Gamification of the workplace - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204294504576615371783795248.html?mod=e2tw <comment><USER2> I expect most responses here to be critical of the trend mentioned in the article. I see it as useful.

Its utility is limited to tasks that are commensurate, however. This means you can't really apply it to creative work. It's difficult to compare a developer to another using the kind of simple metric that easily lends itself to gamification. Even if you use something as general as time, you'll fail, because the question is time to what? Unless you've got two people working on different implementations of the same feature, you'll still be measuring different things. (And if you do have two working on generating two independent implementations of the same exact feature, any gains from competitiveness will be more than offset by wasted time.)

Other tasks, like data entry or content generation, do have easily comparable metrics, like rows per minute or clickthroughs. So it should be expected to work better there.

</comment><comment><USER3> So, they're replacing incentive based pay structures with points, leaderboards, and badges? Where do I sign up?

The people I know at companies where everyone is explicitly ranked and rated in a way that's made public (e.g., Intel) mostly dislike the pressure it adds and the comparisons it creates. If pay and promotions are based off these leaderboards, then this has all the advantages and disadvantages of the Intel system, and there's nothing new here. If the leaderboards are just "flavor", then this is just another form of lucite plaque, and there's nothing new here.

</comment><comment><USER4> Gamification has always existing in large companies, though historically it's been more subtle.

At 5 years you get a nice pen. At 10 years you get a larger carpet in your office. At 20 years you get a silver picture frame. At 30 years you get a nice retirement party with free shrimp for your friends.

Yes - really - I knew LOTS of people at old Ma Bell would hang on underpaid for several years just to get the free shrimp for their friends at the retirement party.

All of these come at the expensive of opportunity, interesting work, and money.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is getting ridiculous. The idea of bonuses, rewards for completing tasks, the earning of newer impressive titles, gifts for accomplishing things coworkers couldn't. It's not the gamefication of work. It's just work.

</comment><comment><USER6> _And global consulting firm Deloitte employs digital games for its Deloitte Leadership Academy, an executive education program it uses to train clients and its own consultants._

Gamification doesn't mean "playing videogames designed to teach you about work". I got the sense that that's what many of the companies in the article are using, HR "games" for employee training. Proper gamification is a feedback loop that pushes the person to do better in their _actual_ job.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've been thinking for a while that the next phase of my career might be as a "gamification expert". I enjoy Foursquare, Gowalla, etc. and have a reasonable amount of interest in game theory, game design and mechanics, and psychology. But whenever I even type "gamification" I cringe. Can it really be a good thing for so many companies? Does it matter as long as they'll spend money on it?

I love this quote from Chris Dixon: "The next big thing will start out looking like a toy". That's certainly the prevailing attitude about "gamification". <http://cdixon.org/2011/09/28/some-lessons-learned/>

</comment><comment><USER8> A couple of years ago I was working at a company that had a pretty large sales center. Just for kicks I created a fantasy sales center app. You got to pick people from marketing who were generating leads, salespeople, and sales managers. You could only play each person 3 days out of a week. I was pretty surprised to see the positive impact it had on the company. Everyone was interested in sales. Discussions on how to increase sales numbers increased, and projects shifted from what might help the company to what would increase sales. Sometimes the sales team members would get upset about getting benched but hey make the sale and I'll put you back in. :)

</comment><comment><USER9> Microsoft has been incorporating RPG-like elements into their review/promotion system for a while. By developing certain skills and finishing achievements, you can "level up" getting increased pay and responsibilities.

/not a MSFT employee - but that's how my MSFT friends describe it

<comment><USER10> I work for a large defense contractor, and that description could just as easily apply to us.

However it is neither fun nor productive. The majority of the official classifications are mismatched and/or inapplicable (but nevertheless required hoops to jump through), and getting any change approved requires heaps of paperwork. About this time last year I threatened to quit with an offer letter in hand from a startup; my company promised to match my salary to the offer. A year later, I'm only just now getting the rest of the raise and promotion, because of the skill qualifications, achievements, etc. that we had to get filed and approved.

That certainly makes me feel happy about the "gamification" of my industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems like there might be an idea for a start up in there

<comment><USER12> Sounds like <http://www.lovemachineinc.com/></comment></comment>


The Geneva Free Port is crammed with storage vaults that contain great art - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/arts/design/one-of-the-worlds-greatest-art-collections-hides-behind-this-fence.html <comment><USER2> A friend works on deciphering an old script based on very few samples. When he inquired about a piece he learned that more of those with similar inscriptions, presumably from illegal excavations, are stored in Geneva. Luckily he was granted access to have a look at them, I assume that the owners like researchers to validate their stuff, because they are suspected forgeries.

We don't really know how many more samples of that script are tucked away in vaults. In that context in don't care about a 1000 Picasso paintings. I would love for people to go crazy about the paintings, so long as they leave the truly old pieces to the researchers and in the ground until they can be excavated properly.

<comment><USER3> That's the worst part about it. I believe art older than a reasonable number of centuries (e.g 300 years) should not be tradeable. What's the moral argument for allowing it?

<comment><USER4> Private property? If you were to implement such a measure, it further encourages black markets, since the demand will still be there. A bad consequence can even be the destruction of art from either: hiding a crime or harder access to legitimate researchers and restorers.

Besides, not everything old is necessarily worth preserving.

You don't always need a physical object, you can take high-res scans or pictures.

Many pieces of privately-owned art are actually on long-term loans to museums.

Public museums usually have far larger stockpiles of objects than can reasonably be displayed. Many languish in storage for decades at a time. In private ownership they can at least be displayed and taken care of.

<comment><USER5> Private ownership of antiquity is definitely murky. If you can prove legitimate ownership for an object that is one thing, all of a sudden owning an ancient treasure is another. I think they should belong to the state in question (e.g. the people from that area).

<comment><USER6> Where do you draw the line? In the US we always side with personal freedom in the courts (e.g. if you want to own something, you can do so, pursuit of happiness and all that).

Antiquities don't have a lot of intrinsic value beyond display, so eventually (maybe 50 years, maybe 200 years) they will all end up in a museum. Generally they have higher value to people in the area from which they originated, so they will eventually migrate home. I'd prefer to be patient and let it happen naturally instead of implementing new laws.

<comment><USER3> Why would they migrate home? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles)

<comment><USER6> 40% in favour of returning the marbles to Greece 15% in favour of keeping them at the British Museum 18% would not vote 27% had no opinion

... I feel like this is a good example of where they will eventually migrate home. It hasn't been very long, on an antiquities scale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can anyone explain how this works from a tax perspective? As far as I know, goods in free ports are basically "in transit between two countries" for tax purposes. I.e. they left their origin, but have not entered their destination yet. I can see how that temporarily avoids sales tax (or VAT). That's also the tax mentioned in the newspaper. However, as soon as you bring that artwork to its destination, you have to pay that tax. And by that time, it will probably be much higher than now. First, the tax will most likely have increased (VAT rates never seem to go down). Second, the art will have appreciated in value, increasing the taxes due on import even more. All that considered, this does not seem like a very good strategy to me, at least tax-wise.

<comment><USER8> "Temporarily" in this case can mean decades, by the end of which inflation and time value of money can considerably erode your multi million dollar sales tax bill. As an added bonus you can get a loan on your painting while it's in the warehouse because lenders can limit your access, thereby ensuring that you neither damage the collateral nor move it beyond their reach.

<comment><USER7> > inflation and time value of money can considerably erode your multi million > dollar sales tax bill

No, when importing the piece of art to its destination, VAT tax apply on its current value at the current VAT rate. So the opposite happens. Instead of eroding over time, the tax bill gets larger as tax rates are likely to climb and the value increase.

However, a good reason to do so is if your liquidity is limited. For example, if you e.g. as a German inherited a 100 million EUR piece of art stored in a free port today, bringing it to Germany would cost you 19 million in VAT. Assuming that you don't have that much cash laying around, you would face the choice of selling it or just keeping it there for a few more years.

<comment><USER9> But how can you estimate the "current value" for a unique piece of art?

<comment><USER10> I would imagine it would be the amount it last sold for, adjusted for inflation.

<comment><USER11> Also you can look at what similar pieces have sold for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The art world is plagued with forgeries, some so good that nobody can prove or disprove authenticity. After all, with prices so high, there's every incentive to create very good forgeries.

Which raises the question - if one cannot discern a difference, is there a difference? And if there is no difference, why pay those fantastic prices? I wonder when the modern "tulip" madness will come crashing down.

I wouldn't mind decorating my house with cheap forgeries that are so good one cannot tell with the unaided eye.

