The Rise of Renting in the U.S - <AUTHOR> http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/02/the-rise-of-renting-in-the-us/462948/?platform=hootsuite <comment><USER3> I've sorta turned my back on the standard american dream. Racing to new areas of growth, working to build someone else's dream, getting paid well immediately for performance, paying high rent, etc to afford the image of success, and making friends that participate in this same high ambition culture. Instead of making markets, markets start making you. All the rules, and "norms" we've collected around ourselves to participate are just foolish.

I ended up just buying and crashing in a van, exiting that mode of being, and am much happier because of it. Now I get to save money, research and build what I want when I want, and generally am very much less stressed. I'm no longer beholden to a landlord, or feel like I must participate in activities that just serve to entertain but not enlighten. I can spend the day at the beach just reading if I wish.

You start to look at time as something that you can control again, and you start seeing how much life truly is a gift, and that life itself should be nurtured and cherished. There is also a sense of independence and DIY that comes along with the lifestyle that feels like I'm leveling up in good ways.

Will this mode change for me? Sure. Change is inevitable. But for now I've found more peace and focus than I have in a long time. I'm now able to concentrate on longer stretches of time that hold bigger ideas, and then asking myself how I might use that time to start refocusing my energy making new markets.

<comment><USER4> How does it work with having a companion. It might be easier to find someone with the same outlook. But if you're already in a relationship it's going to be an uphill battle.

<comment><USER5> I might be able to answer that.

My wife and I are early 30s. I spent my 20s in the rat race, working 60-80 hour weeks for material possesions (nice vehicle, luxury townhouse, etc). At some point, I got tired of it and said, "Can we try something different?"

I switched to a fully remote job. We disposed of the townhouse (no equity in it). We downsized our lives (1 car! I ride a bicycle everywhere! You would not imaging how much better shape I'm in) and began to live more frugally with a short-term plan of moving onto a sailboat and living on the ocean for a few years. We save 50%+ of my income (we live in a low cost of living area), we should be able to retire comfortably around age 45. We'll be moving onto our sailboat in the next few months, learning to sail together, and then starting a long circumnavigation around the world (~5 years).

My wife didn't require any convincing. More quality time together for getting rid of things we shouldn't have cared about in the first place? It was an easy sell. If anything, she sold me.

Rule 1: Pick the right partner.

<comment><USER6> Well you got a remote job, so you did a little locational arbitrage. Most people leave the small towns because of lack of opportunity. The cost of living is low because incomes are low.

Can someone come up with a model that's sustainable and applicable to the majority of people?

<comment><USER5> My remote job pays the same I'd make locally in my tech niche. The benefit comes from no longer having to own a car for myself to commute, gas, insurance on that car, etc. It freed up the $20K in equity I had in the vehicle, and saves me $5-8K/year in commute costs.

If I lived in SF, I would pay at least $2-3K/month for rent alone (that's $24K-$36K/year _after tax_ money you're just burning up). Yet, you can spend under $1K in almost any non-major metro in the US.

> Can someone come up with a model that's sustainable and applicable to the > majority of people?

Make more than you spend and save combined, live frugally, spend judiciously. This is not rocket science.

<comment><USER7> Right, you have a high paying job so it's easy for you to sit on a perch well above the median and tell people how simple it is.

<comment><USER5> It's simple the same way exercise is simple: knowing what to do is easy, having willpower to do it is hard.

Being financially independent can be done on a median wage, full stop.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence](https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence)

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/)

"Is that all too fluffy and philosophical? OK, fine. Here's how to cut your life costs in half. Start by getting rid of your Debt Emergency if you have one. Live close to work. Move to another city if you enjoy adventure. Don't borrow money for cars, and don't buy stupid ones. Ride a bike wherever you can. Cancel your TV service. Stop wasting money on groceries. Give your kids the opportunity to achieve greatness without being pampered. Lose the overpriced cell phones. Learn to appreciate the life-boosting joy of using your own body to get things done. Learn to mock convenience. Practice optimism."

