobe's SEO company planting links in blogs? - <AUTHOR> http://9to5mac.com/2011/06/24/is-adobes-seo-company-planting-links-in-blogs/

<comment><USER2> Sounds like a pretty smart tactic, there's very few legitimate ways to get keyword-specific links - any natural link you get is in my experience far more likely to use your domain or company name rather than describe what you do.</comment>


The last coal-fired power plant in Massachusetts shuts down - <AUTHOR> https://www.clf.org/blog/brayton-point-power-plant-shuts-down/ <comment><USER2> On the same day that news comes out about the US withdrawing from the Paris accord. Sigh.</comment>


Is anyone there? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/fashion/when-your-e-mail-goes-unanswered.html

<comment><USER2> Avoiding giving a reply or simply being disorganised when it comes to following up with responses isn't tech specific.

Penpals who take six months to reply, people who screen their calls, giving a polite reply of "yes" when really you're never going to show up - it happens.

With the examples the author gave in a professional context - if you require a reply on something, set the expectation rather than assume someone communicates the same way as you.

If you're cold soliciting people over email for love or profit it should be with the understanding that it doesn't necessary honour the other party to reply.

</comment><comment><USER3> I for one am glad for the flexibility afforded by e-mail ambiguity. In a situation in which one person wants to go out to lunch and the other doesn't, is the better outcome that the first either confrontationally declines or reluctantly accepts the request?

In the art world, the protocol for asking for a show at someone's gallery is that you invite them over to your studio for a "studio visit." The purpose of the visit, to see if they want to give you a show, is known to both parties, but never explicitly stated. If the dealer doesn't want to give you a show, then you just had a nice visit where they gave you some feedback about your work. If they do want a show, obviously there's no problem. But the perils of saying "Can I have a show?" and getting rejected are avoided by the introduction of ambiguity. You don't know anything about why they've rejected you (if it's you or them) and the relationship isn't strained by anything too outright.

As annoying as it is sometimes, I think there are definitely cases in which ignoring email can be a graceful alternative to difficult options.

</comment><comment><USER4> > e-mails to travel with the speed of photosynthesis

Am I the only person who found this metaphor a bit jarring? It seems very much like the author trying to make himself sound more cultured or intelligent, unless he's trying to say something like "travel with no outward signs of progress."

<comment><USER5> I believe it is pseudointellectual for "speed of light."

<comment><USER6> "Photosynthesis is a chemical process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight"[1]

If he were using this as a metaphor for the "speed of light" you'd think he'd be referring to the emails going incredibly fast, but what he's actually referring to is his "otherwise spectacular ... assistant" sometimes taking a very long time to respond to emails (because he's busy looking at lulz).

In this case I believe that the author is using "speed of photosynthesis" as a metaphor for being very slow, instead of using the more common simile "like watching grass grow".

I'm not sure if "speed of photosynthesis" is really correct, though - I find it hard to compare "rate of respiration" with "rate of growth" or "rate of email response" but there you go.

He's certainly doesn't mean "speed of light".

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

<comment><USER7> Give the author a break. He's a journalist, not a biologist. The last real science class he took was probably in high school.

<comment><USER8> Right - all the more reason he shouldn't use photosynthesis in his analogies!

<comment><USER9> It can't be any worse than people who misuse the hammer and anvil metaphor.

Many say "You are the anvil, and I am the hammer" to imply superiority of the hammer bashing down on the poor anvil. However in reality, the hammer always breaks and the anvil always maintains.

<comment><USER10> Ah! I have another example like that. Sometimes people use the term 'quantum leap' to describe some huge change. As it turns out, a quantum leap is a very small change in the state of an electron, a very tiny event, nothing to write home about.

<comment><USER11> The point about a quantum leap is that it is discrete, rather than continuous, so, for example, a "quantum leap in understanding" implies a progress in understanding that cannot be broken down into a progression of small increments of understanding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _In the end, short of asking for e-mail receipts, which many consider rude, our only hope seems to lie in philosophical repositioning. I acquired some of that entity when [P.M. Forni] told me that, online, "we communicate because we can and not because we have something important to say."

"We invest in the swapping of trivialities," he said, "precious time that we could use for serious reflection. I want to believe that when we stumble upon black holes of silence on the net, that depends at least in part on someone reacting against the tyranny of hyperconnection.