<comment><USER13> There is a village in China that will make a copy of any artwork for you. I have to say that good forgeries are just as collectable as the real thing :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Some see even higher stakes for contemporary works, as they can be whisked > off, their paint hardly dry, before ever entering the public's > consciousness.

I guess we know what people will be doing for money when jobs are gone due to automation.

</comment><comment><USER13> I liked the suggestion that they had to open up the warehouses for the public if they want to keep their tax free status. To have so much great art locked up for tax avoidance reasons is not ideal.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think this tone "art was created to be viewed" sort of hurts. Painting deteriorates over time when exposed to light and normal air. Also there is a not much difference between painting located in some container, and museum in prohibitively expensive New York.

Rather than advocating against "evil superrich" we should focus on digitization. It should be a law that any piece sold, insured or stored has to digitized in high resolution.

<comment><USER15> The last thing we need is more precedent for government agents entitling themselves to people's private property. You might as well be demanding that every programmer give the government a copy of their source code, in case you die or your company goes bankrupt and people get curious about what you were working on.

<comment><USER16> > You might as well be demanding that every programmer give the government a > copy of their source code, in case you die or your company goes bankrupt and > people get curious about what you were working on.

You give that example of hyperbole, but I believe that is quite reasonable. I am of the opinion that if you want your code to have copyright protection, you must have a copy of the source code either available to the public or placed in an escrow service to be made public when the copyright expires.

Copyright is an agreement between authors and society. In exchange for limited protection of the work, the work is not hidden from the public, and can therefore be built upon once the work is in public domain. If the author is not allowing the work to eventually enter the public domain, then the author's side of the agreement is not being upheld, and they should not have copyright protection either.

<comment><USER15> Copyright is a different matter. These historical artifacts won't have any copyright on them in the first place, and are physically secured to prevent people from seeing them. If somebody snuck in and took pictures, there'd be no reason for the owner to have any control over the resulting pictures(although the trespasser could be prosecuted).

With code, "[..]sold, insured or stored[...]" are the three verbs under consideration. Selling and insuring likely require somebody to look at it, so copyright is somewhat relevant(although you can make them sign an NDA). But that "stored" verb would mean that writing code for your personal or company use with no intention to ever show it to the public is also illegal. So you wouldn't just waive some benefits, but would be fined or jailed if you don't file a copy with the government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Blame the taxes for that.

They should keep helping people avoid taxes as this is the right thing to do. Tax is unethical by its very nature (it is theft, regardless of justifications).

That said, they could very well facilitate a tax-free art gallery environment trying to build mecas of fine art galleries.

<comment><USER18> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11795373](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11795373) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER19> You may disagree with this comment, but how is that off-topic?

<comment><USER18> Taxation-is-theft is the quintessence of the generic ideological tangent. Those are off topic on HN.

<comment><USER19> Really? Because I see debates about taxation and politics in general all the time in the comments - especially when these themes are directly related to the posts.

Seriously, how can you say that comments about taxation are off-topic while this article is not off-topic and is currently on the front page? You can't really have a conversation about poverty, welfare and related policies without talking about taxation, and it's a weird moderatorial distinction.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cause of Alzheimer's: gingivalis, the key bacteria in chronic gum disease - <AUTHOR> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2191814-we-may-finally-know-what-causes-alzheimers-and-how-to-stop-it/ <comment><USER2> Now we have two promising candidates for the cause of Alzheimer's -- gingivalis, and herpes-family viruses.

That doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong. Maybe herpes gets in first and lets gingivalis in, or vice versa, or some other, more interesting interaction.

What's tragic is that effectively none of the present researchers are virologists or bacteriologists. As consequences, (1) progress studying and generating a useful clinical response will be radically slowed by resistance from the old guard to the threat to their livelihood, and (2) they will all need to find something else to do, because you can't pick up those specializations overnight.

The herpes connection was noted twenty years ago, but is only now getting traction. If it's right, then almost everybody who died of AS since then was killed by the structural resistance to the idea.

The best way to accelerate progress, now, would be to find another urgent health problem that seems to need the skillset that had previously been brought to bear on AS, so they jump ship and get the hell out of the way.

<comment><USER3> What blocks someone who has expertise from trying it? There's no secret cabal of scientists who stops people from studying other ideas. This is quite a bit different than a new physicist studying a perpetual motion machine.

<comment><USER2> Nothing blocks them from trying it, except (1) grants are controlled by existing researchers and (2) publication is controlled by existing researchers.

Progress will happen eventually, but many, many people will die first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The original title is far more honest, but still sensational, while the actual paper is a good read.

[http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau3333](http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau3333)

It's totally free too.

<comment><AUTHOR> In what way its dishonest? I'm not in the field so I can comment on technical points but looking at abstract, article seems to have good representation of the conclusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If it's a bacteria, surely there exists some antibiotic that kills it?

Since antibiotics are routinely used in healthcare, surely we'd have noticed if they had a big benefit on mental health...

<comment><USER6> "The team found that an antibiotic that killed P. gingivalis did this too, but less effectively, and the bacteria rapidly developed resistance."

<comment><USER3> The linked paper says besides the bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, they found Kgp inhibitors seemed to continue to work.

"We have demonstrated that P. gingivalis develops rapid resistance to a broad- spectrum antibiotic, moxifloxacin, but not to the Kgp inhibitor COR388. Therefore, with the growing concern about widespread antibiotic resistance (103), ..., an antivirulence factor inhibition approach to treatment of P. gingivalis is the most promising path while reducing pressures for resistance."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you forget to brush your teeth today, you will probably forget tomorrow. b/c gingavitis = Alzheimer's.</comment>


Ask HN: Are there any mature non-mouse and non-keyboard input methods? - <AUTHOR> Are there any input methods that are non-mouse based and non-keyboard based for a PC that are mature enough to use for daily use?<p>Dictation? Gestures? Eye-tracking? <comment><USER2> Very broad question, there are a lot, but they differ in purpose, efficiency and "target" user. I don't think there is a more efficient text input device that [some kind of] keyboard or as accurate and unrestricted pointing device as mouse (touch is close, but requires proper UI) for an average user.

Touch made a great leap in performance, compare today's smartphone (taps, double taps, "3D touch", slides, multi-touch) to an old Palm device (stylus required, unregistered inputs etc.).

Speech recognition is pretty well developed, works great for note-taking, control with short commands, but it depends on a language (some are working better than others) and is prone to error, especially with non-native speakers (accents) or unfriendly environment (noise, multiple people talking, changing volume). Would it be comfortable to dictate a book or code? Probably not.

Kinect, ZKOO and Leap Motion are probably the most popular gesture tracking device, but amount of required energy makes these very inefficient for daily tasks - it's ok to get a bit tired when playing a game, but couple hours of "minority report action" would be very uncomfortable.

In addition to that there are devices like "magic wand" or Eyegaze/Tobi (eye/attention tracking), they are mature for a certain group.

We have vast amount of advanced input methods, they just shine in different areas.

</comment><comment><USER3> Check out Dasher, it's like a text inference engine where you zoom through a 2D space to select the letters, words, phrases you want. It's agnostic to input type, you can use it with a regular mouse, or eye-tracking, or a touchpad, etc.

[http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/](http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/)</comment>


Ghislaine Maxwell Talk – The TerraMar Project (Arctic Circle 2013) - <AUTHOR> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JLR-AJCxc <comment><USER2> It's hard to imagine this wholly unremarkable speech was posted here to encourage earnest discussion about the defunct TerraMar Project and not to encourage discussion about Ghislaine Maxwell. Hacker News hardly feels like the right platform for either.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think the feds are going to allow a suicide again.</comment>


Show HN: A tool to find AirPods - <AUTHOR> http://fruitbasket.io
I made the original version in December of 2016. For the past few months, I have gotten plenty of great feedback from people who were able to snag a pair. I was even mentioned on Business Insider.
The URL used to be fruit-basket.surge.sh (which will still work!), but I figured fruitbasket.io was a bit easier to remember.
If you are looking for AirPods (especially for Mother's Day!), go ahead and give it a shot. It's completely free to use! But if I do help you out, all I ask is that you consider donating :) This is done completely in my free time and I really only want to help people grab some awesome headphones.
(Pro tip: it should work with any product sold in Apple Stores if you grab the right "item ID"!) <comment><USER2> Heh, i thought this was a tool to find lost wireless earbuds… somehow. Got a bit confused when i reached that _" especially for Mother's Day"_.</comment>


The Grim Biology of Being Poor - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/why-poverty-is-like-a-disease <comment><USER2> My wife has worked in the foster care system and in community based mental health counseling. It's amazing to me 1) how little empathy people in the community have for these kids who are very clearly being dealt a crappy hand in life, and 2) how little people realize the ways in which poverty affects a person's views of reality and their ability to effectively navigate the world.