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/08/01/a-millionaire- is-m...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/08/01/a-millionaire-is-made-ten- bucks-at-a-time/)

"A family of four in the US can live comfortably on about 24k per year plus having a paid-off house. With an nice conservative 4% annual withdrawal/return rate on your investments, you need $600k invested to generate this cashflow, inflation-adjusted, forever, plus your $200k house. $800k total. Or, if you want to get off your butt and work very occasionally to earn $12k per year, you can slice the $600k number down to $300k! Or you can save the $600k AND work, and keep saving more and more over the years – ending up a multimillionaire all while doing very little paid work."

You will never get ahead if you live in SF, period ( _maybe_ if you strike a startup lottery ticket; with those odds, might as well buy a traditional lottery ticket and save the nights and weekends). I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. You can view it as an adventure, but you'll eventually need to dig out financially (overcompensate retirement savings) when you decide to move somewhere else.

<comment><USER8> This works once you have a (supportive) partner. It requires living in nice rural communities where you will never, ever meet a new person, though, so if you start it single you'll stay that way forever.

So I'm in a major metropolitan center, burning cash at a way higher rate, so I can hopefully find a wife. If I'm very, very lucky, that wife will want to move with me to rural Colorado.

Sadly, this insane plan is about the best I can imagine.

<comment><USER9> "It requires living in nice rural communities where you will never, ever meet a new person, though..."

Or Pittsburgh. Note where it ranks in the list of highest home ownership and cheapest rents.

(I live here, and there aren't as many tech jobs as SF or NYC, but maybe more than you would expect.)

<comment><USER8> You missed the point: the city is necessary for finding a partner, not a job. Remote working, at a bare minimum, lets you be employed anywhere. You need a critical mass to have any chance of dating (unless you're extraordinarily desirable, or already have one when making the choice of where to live, like the comment I responded to.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Cheerleading for higher house prices used to be widespread, and was a big part of the problem. It's inflation, people. It's still the same house, for more money.

The median house historically costs about 2.2x the median income. That number hit 4x nationally in 2007, and 10x in California. It's not that high this time, but it's still very high by historical standards.[1] San Francisco hit 10.5x in 2007, and now it's around 9x.

In the 1950s, rent in NYC was typically 10% of income.

It may be time to look at applying antitrust laws to rental real estate. Where there are a small number of large landlords, that's likely to push rents up. This is more of a small-city problem than a big-city one; the biggest commercial landlord in NYC has 5% of the rentable commercial space.[2] There are medium-sized cities with one or two big landlords.

[1] [http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/11/daily-c...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/11/daily- chart-0) [2] [https://commercialobserver.com/2015/04/nycs- top-10-biggest-l...](https://commercialobserver.com/2015/04/nycs- top-10-biggest-landlords/)

<comment><USER11> > It may be time to look at applying antitrust laws to rental real estate.

Or better yet, look at repealing or modifying the laws that keep the supply of housing from rising along with the demand.

<comment><USER12> Have you been to China lately? Many Chinese cities are what happens when you allow supply to meet demand. Prices don't necessarily come down with increased supply because it also increases speculation (and contrary to economists believes we are not rational actors). Demand also follows supply, if you increase supply there is often an increase in demand because now people can move to $desirable_location.

<comment><USER13> > Many Chinese cities are what happens when you allow supply to meet demand.

Um, no. Chinese cities are a direct result of government policies to boost GDP through construction and are the supply of housing has little to do with market forces.

<comment><USER14> IMO it's more because of Chinese capital controls: buying an apartment that sits empty for fifteen years is literally the best option they have for turning money today into something valuable when they're old and cannot work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The American Dream is looking more like a middle level marketing organization with false advertising for most.

The problem is we just keep stripping away the middle class and lower class consumer power[1][2] and the solution is getting wages up to fix these issues.

People wonder what happens in a consumer driven economy after stagnant wages since 2001, well this. It leads to Great Recessions, a sideways investment market and a few generations worse off with the US heading in the wrong direction. The country has been Enron'd and drained of cash.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinki...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinking- middle-class.html) [2] [http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/09/news/economy/middle- class/](http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/09/news/economy/middle-class/)

EDIT: Multi-level marketing, was caught up on middle class, thanks for correction.

<comment><USER16> Those articles (and the data behind them) suggest the opposite of your point: the middle class is shrinking, yes, but it's shrinking because incomes are increasing and people who were previously in the middle class are moving into the upper class.