"There must be brave and smart souls who came to realize that thinking is more important than communicating," he continued. "I see them in my mind's eye a brave minority, sitting in silence, pondering and planning — the way it used to be."_

I like this guy's style.

Superbly written article by the way. Thanks for sharing @chaosmachine.

<comment><USER12> Downvoters, would you like to share your reasoning? I don't care about my hn karma, I'm just really curious.

<comment><USER13> I am guessing people downvoted you because you just included excerpts from the article and said "superb" etc. Your comment did not add any value. Hence the downvotes.

<comment><USER12> I highlighted an interesting part of a 2 page long article, pointing out it's worth the read, for those who skipped the article or part of it. I believe it does add value. I understand not voting up, but voting down without any explanation isn't constructive.

Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the quality of top hn comments in general, and we have to thank 'moderators' for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Isn't that what emails are all about? They're meant to take time to reply to, at least that's what I think. Unless the recipient of your email is sitting on his/her PC 24/7, there is the chance that you'll have to wait for him/her to reply, and that may take some time.

Don't want to wait at all? Use IM, or even social networking.

<comment><USER15> ... or text message

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is largely a technical problem resulting from Email's unpredictability and lack of any receipt verification mechanism. While this is true of other non-real time communication mediums (like snail mail), that doesn't mean we shouldn't try solving it.

Improved spam detection increases the likelihood that an email will actually reach its intended recipient. In the 7 years I've been using gmail I've seen exactly one false positive (although there is some bias here as I've long since stopped checking my spam folder). But such technology has been slow to filter out to the less technically inclined ISPs and mail providers.

As far as actual verification, there are several ways to achieve this now. A popular technique is embedding a 1x1 pixel image with a unique id in its url. Unfortunately this is frequently abused by spammers looking for verification that an email address is good, so many email readers block images by default.

Any real solution is going to require some sort of trust mechanism or better make the procedure opt-in. Still, anything would improve upon the current situation where letters go silently into the void

<comment><USER3> Would you opt in? What if you don't have time to answer right now? I would hate feeling like I had to either respond immediately or broadcast that I was waiting. Part of the appeal of e-mail (or any correspondence) is that each correspondent can proceed at their own pace. It's a feature, not a bug, at least in many cases.

<comment><USER17> There is a difference between knowing that the message arrived in the recipient's inbox, and knowing that the recipient has opened the message. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_receipt#E-mail> (DSN versus MDN).

MDNs are not a very good idea, but widespread use of DSNs would probably be nice. There are quite a lot of cases where you just have to know if your message arrived, but it is tedious (and slightly rude) to ask for confirmation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Email can be very painful if you use it incorrectly, yes.

I've been dating a girl I met recently, and the other day, I sent her an email that laid my heart open. After I sent it, I realized she probably wouldn't read it for hours, and then it might be even longer before she can craft a reply!

I moped around for an hour and a half, when she sent a reply saying she was sorry it took her that long to respond, and she knew what I must be going through, waiting for a response. She addressed only that painful bit, and responded to the rest when she had time later.

She's obviously a keeper. ;)

The moral of the story is that if you don't respect the properties of the medium, you can do yourself a lot of damage.

Email is usually delivered instantly, but -not always-. And it's a medium that is usually used for thoughtful replies, and not quick ones. If you want an instant answer, you need real-time communication.

<comment><USER19> _Email is usually delivered instantly, but -not always-_

Isn't that the truth, The longest delivery time I have ever seen on an email was around three weeks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "I certainly felt ignored when a young editorial assistant at a magazine asked me to send important information to her but never acknowledged receipt of same. I waited 72 hours for her reply, and then sent the information again with a note saying, "Just re-sending in case you didn't receive." When another 48 hours elapsed without a reply from her, I resent the information again, this time appended, "I'm resending this because I have no way of knowing whether or not you received it.""

This guy isn't too well-versed with technology is he.

<comment><USER21> I've done this before. It's more a case if you don't know if your email has mistakenly been put into the spam folder.