In another HN thread, there was a discussion of how Utah has been far more effective at caring for the homeless and protecting economic mobility than the rest of the country. My take away from that article and discussion was the stark difference in Utah for _giving a crap_ by the community for the less fortunate. It is the willingness of the Utah population to make an active effort to help people in their community on a regular and purely voluntary basis.

Teachers, social workers, and police officers can keep the train on the tracks - but they can't solve problems that aren't specifically related to education, social services, or criminal lawbreaking (despite the fact that _everyone_ expects them to do so).

I don't know how we do it, but we need to start rebuilding community as a social network of interpersonal support rather than merely a zip code.

<comment><USER3> "I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!"

It is possible to have compassion without "a social network of interpersonal support". An example of this is recognizing the importance of costs (like schools) from which I receive no direct benefit (if I do not have children in those schools).

Yes its not as helpful as active volunteering. But the general mindset of "This is everyone's problem" is much more globally beneficial than always thinking "It's not my problem".

<comment> benji-york Your comment reminded me of this, which you might find interesting (if only to understand an opponent's thoughts): [http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/P...](http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/Public_Schools1.html)

<comment><USER4> Perhaps understanding, but I found it perplexing. Maybe it's because I was in more AP / IB classes, but I did not find education "indoctrination" and "uniform" (so I think his second concluding paragraph was bogus).

I am also not sure what "state religion" David is talking about in the third concluding paragraph that I was "indoctrinated" into. I will note that the continuous citation of Britain in the early 19th century is problematic to me, as the education set up back then was usually run by the Church of England and other religious institutions ([http://www.british- history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol7/pp486-500](http://www.british- history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol7/pp486-500)). Not the best example of a free market system here.

I personally am not terribly convinced that a completely private system would work out very well for the under-advantaged in both income and location, particularly the later. This is an issue even in public schools which have no profit motive; how would adding a profit motive help groups that are by definition unprofitable? In America we _already_ have a widening school inequality issue that in part is due to our use of property taxes as funding. ([https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/propert...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property- taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/)).

I do think that mixed systems (something like charter schools) can work _if_ quality control and accountability is in place. (EG: You hear pros and cons, but by and large the charter system implemented by New Orleans seems to have worked.) Elsewise, you're likely to see problems that, at worst, might resemble the "diploma mills" you see in the United States.

<comment><USER5> David Friedman is Milton Friedman's son and while he's a gifted writer, he also sees himself as the torchbearer of an ideological tradition which sometimes leads him into rhetorical excess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm a foster parent to 3 kids and have 4 of my own. In my opinion, the primary problem with poverty is that everyone wants to solve it with money. Poverty can't be solved by throwing money at it, children in poverty need a stable environment and loving adults to help them grow and become productive members of society. Adults in poverty often need intensive counseling, psychiatry, substance abuse therapy, and a support network of caring individuals. Poverty in the united states will only be conquered by loving individuals sacrificing their own time and interests to help others.

<comment><USER7> I recall reading about research (So this is third hand information) that one of the most effective ways of solving poverty are simple periodic cash grants. This was specifically about comparing unconditional cash grants to conditional once.

The idea being that this steady supply of money allows one to stabilize. This has 2 direct effects. Firstly, people can feasibly make long term plans. Secondly, the added baseline means much fewer things are 'sudden death'. If your car breaks down, perhaps you can get it fixed soon enough that you don't lose your job. In the same vein, perhaps this money allows you to get a car, making it possible to find work you couldn't get to with the bus.

There are definitely cases where the lack of money in poverty is a symptom, but I'd wager that in the vast majority of cases, lack of money is the root cause.

Whether the humane issues are the cause or symptom of the problem, they need a solution beyond cash, but cash can do a lot of good.

The prime exception are compound cases. I'd say cases where foster care gets involved are exactly those cases. These children need emotional and existential support much more than 'money'. My point is that these cases are exceptional even within the poor class. For the class in general, money could do a lot of good.

<comment><USER8> What troubles me the most is that even in the face of overwhelming evidence such as the research you describe, a _very_ significant portion of Americans obstinately refuse to consider any and all forms of social aid.

I don't get it. I've tried to listen to their arguments and I just don't get it.

Currently, the would-be recipients of such aid do not participate in the economy and cost the taxpayer _billions_ in unpaid ER visits, policing, jails, property devaluation, etc.

There are exactly two reasons I can think of why someone would oppose helping such people:

1\. being extremely sheltered and having no understanding of what it's like to be poor.

2\. an "us-vs-them" mentality (black people, immigrants, white trash, etc)

All I can say is that such attitudes truly reveal something about the moral fiber of the individuals who hold them. The older I get, the less respect I have for such persons.

<comment><USER7> It takes an empirical view, acceptance that simple problems can have complicated solutions, and more faith in research than common sense for these arguments to be convincing.

Lacking any of these, the common sense argument that giving poor people money makes them not want to work has more credence.

All of that disregards the empathy that is required to understand poor people aren't poor by choice.

<comment><USER9> I don't think it does. There's nothing particularly common sense about "giving poor people money makes them not want to work". "Poor people should get help" is much more common sense, in my opinion, and plenty of people hold that view, as well.

The issue is one of popular belief. People currently believe that everyone is deeply in control of their lives, which necessarily demands that the situation of the poor must be their fault. Similar conclusions flow from high individualism, the idea that nobody can help you but yourself, and that difficult situations make good people. None of these things are common sense, they're counterintuitive, actually, so they require a pre-built framework of thinking to accept.

It's a problem of philosophy, not empiricism. Most people don't care that much about research and, honestly, given the state of psych research right now, they probably shouldn't. But you don't need research to come to the simpler conclusion that a more dangerous environment reduces someone's chances.

<comment><USER10> It may not be common sense, but it's very much ingrained into the American culture. Some examples:

1\. In The Three Little Pigs, the two pigs that built houses out of straw and hay were eaten by the wolf, but the pig that worked hard and built its house out of brick and mortar lived.

2\. From 2nd Thessalonians 3:10, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."

3\. In the spring of 1609, John Smith cited the aphorism to the colonists of Jamestown:

> Countrymen, the long experience of our late miseries I hope is sufficient to > persuade everyone to a present correction of himself, And think not that > either my pains nor the adventurers' purses will ever maintain you in > idleness and sloth...

> ...the greater part must be more industrious, or starve...

> You must obey this now for a law, that he that will not work shall not eat > (except by sickness he be disabled). For the labors of thirty or forty > honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain a hundred and > fifty idle loiterers.

4\. The sheer number of Ayn Rand followers in political office [1] when the aim of Ayn Rand's writing is justify why one ought not give a damn about anyone else (much less the poor).

It makes sense for someone in a scarcity economy like John Smith to hold such a viewpoint, because otherwise everyone would starve to death. I lament the fact that even though the US can provide enough housing and food to feed everyone, we do not have the political will to do so. Even though Bertrand Russell was no economist, it seems we have arrived at his most insane dystopia [2] where "half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked" even though we could produce everything anyone ever wanted with a 20-hour work week and everyone working.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/10/new-age-ayn- ra...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/10/new-age-ayn-rand- conquered-trump-white-house-silicon-valley)

[2] [http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html](http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have a particularly unique perspective on being poor and usually when I tell people the reason why I got to where I am is because of luck, they often don't believe me or say that luck doesn't play a part.

My father had died when I was a kid. He was a fisherman and his boat capsized due to problems that should've been recognized and fixed. My family at the time was poor, however she was able to find a lawyer to work pro-bono and won a wrongful death suit. Because of that specific suit, I had just enough money (along with financial aid) to afford going to a local community college and eventually getting a bachelors degree in computer science. Even then, I lived in poverty saving most of my money just to afford classes / help my mother and at times sacrificing my health for a potentially better future.

My father also suffered from mental issues and drug abuse. If this didn't occur, I'd likely be still in poverty. Naturally I tell very few people, but it's frustrating interacting in the software world and seeing so few people understand what it's like to truly be poor. To see your parents struggle and go nowhere.

</comment><comment><USER12> For anyone who wants to understand the mindset underlying poverty (whether cause, or affect, or a mixture of both), I recommend "Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass" by Theodore Dalrymple. He's British psychologist who spent his life working with the poor, and came away with some insightful observations about the culture of this population.

[https://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-Worldview-Makes- Underclas...](https://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-Worldview-Makes- Underclass/dp/1566635055/)

</comment><comment><USER13> "The reality is that when you're poor, if you make one mistake, you're done." \- this was my experience.