<comment><USER15> Yes and that is welcome, but take another look. They go further to say that since 2000 that trend is no longer a big reason. Even stated in the first paragraph that incomes are falling as the new big reason.

 _The middle class, if defined as households making between $35,000 and $100,000 a year, shrank in the final decades of the 20th century. For a welcome reason, though: More Americans moved up into what might be considered the upper middle class or the affluent. Since 2000, the middle class has been shrinking for a decidedly more alarming reason: Incomes have fallen._

'67-'99 there weren't stagnant wages as much as post 2000, where we have seen a sideways market, massive recession, 15+ years in horrible economic conditions worsen for lower and middle. Costs rising way faster than wage increases eventually crushes the lower/middle.

The CNN article also mentions money locked up in the upper class and so does an associated video [1]. The lower/middle spend in downturns, the rich do not. Eventually demand is depressed and noone can buy anything. It is bad for lower/middle and upper when noone is gaining in income and has no consumer power gains to grow on. People buy less, people sell less when consumer power is locked up.

 _For decades, the middle class had been the core of the country. A healthy middle class kept America strong, experts and politicians said. But more recently, these residents have struggled under stagnating wages and soaring costs._

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeCfq-9l_b8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeCfq-9l_b8) (around :30)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This article is full of "no kidding" like, oh:

> _In fact, metros with greater shares of renters have higher wages, higher > productivity (measured as economic output per capita), and greater > concentrations of high-tech firms, according to Mellander's basic > correlation analysis._

People are attracted to where the jobs are, and so everything gets bought up and inflated, and the late comers have to rent.

In related news, you never see rental apartment buildings among rural grain elevators. Gee, why is that?

Correlation analysis? Yeah, we wouldn't want to jump to any premature conclusions like that the jobs and presence of industry leads to renting; there is a glimmer of hope that we might be able to prove that renting actually _causes_ higher wages, higher productivity and the presence of high- tech. It could be that people come to the city just for the privilege of participating in expensive rent. Then when their bank accounts drain dangerously low, they realize they need high wages, and so they create companies and give themselves salaries.

Fact is that renting is not some way of the future or a shift. Even if 99% of the people rent, it will be because they have to, and all will continue to foster the dream of owning a home, and continue to envy the squirrels in the park that _de facto_ own their own space in the hollow tree, or the birds that have their own nest, and don't pay a fucking thing to anyone.

<comment><USER18> Property taxes should basically kill the dream of "and don't pay a fucking thing to anyone" for anyone that lives in the US.

Especially city dwellers. I was surprised to see tax for properties I could technically afford cost more per year than I had been paying in rent.

<comment><USER19> Yes. Because renters don't pay property taxes /s

<comment><USER20> Though they do usually pay _less_ since they usually live in less property.

<comment><USER21> This. I rent a small apartment near downtown. If I bought property, it would most likely be in the same area, but not a small apartment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm a little surprised that there hasn't been a populist rebellion over interest rates. Low rates have inflated pretty much every asset class. This is especially so in housing: The Fed needed to reinflate housing prices in order to make many systemically important players (banks, AIG) solvent again.

I have to wonder though: In re-inflating house prices, have we just off-loaded the bad investment to non-systemic institutions? ie, avg people?

<comment><USER23> Bernie Sanders, a proud socialist and outspoken advocate of wealth redistribution, just pulled even with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President. In the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, voters under the age of 30 broke for Sanders by 70% (compared to 57% for Obama in 2008). Meanwhile Donald Trump, who has the most liberal social record of all the GOP candidates, and who continually insults the GOP establishment, is 20 points ahead of the rest of the field. For us fans of politics, this is like witnessing two black swans simultaneously emerge within one pond and begin loudly mating. Your populist rebellion may be here.

<comment><USER24> Wait and see on Bernie. NH democrats might as well be from Vermont and I don't think there is any doubt Bernie will eat VT's primary when it comes up.

<comment><USER25> He will probably not win, but he is doing much better than anyone expected. Same with Trump (except he has an outside chance at winning this year).

<comment><USER26> They said the same of a certain junior senator from Illinois. Why do people think Sanders can't win when all evidence points to the contrary.