<comment><USER22> Me too. I consider myself technically well versed and I have setup mail servers before. Whenever I send an important email with an attachment I always include the phrase "Please reply on receipt" just to ensure that the other end gets it. The mail server can be unreliable by ignoring the message if it thinks its spam, especially so when you have attachments (every mail sever has it's own file size/extension limitations). You would think that there would be a notification if the message was ignored or not delivered but notifying by default can be a bad idea since attackers can easily spoof (I'm ignoring SPF TXT records) the sender's address and then use your mail sever to DDoS someone else. Also, due to the sheer volume of SPAM you would tie up considerable resources responding to legitimate senders.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> One problem with so many emails is that they're much faster and easier to write than to thoughtfully respond to.

Something like "how much would a clone of ebay.com cost?" takes 5 seconds to write by an eternity to answer in any thoughtful way (excluding true but glib responses like "more than you can afford").

For message-delivery emails, a "Please let me know if you've received this" goes a long way, as does following up with another medium.

For "quick question" emails, make sure they're as quick to answer as they are to ask. You don't have to go all the way to a multiple-choice form, but aim for mostly yes-or-no or which-of-the-above questions.

</comment><comment><USER24> well if you just wanted to know if someone read or opened your email, there are services like didtheyreadit.com and toutapp.com and that will track this info for you, sort of like a receipt. If you're looking for a quick hack(limited results), you would embed an image in the email and track how many times it is accessed. And most email marketing software track this information for you. That solves the problem of "Is there anyone there", but not the getting the person to reply problem.

<comment><USER25> How does this work? Now that most email clients block images and stuff in HTML email, isn't it basically impossible to know if they read your email?

<comment><USER24> yeah if the image is blocked then yeah, it won't work, but if they did read it more than likely they would click show images/html. But like I said it is a quick hack it is limited. The other service, use a more sophisticated method and it works for me, I know it email was opened. And if it was opened more than once, I know more than likely it was read.

<comment><USER26> I almost never view HTML emails, and if I do, I load pictures even more rarely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I do think the author has a valid point. Yes, sure you don't have to respond immediately but taking too long to respond isn't very kind as well. You gotta have some emotional intelligence. In fact, this sort of thing happens beyond email.. it's also about phone calls that don't get returned, and failing to "ping" friends regularly.

I know we live in a busy world, but you gotta have some insight into what ticks other people.

Ignoring people for too long leads to bitterness as you wonders why he/she has forgotten about you. It also leads to a negative view of the world. You start to think it's dog eat dog.. It's true.. we don't respond right away unless it's a sex text. We don't really care about others unless there's an orgasm in stake, or at least an indirect path to an orgasm.

</comment><comment><USER28> From the article: "Consciously or unconsciously we think of our interlocutors as disposable or replaceable."

Interesting, this must be how interviewers or HR types feel after they never get back to you.</comment>


Show HN: Sendity.com - <AUTHOR>

Hey HN- this is a project that took me a few weeks to build out. It's something I've been wanting to make for a long time, but never could connect the dots to see how it could be done.
Sendity.com is a super simple way to send physical letter.
I'm obviously not the first to this idea or anything, but since Lob.com makes printing+mailing so damn easy I thought I'd take a swing at it. I learned a lot about development throughout. I didn't expand much into their API but it has some awesome features I could cook in.
Where do you think I could take it from here? I have grand ideas of what it could become, but I'd really love to hear what the HN crowd thinks.
Thanks guys! <comment><USER2> Love the idea. I have been kicking around a similar service but does it with a robotic hand (e.g. [http://www.bondgifts.com/](http://www.bondgifts.com/)) to convert typed notes to hand written notes and mailed. Bond charges $5 and it comes in a nice presentation, but haven't found the "perfect" way to capture address of friends/people I am sending to other than just to ask. I think thats a need that might need to be tackled. Although if you got an email from a service saying "your friend XXXX" wants to send you something and asked for your address, not sure people would give it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for checking it out. Bondgifts looks sexy! That machine is incredibly cool.

I see your points about the capturing of addresses. What I was thinking is that this could become a platform for businesses who do send lots of physical mail (that isn't very time sensitive). They would already have these addresses.. Maybe Sendity could be a way to help that process become more seamless or faster.

I can see this being useful for a "drip-mailing" type of snail mail campaign.. Once I build out the saas features!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Click: [http://www.Sendity.com](http://www.Sendity.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks NicoJuicy!

<comment><USER3> No problem, it was the first thing i noticed ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What are the terms of service?</comment>