I graduated with first-class honours from a top 10 UK university, paid for by my dad's job at CERN. No companies came offering jobs, except weapons manufacturers and oil companies. I refuse to support either of those industries.

I went off around the world on Working Holiday visas, doing a variety of jobs. Some of those were related to tech, some were not. My résumé grew dramatically, as each job only lasted for a few months.

I tried to start a Ph.D. programme at KAIST in Korea. I had to spend all my savings from 5 months in China to pay 6 months of rent up-front for on-campus accommodation.

Then the professor didn't pay my scholarship. I complained to the international office. They talked to the professor. The professor then talked to me, said I'd been gossiping bad things about him to people in the administration, and kicked me out of his lab.

No professor, no lab, no university, no student visa, no country. Everything fell apart.

A friend there told me to get a job with his brother in India, which I accepted. It was only paying 5000 rupees/month (78 USD/month), but accommodation was provided (food was not). I sent thousands of job applications to try to get out of there, and finally gave up and posted an emotional rant on Facebook. A previous colleague saw it, talked to my old boss in Taiwan, and somehow got me an invitation to work here. Even though my salary is much lower than it would be in a Western country, I'm terrified that if I leave, I won't be able to come back. Articles about homelessness and poverty often show up on Hacker News, and keep convincing me that I should just stay comfortable. I'll never be able to afford a house or learn to drive, and I probably can't afford to get married. But at least I have food and shelter, and that's the most I can hope for.

<comment><USER14> _weapons manufacturers and oil companies. I refuse to support either of those industries_

That doesn't sound very pragmatic. I definitely would have qualms about working for a weapons manufacturer, oil companies not that much, but if I'm in need of a job I'd take them.

When you didn't have a job, had you burned all the bridges with the oil companies? From top UK university to 78 USD/month sounds hard to believe (especially if you worked Working Holiday you know that you can make ten times that working odd jobs anywhere else).

Can you take additional jobs? Even if it's fiverr or mechanical turk or some other platform?

If you have an UK citizenship you should be able to do well, not sure about affording a house (I can't either) but renting, learning to drive, etc. shouldn't be impossible.

I read on a sister thread that you were offered interviews but you had to fly there, I would try to save for a ticket and cheap accommodation and try to schedule a bunch of interviews at your target destination. When I was looking for work abroad (I'm from Latin America) I didn't ask to be flown in, and I have a CS degree and a Masters.

Maybe you need help from someone (social worker, psychologist) to identify the issues that are holding you back, if you do have a top 10 degree it's not an intelligence problem.

<comment><USER13> How do you "take additional jobs"? Companies just don't reply to me. I was able to earn $500 USD to buy my plane ticket to Taiwan because I posted my code about an offline cache of stackoverflow, and someone contacted me to let me do a small project for him.

The UK will not give me unemployment benefits, because I'm a citizen by descent.

This was the story of that job search. I have a job now, but I want to make very clear that it wasn't because I didn't try - it was luck and connections, not qualifications, that helped me.

[http://peterburk.free.fr/jobsearch/all.html](http://peterburk.free.fr/jobsearch/all.html)

<comment><USER15> I just found your resume off your tumblr. Unless you updated it, I really hope you get someone to help you revise it. It's not very palatable, imo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Dealing with poverty would be much easier if everyone would see it as an investment.

If you consider a young baby as a investment and future taxpayer, it's easy to justify large investments into the poverty reduction. If we improve someones situation so much that he/she pays $100 more taxes per month during his/her lifetime, or alternatively consumes government resources less, it will have huge compound effect over the lifetime.

$100 per month justifies at least $50,000 in additional investment, $100,000 if you count compound effects, externalities and human capital as a factor in economic growth.

<comment><USER17> > if everyone would see it as an investment.

From a rational perspective a baby born today might never, ever pay back any investment of this sort. His or her potential employment opportunities may very well be eaten up by automation. If fact, this is most likely the case 20-30 years from now as AI and robotics continue to advance in some/many industries.

Instead, we should be seeing all humans as worthwhile creatures and the state as a method for us to live compassionate lives. Policies like guaranteed incomes are the saner solution here because they don't depend on seeing people as investments, often investments they can't pay off.

Not to mention the sick, disabled, elderly, etc who can never ever pay off these hypothetical investments.

<comment><USER18> The economic fate of a random baby born in a developed country is absolutely not "most likely" nil due to automation. I think you are drastically overestimating the rate and scope of AI and robotics.

<comment><USER17> I'm skeptical we'll need as many workers for $threatened_industries in 2040-2050. I think its a little unrealistic to think we can keep up this ponzi scheme of employment as-is. Even now a great deal of unemployment is kept in check by various tax incentives to corporations paid for by taxpayers. Mary is paying Bob to employ Jane. That's not very sustainable in general, let alone with automation keeps chipping away at jobs.

I believe worklife in 2050 is going to be very different today. The same way my dad worked 10-12 hour days normally and I do 7.5 with Friday 'work from home' which is almost a day off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm grateful to have read such an honest take on a critically important myth.

Solutions seem to be both psychological and political. The situation look grim.

Psychologically, people within many cultures have developed a pressure point around self-gratification (the faster the better). Wanting to reap the benefits of one's full potential is huge nowadays, in a wide variety of ways. God forbid you don't become your best self, otherwise you may be trapped in the social pit the author was given a ladder to escape from.

Politically, the Powers that Be effectively mine the vanity, fear, and resentment that make up modern meritocracy. People's incomes literally depend on portions of the population being terrified by the prospect of being poor and/or disdainful of those in poverty.

</comment><comment><USER20> Very impressive article and I'm glad that he _doesn 't_ offer up Survivor Bias. Nations that work hard to eliminate childhood poverty would, by this reasoning, have a considerable, and long lasting, advantage. It's not just a single generation that will benefit but all the following ones, too.

</comment><comment><USER21> I agree with the overall theme of this article, but I would also claim that we can't put all of the blame on the biological effects of being poor. The life choices we make still play a part (which is, after all, influenced to some degree by our biology).

As an anecdotal case, my sister and I grew up poor. She's 6 years older than me but I'm doing significantly better than she is economically. We were raised in the same environment, had the same nutrition, went to the same school, have similar genetics. I could relate all to well to the "mom hiding the foodstamps" line noted in the article.

I think the area where our paths diverged was in terms of the choices we made as a way of dealing with the stress we faced. She found comfort in other people, I isolated myself. She got pregnant at a young age, I cut off other people and focused on my studies. She got married, I worked to get get enough financial aid to go to college. She got divorced and is struggling to support two kids, I have a good career but have never had a serious relationship.

It could have just as easily gone the other way for both of us. I could've gotten some girl pregnant, she could've gone to college and become successful. Perhaps that's the random element of chance noted by the article's author, but I still think it came down to the choices we made.

For what it's worth, I don't think I'm better than her at all. It has taken me years to realize that we both did what we did as a way to deal with our mental issues. I'm still fucked up in my own way, but I guess I'm lucky in that I don't have to worry about making my rent payment or putting food on the table (though, as the article's author also stated, I still feel like the rug is about to be pulled out from under me and I'll have to live on the street).

One thing that does bother me, however, is that my sister to this day says, "I wish I could [something]" or "It must be nice to [something]" in response to what I do. It discredits the effort I put into what I have accomplished. Even if luck played a small role, I still put in a whole lot of effort. On top of that she criticizes me for my reclusive nature, which is a real low blow, in my opinion, and has made our relationship as adults rocky, to say the least.

Forgive my rambling. Just seems like this article was something I could really relate to.

<comment><USER22> The author acknowledges that choices are at play here; what he's arguing is that your ODDS become a lot lower from being poor.

It sounds like you're equating the ways in which you're fucked up with the ways in which she's fucked up. That may well be true; on the other hand, your kind of fucked up might increase the odds of your offspring doing well, whereas hers might not -- so in that way, your "way" was better even if your subjective evaluation of your own condition is not any better than your sister's.

Also, you resent your sister saying "It must be nice...", and I agree, it would be better if she didn't say that to you. On the other hand, aren't you (sort of) doing the same thing if you wish you had some social/personal component that your sister does but you don't?

<comment><USER21> >On the other hand, aren't you (sort of) doing the same thing if you wish you had some social/personal component that your sister does but you don't?

Maybe I think that at times, but I don't say it to her face (or really to anyone) in an effort to gain sympathy, which seems to be her motive when making those comments. I think that's a pretty big distinction.