Sanders is sticking to the core liberals. That solid 25-35% that will actually vote. Hillary is trying to pursue centre, swing voters and losing the liberal core. Trump is doing the same on the right.

Hillary and Jeb assumed they had the left and right core voters, respectively, locked up and both have been proven completely wrong.

<comment><USER27> Sanders can't seem to connect with Black and Latino voters, and if you can't do that you aren't going to win a Democratic primary. Minorities love Hillary, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me.

Also, Bernie supporters skew very young, and young people are relatively bad at making to their polling places, especially in primary races.

He has basically no chance of taking Nevada for example, and will probably be down by tens of points. If the election is close at all there it will be a major win for him.

Also, the establishment Democrats see him as George McGovern 2.0 and are terrified of giving Donald Trump a 49 state sweep.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> My wife and I bought a 2-family (we live in the other unit) a couple of years ago and so many people told us how it was a bad idea. People said we would have horrible tenets and that finding renters would be hard and that selling rental property is a nightmare.

Eight years later and I can tell you it was one of the smarter investments I have made. Had wonderful tenets. And after some refi magic the house is not far from being paid off.

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't think I'd have any interest in every buying a house if it weren't for the insane tax deductions for mortgage interest. Why be stuck in one house when your living situation changes over time (new kids, kids get bigger, kids move away, job changes).

<comment><USER30> That tax deduction does get smaller every year (as the interest/principal balance changes).

The biggest issue I found with owning is that the equity doesn't build up fast enough at the beginning (with a 30-year mortgage), so if you sell after 10 years the costs pile up to the point that you have almost no net proceeds (5% commission, survey/title/transfer tax/inspections, plus prorated property taxes). A 200K property could easily cost you 20K or more to sell.

The best thing you could do is to put as much down as you can, on as cheap of a property as you can (condo, townhouse), then send in additional principal payments so that you could pay it off in 6 - 10 years. Then you can either put away extra savings after that, or move into a slightly more expensive place (about 60K more than your current house), and start the 6 year cycle over again.

<comment><USER31> I would argue in the current situation of 3.5% mortgage rate, the best scenario is to invest the cash in the stock market. If your returns are anything above 3.5% over the 30 year load amount, you're good.

<comment><USER32> I read this counter-point a lot. Its never clear to me how you invest the mortgage payment and also pay rent to live somewhere. Am I missing something? Sincere question.

<comment><USER33> The basic premise behind that idea is rents are (historically were) cheaper than a mortgage so you could take the mortgage-rent delta, invest that, and generate a return greater than the interest rate on the mortgage and end up ahead. A lot of the mortgage calculators have a 3-5yr inflection point where renting, traditionally, was always cheaper if you planned on staying somewhere for 3-5yrs and moving.

The problem is, the equation has flipped. Mortgage payments are now, in many cases, cheaper than rent and there's such a high demand for rental units in some metro areas that landlords have no problems keeping tenants increasing rent 3-10% year over year. Ideally, you could do the same arbitrage buying a house (ideally an asset that nets 0 when you sell it worst case and you get your money back) and invest the rent-mortgage delta into other assets. The problem is "unlocking" the house option. If you don't have exemplary credit, and a certain pile of cash available, banks are leery to touch you and make financing available. Ergo, you get forced into the rental market and there's a huge incentive to turn properties into rentals.

Tack on the millennial generation's hesitancy to settle down in one location and you get a set of economic conditions that encourage renting and regular rent increases.

<comment><USER34> >Tack on the millennial generation's hesitancy to settle down in one location and you get a set of economic conditions that encourage renting and regular rent increases.

Are we hesitant to "settle down" or are we trapped in a death spiral of student debt, rising rents and underemployment?

<comment><USER33> As always, it depends. Speaking anecdotally, most of the millennials I know speak rather forcefully about their desire to not settle down, marry, or begin a family prior to 30. I can count the number (amongst my friends) on one hand who discuss factors like underemployment and debt as being significant in their decision to delay settling down. Most seem to enjoy the party/city lifestyle and spend their time focusing on their career/traveling instead.

Yes, it's possible all of those things are factors but I'm going to argue for most it's subconscious rather than explicit factors in a settle/not settle equation. I think a lot of millennials are buying into the "extended adolescence"/party phase/single life/no responsibility/free spirit/high mobility (pick your moniker) lifestyle choices and acting accordingly - <USER2> on my anecdotal experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands The article doesn't really touch on two very key facts.

1 - When I grew up in the 90's all I heard from my rich business owners were to buy real estate. The value _always_ goes up and its a good investment.

This isn't true anymore with the crash and younger people don't see real estate as a worthwhile, long term investment. As such, they're not looking at paying for something for so long and not getting anything out of it.

Same thing for the "equity" part of this argument. Those same business owners pounded into my head the idea that my money when I was paying rent wasn't going towards anything and I would never have any value in a rental like I would a house or town home that I owned.

2 - The transient nature of the younger generations. When I was growing up, your life arc was pretty well established. Go to college, get a nice job in your career field, get married, buy a house, have some kids.

This just isn't the same plan most younger kids have. My nephew is 21 and has been "couch surfing" for years. He has no aspiration to get married, or buy a house. He pretty much lives day-to-day and gets by with help from his friends. His friends are the same way. They change apartments about every 6 months. Different parts of the city, in order to get closer to where the "action" is they say.

With a far more transient, younger population, it makes sense their not going to buy houses and settle down. We've spent decades talking about how we want to have everything available wherever we are, we WANT to be a mobile society and culture. This younger generation has simply taken it to its logical conclusion. No need for a house when I can just crash with my homies. No need for a tv, house, car since we've developed an entire culture to handle that and give it you on your phone, tablet, laptop wherever you are. Car? We have Uber and Lyft. No house? We have AirBNB,

This makes sense on a bunch of different levels tbh.

<comment><USER35> Are leases so short there that they can just move every few months?

<comment> at-fates-hands Closer to 6 months, but yes. They put an ad on craigslist or some of the other smaller publications like the kind you see at bars. They pool their money, get a small ad that talks about taking over a lease near some hip part of town.

My nephew said within a week or so they're flooded with responses, They work out the paperwork with the landlord and they're on to the next place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Why are mortgage debtors referred to as home owners?

Edit: I was being a bit facetious.

With liar loans, no down payment mortgages, deferred interest, "prices only go up," etc, it's been too easy to sell home "ownership" to people without their requisite understanding of the risks involved and the constantly changing market realities.

I'm all for personal responsibility but the use of language is powerful.

<comment><USER37> Because in the US we like to sell people on the idea of "ownership", when the reality is that the bank retains all the real value.

Only a fraction of so-called "homeowners" actually own more than 50% of their home. Most homeowners just rent from the bank. Many will rent from the bank for life.

The way homeownership is sold in the US is nothing more than a way to get people to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars to the banks under the illusion that they are building wealth or equity. And when they finally sell their home 20 years after they bought it for twice the price, they don't even consider that after inflation and mortgage interest they basically broke even.

<comment><USER38> Hm, I've never thought of it this way, but you're entirely right.

This explains why many struggling families can "get" "reverse mortgages" in which they sell their earned equity back to the bank that has always owned the majority share. Until they have sold all their shares, and are evicted, that is.

<comment><USER5> Indeed. Being a mortgagee is simply a renter by another name, with tax breaks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> A decade ago, I lived in an area where people lost houses left and right. One neighborhood had a 50% foreclosure rate. Those people all lost whatever equity they had and home prices have gone up significantly since.

Of course more people are renting. If they have managed to save the down payment required, they have to question whether they could really afford that property again. Most haven't because rents are higher than their mortgages used to be. Who can save $100K+ in that situation? And if they could, where is that $500K house that you can buy with 20% down? Probably not in the same area where you have a job that allows you to save $100k.

The government is propping up the banks which are propping up the housing market. We'll see a little pop in the next 24 months, but it will be a quick one because it will release some of the hold backs that are in place today.

</comment><comment><USER40> As a side effect of historically cheap money, house prices have risen so high that entire younger generations are locked out of home ownership in quite a few areas.

There are a few outliers but in general it's good jobs, affordable housing, pick one.

<comment><USER41> > As a side effect of historically cheap money, house prices have risen so > high that entire younger generations are locked out of home ownership in > quite a few areas.