I definitely agree with your other points, though. I don't want kids, but if I did I would be in a better position to provide for them that gives them an advantage over kids that grew up in the sort of situation hers have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The author makes a good point about the difference between merit and luck in social outcomes.

But, here in America we need not have Food insecurity. With a bit of good financial planning, you can live off 2$/day/person or less. There's so much food you can buy for less than 1$/lb: Corn, Oatmeal, apples, banannas, etc. With many of these combinations, you can reach 2000 calories for less than 2$/day.

And who needs a super expensive cell phone plan? I make do with 9$/month using USMobile. Driving insurance can be less than 25$/mo if you get metromile.com There are many ways to be more cost effective. When i was growing up, my parents would clip every last coupon on the magazine, to get the best deals.

The biggest problem for the poor and everyone else too: is Housing. This is a huge hurdle that we still need to tackle. There's millions being evicted from apartments, and most people have to pay way too much housing. But this too is mostly a manmade/govt/voter issue. With the right land use policies and a massive reduction in regulations we could open up the floodgates to housing innovation and allow the price of housing to come down.

<comment><USER24> Where I live $2 a day will get you a hand of bananas and a couple ears of corn, which doesn't seem like it'd be enough to subsist on. What would your grocery list for a weeks worth of food on a $14 budget look like?

<comment><USER25> $2/day on food is a load of shit. It sounds straight up like /r/frugaljerk advice.

I mean, you won't starve, but it would be one of those things contributing to the poverty mentality. Children, especially, need meat, physically active people need creatine, not easily gotten from plant-based foods. Not to mention fruits and vegetables will add extra (even frozen ones)

A 4-pack of fresh tomatoes alone is $2, at the very least.

Not to mention forcing people to eat boiled corn or lentils every days for years is damn near cruel.

I guess you could supplement it by dumpster diving for produce, but at that point you could also make the ridiculous claim of not having to pay for food at all.

He did get one thing right though: the biggest cost is housing.

<comment><USER26> >Children, especially, need meat, physically active people need creatine, not easily gotten from plant-based foods.

This is entirely false, some meat marketers have duped you. "Creatine is not an essential nutrient[8] as it is naturally produced in the human body from the amino acids glycine and arginine." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine)

There are entire countries that grow up vegetarian and turn out just fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wish this article was less long winded, but I fully agree with the point. So long as we push the narrative that "You're poor because you just don't try as hard as privileged kids" is not fixing the problem.

To fix the problem we need to address it as a group, and not shove blame on individuals. As a privileged person I can clearly see my world would be better if others had less poverty.

So what's the action item here? I wish there was a "latent voter momentum" website where I could pre-vote in this direction when laws and candidates come up.

<comment><USER28> What can we do? Nothing really: the main thing to do is to vote better, but we don't do that, we vote for candidates who make the problem worse. In fact, a significant portion of lower-income people are making the situation worse for themselves by voting for politicians who work against their best interests economically.

<comment><USER29> _we vote for candidates who make the problem worse_

Phrasing it this way makes it appear that people are thinking "which candidate will make the problem worse? I'll vote for that one." I think you'd agree that the vast majority of people are _not_ doing this. They're voting for candidates who appeal to them and what they feel is in their best interest.

There's at least one confounding factor that may make it more difficult for one to understand the voting behavior of another: candidates represent a prioritized set of values, and that set may not perfectly (actually, very likely doesn't) match the prioritized set of values of the voter. (There are single-issue voters out there, and it would interesting to know what percentage of people are and for which issues.) For example, while a voter may appear to be voting against their economic best interest, perhaps social issues are more important to them, and they'll choose a candidate that appeals to those social issues.

And, of course, there's the biases that are a part of human psychology. We're not perfectly rational _homo economicus_. People can be influenced to make decisions that are against their best interests (for whatever value of best interest you'd like to propose). From that point of view, we can try to get people to vote better through education and influence. And again, what that means is up for debate: you could say voting better means for their best interests economically, but even that leaves open the question of what that means: short-term outcomes? Long-term outcomes? Economically better for their children? Grandchildren? Their community? The country? The world?

I grant you, it's not an easy problem to fix. Encouraging people to think critically as well as putting in place measures of political performance and more transparency into lobbying and contributions are a few I personally think would make a difference.

<comment><USER28> Oh, I definitely agree that 1) people don't actually think they're voting for someone who'll make the problem worse, and 2) voters are prioritizing particular values. Single-issue voters are real; I've met many. They all seem to be on the right, however: they have two issues, abortion and guns. There's no shortage of people I've heard say "I won't vote for X because s/he wants gun control", and all other issues be damned. So it's really easy for that party to just harp on those issues and get lots of votes from people who just refuse to think about anything else until they get their way on those. I really do think that, for those voters, candidates could tell them "I'm going to work to ban abortion and eliminate all gun restrictions, and I'm also going to increase your taxes 5-fold while eliminating all taxes for richer people, and I'm also going to help some companies pollute the land you're living on and prevent you from taking legal action against them", and these candidates would still get elected by these people.

However, this doesn't make my initial statement wrong: I said these people are voting against their best interests economically, and it's true. And it's my contention that these people are actually stupid because they do this, by prioritizing a couple of hot-button issues over things that really would affect them personally in a much more profound way than whether other people have abortions (RvW has been around for over 40 years now) or whether they can own machine guns (gun laws in this country are already very lax and no national candidate has proposed doing much to change that for some time now).

I have no idea how you get people to think critically when they've never done it before. The only way I've seen that actually works here is for someone to get a decent education. That just isn't going to happen for some middle-aged conservative living in West Virginia mining coal. Worse, it's not just uneducated blue-collar workers voting this way, there's plenty of seemingly- intelligent people who have bought into very far right-wing politics, for very different reasons than what I mentioned above. Much of it seems to be outright racism AFAICT, like the alt-right websites I've seen lately that rail against interracial dating, pushing racial purity, something straight out of Hitler's Germany.

<comment><USER29> It sounds like understanding how people arrive at their values and politics is something that interests you. I found Jonathan Haidt's _The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion_ [0] very interesting, one of the most important books I think I've read in the past five years or so. I highly recommend it.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The first few paragraphs of OA brought to mind _Path to Power_ , the first volume of Robert Caro's Lyndon Johnson biography. The chapter on electrification and the impact it had on women's lives in rural Texas is a real eye opener.

<comment><USER31> Fuck yeah bud. Have you read the power broker?

<comment><USER30> Started with _The Power Broker_ as I have an interest in planning and had read Jane Jacobs' book.

I've read all four of the Johnson volumes, and I'm hanging on for the fifth.

For those that are not familiar with Mr Caro's work...

[https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6442/robert- caro-t...](https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6442/robert-caro-the-art- of-biography-no-5-robert-caro)

[http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a13522/robert- car...](http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a13522/robert-caro-0512/)

<comment><USER31> I am currently 900 pages deep in the power broker and am very looking forward to the johnson volumes. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I favor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_around_the_world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_around_the_world)

<comment><USER33> Ok, but why?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I grew up with a single mom on food stamps, and while we weren't the poorest kids around — I still feel incredibly out of place living in a tech hub that's filled mostly with people with middle class or upper-middle class backgrounds.

I was really shocked when I had the realization that it was a cause of a lot of my social discomfort. Your income level has a drastic impact on your outlook on life and mental health, which is immediately connected to physical well-being. I'm not nearly as comfortable relaxing, taking a vacation, or even ordering a more expensive (and healthier) lunch... despite being privileged enough to have it now.

It would make an incredible difference within a generation if an already first-world country like the US could ensure a basic quality of life that included maternity care, vacation, and healthy food as a standard.

</comment><comment><USER35> >We tell the poor that they have the chance to escape if they just work hard enough; that we are all equally invested in a system that doles out rewards and punishments in equal measure. We point at the rare rags-to-riches stories like my own, which seem to play into the standard meritocracy template.

I don't know anyone who "tells the poor" that. I think most people understand that capitalism is a rather brutal, territorial game. And being raised in a good household is a massive advantage.

<comment><USER36> To the contrary, this mentality is alive and well in America. HN's own yummyfajitas usually drops in on these kinds of threads with a lot of links proving that the poor deserve to be poor due to their own poor decision- making.

<comment><USER37> Why does it have to be so black and white? On the one hand personal responsibility goes out the window and nothing is anyone's fault. Poor? Not your fault. Addicted? Not your fault. On the other extreme personal reponsibility accounts for everything. Poor? Your fault. Addicted? Your fault.

There must be a balance between the two.

<comment><USER38> A voice of reason! I don't know why these discussions become so polarised, so quickly. Most of the time, it seems if two competing theories have supporting evidence, then there's probably some truth to both of them.

Nature or nurture? Free market or regulation? Individualism or collectivism? Career or family? Fat or carbs?

The truth, or optimal choice, always seems to lie somewhere in the middle... some combination of the two. Yet, more often than not, we immediately devolve into partisan camps fighting for one side.

<comment><USER5> Because American society has been sorting itself into camps of radically different worldviews over the last several decades, as is easily observed in the decline of Congressional bipartisanship. _American Nations_ by Colin woodard is _the_ best history book I've read on the origins of these competing worldviews. Email me at gmail if you want links to unpublished and rather turgid but substantively fascinating research on the topic by a former intel analyst (not me).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Well that's not too hard: it's because the right-wing party and its helpers push an ideology that rich people are better people who worked hard for their money and deserve it all, that wealth "trickles down" to poorer people, and that the reason these people are poor isn't because of plutocracy, but rather because of immigrants and minorities "stealing their jobs". We saw this in spades in the recent election.

I'm getting downvoted because this site is a haven for alt-right and libertarian people who believe this stuff. One of the key people in YCombinator is Peter Thiel, a noted libertarian right-winger and Trump supporter. And the tech industry in general is a hotbed of right wing politics and the closely-related libertarianism, which is why all the news about misogyny in tech workplaces is no surprise.

<comment><USER39> You think HN is a haven for the alt-right? Or even the regular right for that matter? Libertarians I'll buy but HN is definitely left-wing. Were you not here for the whole Trump election? Did you not see all the shit Thiel got for supporting Trump?

<comment><USER28> Oh, I don't disagree that there's lots of left-wing and progressive people here too, just as on any tech site. But there's a ton of extreme libertarians and alt-right people too; maybe not a majority among the users, but still a very significant presence, and exercising downvotes.

<comment><USER22> Maybe the downvotes are because of the fairly aggressive political stance? I happen to agree with you, though I felt the tone and substance of the original post was not all that helpful; I probably would have downvoted it too, if it were not already at the bottom, and if additional content hadn't been added that is making it feel like a more worthwhile discussion.

Often people do downvote that with which they disagree, but that's not the intended purpose of the vote; keep that in mind when reading your own 'score'; it may not be the opinion but the content or tone that people are rejecting.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Unity, now valued at $6B, raising up to $525M - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/25/unity-now-valued-at-6b-raising-up-to-525m/ <comment><USER2> I've been developing in Unity since V1.0. Back then you could ring David Helgason and complain about the water shader not working when you run it for 12 hours straight - and get it fixed.

It blows my mind how much they've grown - but not just that - the tool itself is capable of AAA these days. The only real competition at that level is probably Unreal - and that's so very different to get into if you're an old- school unity developer. When you compare the Asset store (where you can practically buy any solution to your common problem) and compare it with Unreal's store - it doesn't really compete.

These two points make me think Unity has such a moat built around developers mindspaces that it's probably super-hard to dethrone at this point.

I'm interested if anyone else has an alternative point of view on unities sustainable competitive advantage.

<comment><USER3> I'm gonna offer you another angle. Custom engine. You CAN almost always beat these general solutions if you specialize with your engine. Question is, should you? Would that specialization offer an advantage vs developing something with a general solution like that?

<comment><USER4> The biggest problem with custom engines is really the tools -- it isn't that hard (relatively) to build a modern feature-rich 3D gaming engine.

OTOH, it is very difficult to build a full tool pipeline that supports that engine.

Most of the value of Unreal or Unity is that the tools are already there and they more or less Just Work and a lot of people know how to use them.

<comment><USER3> Is the format of those tools open? One could, in theory, use their tools, but with custom engine.

<comment><USER5> Just go and use Godot if you want an open / custom engine and good tools. [https://godotengine.org/](https://godotengine.org/)

<comment><USER6> Godot is a fantastic engine. And it's fully open source so if you want to have a hack at it, you definitely can.

And the guys who dev it are cool as.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The key word here seems to be "up to". It'll be interesting to see how many employees (common shareholders) are actually willing to sell their shares to the investors.

If they're holding on and the full $525M isn't raised, then almost paradoxically, I'd wager that Unity is doing really really well. If they're selling, I don't think it necessarily can be construed as good or bad without proper context.

<comment><USER8> > If they're selling, I don't think it necessarily can be construed as good or > bad without proper context.

This is assuming the employees and stock holders are rational and can maintain long-term risky assets. Plenty of people will be looking to cash out as they've held stock for a long period and want to buy a nice house or car or something.

I'm sure the wealthier percentage will take a longer term look at it. But I wouldn't generalize the average equity owning employee as you would a typical public market.

<comment><USER9> Selling shares during a tender offer is a perfectly rational move for employees that are cash-poor and faced with the tax implications of exercising their options. Also obviously for anyone looking to simply de-risk.

<comment><USER8> Fair enough, it's all about how much time and money you have. Rational was a poor choice of words.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've been using Unity for more than half a decade at this point. Some of their choices along the way have been really frustrating to deal with, but on the whole, they've empowered me and plenty of colleagues to create things we might not have been able to otherwise. (Or at least, certainly not as easily).

I know it's popular to hate on Unity for some of the bad games produced using the engine, but I don't really think that's fair -- to me, that's a failure of the storefronts that host subpar games. Creating a tool that makes it easier for people to make games is awesome.

Unity has given me a lot, and I root for the company's success.

<comment><USER11> That reminds me of a discussion around a good (in my opinion) game called Mechanicus that had some poor performance. Unity got the blame for this, but as Subnautica (and plenty other games) has shown, good-looking and performant games can be developed using Unity, it's more an issue of available ressources (Mechanicus had like 1 full-time dev vs +- 6 for Subnautica) and skill. And without Unity, I don't think the Mechanicus team could have developed their game or it wouldn't have been as good.

<comment><USER12> I wouldn't call Subnautica good looking; it has the worst LOD implementation I've seen in a game for 20 years, and performance was quite unremarkable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Amazing when what otherwise sound like dysfunctional/toxic orgs do well. No mention of the sex scandal at the top. Checking Glassdoor as well and seems like a lot of unhappiness in general.

<comment><USER14> Its more amazing that people desperately try to link behavior to finances.

Its from a teaching style done in Christian sects within the United States (and maybe just protestants in general?) where prosperity is linked to behavioral compliance. So you see this unquantifiable anomaly throughout society as the meme brushes off on more people.

Someone doesn't "deserve" x,y,z because of a,b,c. When the reality is that their network has other considerations, and one key aspect of global issuances is that local reputation is less of a factor.

<comment><USER15> Its not much of a stretch to suggest that a company that screws over people in scummy ways has a higher chance of screwing over investors in scummy ways, or just engaging in self destructive business harming behavior in general.

Not sure why you think its some kind of deep rooted christian morality thing.

<comment><USER16> That doesn't seem to me to follow directly. History is full of successful people who treat the wealthy/powerful well, but treat people who aren't wealthy/powerful less well, and come out ahead by doing so. It really is only in Christian morality, imo (or other similar religions' morality), that this kind of thing somehow inherently doesn't work.

<comment><USER15> Its also full of people and organizations who spiral out of control with bad behavior that then sink the entire ship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Okay, so most of us are aware of Unity vs Unreal battle. Are there any other engines which are being used or worth checking them out?

I heard a lot of good things about Godot Engine: [https://godotengine.org/](https://godotengine.org/)

Someone also mentioned here Grid Engine (which I never heard of): [https://www.planimeter.org/grid-sdk/](https://www.planimeter.org/grid-sdk/)

<comment><USER18> Unity could potentially get squeezed between Godot in the low-end and Unreal in the high-end. I've played around with Godot, and for small, performance- insensitive games, like a Candy Crush clone or indie puzzle platformer, it is a nice, license-unencumbered option.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Beginner question!

I want to use a game engine in my video editing pipeline. I want real time video acquisition, real time shading, real time camera manipulation, depth / fov tools, object and scene management, etc. I want to extend it to do all sorts of things, but basically the gist is to mix video editing and game engine, and put actors into complex virtual scenes in real time.

Which engine should I use? Which one supports more video things out of the box?

Ideally it works on Linux, but that isn't a hard requirement.

Also, if you can answer my questions on Skype/Hangouts (or in person in Atlanta), I'd be happy to pay $$$/hr. I want to get a broad overview of the space.

<comment><USER20> It depends.

If you're fully on a professional pipeline (all professional tooling for 3d work), Cryengine can deliver breathtaking stuff. If you're a little more open source geared, Epic is a little better than Unity. Unity behaves like a framework where you buy the rest of the features from the Unity Store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So now it becomes another overfed sacrificial VC lamb. Bye bye Unity I guess.

<comment><USER22> Unity was founded in Denmark.

<comment><USER21> Yep, let's leave that warmness in our hearts once we see all the new fancy subscription models after investor money will be in.

<comment><USER22> I happen to support commercial software, and belive in paying other developers for the tools that help me to get my own money, so.

<comment><USER21> Now you'll be paying new VC customer harassment department instead of developers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why does a private company trying to go public need to raise money from investors?

<comment><USER24> A large part of this is allowing their employees to cash out. When a company goes public, there is often a clause that prevents sales for a certain number of months, and who knows what the share price will do by then. This is actually a really good thing for Unity to do, trying to make the "stock compensation" perk into a meaningful cash-out. It also means employees don't have to deal with holding shares in a public company if they don't want to, as that's hassle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Unity is great at efficiently producing shovelware.

<comment><USER26> Swift, Flutter, React, pretty much any development framework is also great at efficiently producing shovelware. That is to say, a platform for efficiently making things is going to be used to produce a lot of crap, as a rule.

<comment><USER27> Curious as to why you mention mobile targeted frameworks as examples here.

<comment><USER28> Take a look at App Store and Play store - lots of shovelware in both. Frameworks in a meaningful way enable this because they expand the developer base.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Edward Snowden has not entered Russia - Sergei Lavrov - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23045790 <comment><USER3> \--- US Secretary of State John Kerry said it would be "deeply troubling" if it became clear that China had "wilfully" allowed him to fly out of Hong Kong. ---

As a generally pro US European I have to wonder if the US realizes the extent of the PR disaster it is creating with each passing statement. I mean what does this idle threat really accomplish?

It makes China look good, it makes the states look like the bully and it carries absolutely zero weight. If anything it just makes China look stronger internationally.

<comment><USER4> Give me a break. You think anyone is going to care next week when the attention of the media will shift, as it always does, to whatever else is most eyeball baiting, elsewhere in the world.

The baseline strategy has been more or less the same. Hide Obama from the press. Send out robotic talking heads to spew about anything remotely relevant to the issue at hand. And wait for the press to get distracted by something else.

I am racking my brain to come up with an incident that was under the media spotlight that actually pushed the Govt. to act.

<comment><USER5> Well as a foreigner, this whole entire debacle has changed my entire outlook on the US. I don't have faith in your institutions anymore at all.

I understand the public at large will not feel this way, and will simply pass to the next distraction shortly, but this lack of faith I've built up, is going to stay with me for a while.

So instead of a happy Canadian tuning in to your elections and being extremely excited about the future like I was in 2008, I truly believe that your entire system is completely hopeless. No true change can come out of it.

<comment><USER6> As a non-US citizen - I live in Adelaide, South Australia, it is entertaining watching the US Government's reaction, stamping it's feet and calling names like a child, like they think anyone actually believes they matter any more. I know that's a strong statement, and it's directly entirely at the US Gov. not at it's people.

The Bush and Obama administrations have literally made the US the laughing stock of the world, and although it really is rather entertaining, reflectively, this is the world I have grown up in - I'm 32, and I guess it's sad, upon consideration, that I've never known an "America" that was a nation everyone looked up to.

I'm imagining the governments of China and Russia, and any other country along the way, or the destination, just sitting around going "Huh! Hahahahahaha! Pfffffff!" and "Oh look, there goes Snowden, should we capture him, naaaaah, watching the US squirm and stamp it's feet like a child is way too entertaining".

My opinion and observations of the US Gov. over the past couple decades, and my reading of it's history, is pretty bleak, it's as though the only difference between US, China, Russia, India, South Africa, etc etc, is that all the other governments are overtly corrupt. Or, that was a difference.

Another interesting perspective on the Global Diplomatic Climate is that the USA literally is a child, it has existed for only 237 years since the Declaration of Independence. Russia, China, India, these peoples have persisted for millennia.

I guess if you want to be the best in the world, you should at least do what the best-in-the-world are doing, the USA doesn't rank Number 1 in any of the areas that matter to people as human beings.

I think what we'll be witnessing over the next couple of decades is the US being put in its rightful place: at the table, not at the head of it - I mean, it already is that way, with China and Russia constantly vetoing US desires at the UN Security Council, and then the US Military just doing it anyway, but I believe increasingly the rest of the world will not tolerate what is perceived to be the USs 'bullying'.

<comment><USER4> While it is disappointing and frustrating to watch what the American government has been upto these past few years, I would still say the US is, and shall remain for years to come in a league above the country's you mention.

There is a good indicators to measure this, and that is the lines at the visa counters of American embassies the world over. Those numbers aren't shrinking.

<comment><USER5> You're right, but many foreigners think, including myself, that things will change for the worst in the years to come.

Taking your point of immigration, what if the US's unemployment rate continues to climb? I'm sure that many people who would immigrate would not know, as they're going to the US on an advertising pitch (the American Dream), but I'm sure plenty will turn tail and do some sensible research in regards to their prospects in a new country. A 15% to 20% unemployment rate looks rather uninviting. Some interesting statistics that aren't alarmist at the moment: [http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- states/unemployment-r...](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- states/unemployment-rate)

There's also the problem with the overton window to the right that we've seen in the past 30 years. I could see a potentiality where an extremist extremely limits immigration. Any specific extremist policy focused inward will also reverberate throughout the world. There's a reason many choose to not go to Greece or Mexico anymore, and that's because of their reputations.

There's no doubt your statement is correct, and that the US will have global hegemony for years to come due to its military, but I'd like you to put on your optimist hat and tell me why that's a good thing at all. Thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The title is ambigous. I speak russian, so I've checked one russian news resource: [http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gazeta.ru%2Fpolitics%2Fnews%2F2013%2F06%2F25%2Fn_2995905.shtml)

Lavrov actualy said "Snowden hasn't crossed the russian border", not "has not entered Russia".

The quote from the article in OP's link: > Correspondents say Mr Lavrov's comments suggest that Mr Snowden remained airside after landing in Moscow, and so has technically never entered Russian territory.

During last couple of days there were a number of news telling that Snowden flew to Moscow but never crossed the russian border(he had no visa anyway). The only new information in bbc's article is Lavrov's confirmation.

So: Snowden (probably) crossed HK border before flight to Moscow, but after arrival in Moscow he (probably) hasn't crossed the border.

</comment><comment><USER8> > He also called on Russia to "live by the standards of the law because that's > in the interests of everybody".

What he means is that he calls on Russia to side-step its own law and enact US laws in Russia when it benefits the US.

And that the US should be allowed to side-step the law whenever and wherever it so damns pleases.

What a hypocrite.

</comment><comment><USER9> The term "enter" (a country) is a term of art in immigration law and international law, so, yes, it is technically possible that Snowden is on the sovereign territory of Russia without ever having entered Russia. The issue of what travel documents he was using to get on the last airline flight he took, and whether or not those will be considered valid for entry to Russia by Russian authorities, is one of the many interesting open questions in this case.

Does anyone reading this thread have any serious doubt that China uses all national technical means available to maintain surveillance of as many places it can reach, especially in regard to separatist movements like the Tibetan and Eastern Turkestan independence movements? Likewise for Russia; can there be any reasonable doubt that Russia monitors much (all?) Internet traffic to the country from elsewhere, or within the country in general?

<comment><USER10> There are definitely some interesting questions here.

Snowden's passport has been revoked so in theory there is no legal basis for him to leave the transit area. He can assumably claim asylum whilst there but according to Russian Federation Law he doesn't seem to meet the conditions:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Federation_Law_on_Refug...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Federation_Law_on_Refugees)

So I would imagine that Ecuadorian diplomatic officials would have to process his asylum request in the transit area and then fly him from there ?

<comment><USER11> The news I was reading yesterday assumed this also, based on the Ecuador diplomatic plates seen: "Two cars with diplomatic license plates of Ecuador – the country named among Snowden's possible destinations – were spotted at Sheremetyevo airport."

[http://rt.com/news/snowden-fly-moscow- aeroflot-125/](http://rt.com/news/snowden-fly-moscow-aeroflot-125/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > US officials have defended the practice of gathering telephone and internet > data from private users around the world.

> They say Prism cannot be used to target intentionally any Americans or > anyone in the US, [...].

What a relief to us unAmericans..

<comment><USER13> Yeah, I'm feeling so good about this that right now I'm building a local server with full disk encryption to host git repos and internal company chat.

Good bye shiny cloud services. I guess the ease of use/low administration overhead without any high price tag attached was really too good to be true.

<comment><USER12> Cloudservices like tarsnap might still be worthwhile for you.

<comment><USER13> Yes, I thought especially about tarsnap for off-offsite backups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> First North Korea and Iran make a mockery of the USA in negotiations over their nuclear capabilities. Now it's Hong Kong and Russia. Next in line is Ecuador. The reservoir of USA authority is evaporating fast with no real way to stop it. As far as the game of diplomacy is concerned the score so far is USA 0 - 4 Rest of the World (all own goals).

The consequences of this could be rather serious. A diminished USA is going to leave a vacuum which, regardless of the current behaviour of the USA government, is not going to be a good thing as Russia and China rush in to grab what they can.

Writing the history of this and the subsequent events in a hundred years or so will be very interesting.

<comment><USER15> As an Eastern-European dependent on US "soft power" I really hoped that the last "lost" decade would really change how things work at the State Department and about how the US handles its foreign policy generally speaking.

IMHO, the US relies too much on how many carriers they can bring to a "hot point" and how much aerial damage they can cause, sort of forgetting that the Berlin Wall was not teared down using bombs, but because people wanted to purchase Coca Cola and Levi's and to buy print-magazines with real rock-stars on their covers.

There's also something to be said about America needing a Nixon-like strategic thinker (his openness to Mao etc) and forgetting about the small battles that don't accomplish anything (we've killed X mujaheddin in the Yemen desert, we've "liberated" a God-forgotten Afghan province etc)

<comment><USER16> > the US relies too much on how many carriers they can bring to a "hot point" > and how much aerial damage they can cause, sort of forgetting that the > Berlin Wall was not teared down using bombs, but because people wanted to > purchase Coca Cola and Levi's and to buy print-magazines with real rock- > stars on their covers.

That's a powerful statement. I wish I could forward it to Obama and the rest of the heads.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is pretty entertaining.

The US government meanwhile disgraced itself by accusing China and Russia of unlawful behavior.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is pretty much becoming something out of a Tom Clancy novel. You could easily imagine a situation room like you see in many a Hollywood movie tracking him. Though Hollywood, this is not.

<comment><USER18> You say it's not Hollywood - maybe Snowden will end up like the guy in "The Terminal", unable to enter Russia but unable to leave the airport....

<comment><AUTHOR> My guess is, he was put into a waiting car owned by a foreign government and whisked away somewhere or taken to another waiting plane and 'smuggled' out.

But this has been planned with pinpoint precision and I expect there is a lot of 'back channel' negotiation/diplomacy being carried for safe channel to fly him to Ecuador or wherever.

He will probably only turn up officially when he is out of arm's reach of the USA.

<comment><USER4> "Pinpoint precision" gives the governments of the world too much credit. Reacting to developments on the fly is not exactly a strength. There was a (Reuters?) article yesterday that said the Ambassador of Ecuador arrived at the airport and asked the press where Snowden was...and I am expecting thats the kind of stuff that is mostly going on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I guess one good thing about this charade is it keeps the media interested. These sorts of stories normally disappear after a few days, with only the most enthusiastic person able to dedicate their time to follow them.

Same thing with Assange, him being stuck in an embassy is a bit of a freak show (can't think of a better phrase). He pops up randomly and the press can't help but point their cameras and microphones at him. Assange is practically on the media's doorstep.

<comment><USER20> I hope the the NSA spying story stays in the media for many months, because I fear that as soon as politicians stop fearing the outrage over this, they will immediately grant immunities for this like they did with carriers earlier, and will also probably pass new laws to make whatever people may suspect NSA is doing now is illegal (not just unconstitutional) to make it _legal_. But if they fear outrage, they might not do it yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's funny, I look at all this and what comes to mind is the movie "Iron Sky" with its cleverly depicted political landscape. If you watched it, you'll understand :)

The US cheated their way into the Iraq war. Invaded Afghanistan. With Iran likely the next target. Stirred up the Middle East with Egypt, Libya, Syria on fire. Commit drone strikes worldwide. Kidnap and torture people on foreign soil. Keep half the world under surveillance. And the language they converse in is of demands and threats.

I think we have a major bully emerging here.

<comment><USER22> They've been a bully. That's just a sample of recent history.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> _[Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov] criticised what he termed US attempts to blame Russia for his disappearance, saying they were "groundless and unacceptable"._

and

 _Meanwhile, China has also described US accusations that it facilitated the departure of fugitive Edward Snowden from Hong Kong as "groundless and unacceptable"._

Does anyone else find it slightly odd that they used identical wording? Is this a case of the Chinese saying "well the Russians nailed it, let's use the exact same phrase", or what precisely?

<comment><USER24> Standard diplomatic language perhaps?

<comment><USER25> Plus in both cases these could be translations from Chinese and Russian languages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Right, he's in the international transit area, so not officially "in Russia", despite being within Russian territory. (There was that stupid movie The Terminal with Tom Hanks which might be relevant here...)

</comment><comment><USER27> "So Komrade Snowden. We are the FSA. You can talk to us willingly, or talk to this rubber hose... or you can go to the US Embassy for protection. Muhahahahaha"

<comment><USER28> If it turns out neither China, Cuba nor Russia stop, threathen or interrogate Snowden, the comparison leaves USA in a very bad place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Nevertheless:

 _06 /25 14:37 RUSSIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES MAY DETAIN SNOWDEN TO ESTABLISH ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING PASSPORT DETAILS - <USER2>

[http://www.interfax.com/news.asp](http://www.interfax.com/news.asp)

<comment><USER30> Are they allowed to though? He technically isn't in Russian terroritory.

<comment><USER25> Tell me this is US border police and airport security allowed to detain anyone making a hop in the US? I'm pretty sure airport security can detain any and everyone they desire.

<comment><USER31> US airports don't have such a thing as a transit zone. Even if you're flying to a third country via an US airport, you need to go through immigration, collect your luggage, go through customs, re-check your luggage and then endure the whole security circus once again.

This is not the case in most any other airport on the globe, where you usually remain in the transit zone if you're travelling to a third country.

That said: I agree with you that the Russian statement is likely a cop out. If they want to arrest you they wouldn't give a shit if you're in the transit zone or not. That probably goes for every other country too.

<comment><USER25> I didn't know that, thank you for the explanation.

And yes just as you said, IMHO transit zone is not a safety zone from the hosting government, it is more just a convenience thing for the travellers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> So when is the movie coming out?

<comment><USER33> I hear Denzel is in talks to star as Snowden.

<comment><USER34> Not Matt Damon?

<comment><USER35> Political correctness requires that main good character should be Afroamerican and main evil character should be white. If you do the opposite you (director) are considered racist

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> If the information he has is very valuable it's not only the US he should be running from.

</comment><comment><USER37> Russian authorities are either mocking the Obama administration or learning from it:

> ... Mr Lavrov said. "He chose his itinerary on his own. We learnt about > it... from the media.

</comment><comment><USER38> >Russia says it has had no involvement in the travel plans of fugitive US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden.

Is Russia relenting to the US pressure?

<comment><USER35> Russia is probably the country that recruited Snowden as it's agent, and they commanded him to reveal NSA secrets. Now Snowden is probably safe somewhere deep in Russia, and Russian authorities just lie about "no involvement in the travel plans"

<comment><USER39> Do you know something we don't?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> So far so good that if whistleblowers can find protection from the U.S. government, that more will come forward.

</comment><comment><USER41> It's only a matter of time before they get him.

</comment><comment><USER42> Two things: 1\. Putin is sick and tired of US raining (or trying to) on his parade. This would tell US to go F itself, increase Putin's cred in Russia and in many other countries.

2\. Snowden has a trove of intel that Russia would love to have.

<comment><USER35> 3\. Snowden probably already receives paychecks from Russia

<comment><USER43> If he was receiving pay-checks from Russia for spying, it would probably come with the stipulation that you don't blab to the world's media that you're a spy. At the very least it's implied.</comment></comment></comment>


AI and singularity talks - <AUTHOR> http://www.singinst.org/media/

<comment><USER2> N.B. The talks are from last year's Singularity Summit, not the one that just ended.

</comment><comment><USER3> another great website which covers all the latest AI news <http://www.ainews.org>

</comment><comment><USER4> So AI researchers still haven't integrated basic concepts like physical limits on exponential growth?

Maybe that's why they haven't contributed anything useful in the past twenty years.</comment>


Shake:Time - Revolutionary gesture based iOS app. - <AUTHOR> http://shaketi.me Shaketime is revolutionary gesture based iOS timer app. Incredible simple and easy to use. <comment><USER2> Great, can't wait to download

</comment><comment><USER3> pretty cool concept. would it become a trend to use gestures over 'clicking'?</comment>