If it is a side effect of cheap money, how is it pricing people out of the market? The rising sticker price of the property should be offset by the lower price of money which is driving it, so that the actual total real cost of the purchase (including the financing cost) is the same.

Only if something _other_ than the general price of money (an increasing _spread_ between the price of money for favored debtors and disfavored ones, presumably including the young people priced out of the market) is driving real estate prices should someone be priced out of the market.

<comment><USER42> I live in Toronto, 10 years ago a house in the suburbs may have been affordable for someone like me, now they are hugely over priced. I could make a 5% downpayment and have a mortgage till the day I die, but that doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Maybe rational buyers have been priced out of the market?

<comment><USER41> I'm not saying that people aren't priced out of the market, I'm saying that decreases to the general price of money _cannot_ explain people being priced out of the market.

> I could make a 5% downpayment and have a mortgage till the day I die, but > that doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Right, but if the only price increase was attributable to the lower price of money, you'd have a mortgage just as long and with just as much burden now as before the decrease in the price of money -- you'd just pay a higher nominal purchase price on the house, and lower interest and fees associated with the loan.

If, instead, you've been priced out of the market, that means something other than a general decrease in the price of money is involved, because the increase in the prices is out of line with the decrease in the price _you_ would pay for financing. If it is cheaper money driving the price, its money that has gotten cheaper _for some other class of potential buyers_ than it has for you.

<comment><USER42> I agree that there is something more beyond the cheap money, however it is possible that the cheap money, combined with a few bad actors has driven up the prices.

Say one or two houses sell way over market value, that drives up the price of all the houses in the neighbourhood. If that happens a few times you have massive price increases fueled by easy access to money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I think this articular is giving off some bad interpretations. First and foremost this guy's data all starts at 2006. Well, do a quick GIS for a chart on home ownership in America. 2006 was basically the peak for at least the past 40 years, and probably longer than that. Drawing conclusions about how America is changing based on changing home ownership since a huge bubble which peaked when he started calculating his data is downright poor science.

</comment><comment><USER44> I find it interesting that many people look at governments differently than they look at say grocery stores or auto mechanics. If a grocery store or auto mechanic is charging too much or providing poor service, I would go to another one. Why don't people do that with governments? Obviously, because they're kinda "stuck". Moving can be a serious pain in the rear.

So how to make moving easier? If you're renting a home, then it's certainly easier to move than if you're owning. However, it's still a major pain if you own a lot of physical stuff. But as far as I can tell, owning lots of physical stuff is becoming less and less necessary. You no longer need a huge amount of music records, paper books, VHS movies, billiard table, pinball machine etc., since you can fit all those things into a tiny computer. Also, online shopping makes finding/buying any item easy, so keeping things just in case you might need them someday makes less sense now than it used to.

I currently own a home, but I'm tempted to become a renter.

</comment><comment><USER45> [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent- calc...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent- calculator.html)

<comment><USER46> I love it, but it doesn't include the rent being raised every year like clockwork. Right now it's $1500, next year $1575 etc

<comment><USER47> The option to change the rental growth rate is located under the section titled "What Does the Future Hold?" with a title of "rent growth rate" and a default value of 2.5% (with a range of -5% to 15%)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I'd have to save up almost a years pre-tax salary to buy a home. Well, one that I would _want_.

I could save up half a years pre-tax salary and buy my not-ideal house. Nice/modern home, good location/schools, or large size. It seems like you can only pick 2 without spending a ton of $.

Until then, I rent.

<comment><USER49> Wow, in my area you can almost buy a (albeit - modest) home outright on a years mid+ level tech salary.

<comment><USER50> Where do you live and what kind of salary are you talking about?

<comment><USER49> Atlanta area. Average Ruby web dev salary for region and experience level. You can buy a McMansion (if that's your thing) for less than the price of a closet in the worst parts of the Bay Area. Poke around on zillow.com.

<comment><USER50> I don't live in the Bay Area, but I live in L.A.. Cost of living wise it feels like I do. I can't believe how much money goes to rent, and paying for lots of gas for commuting. The urban sprawl with lack of a good efficient means of public transportation, is pretty disgusting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> The statistic that went most against my intuition is that San Francisco has the one of the lowest 'rent burdens' in the US. That is, rent as a percentage of income is on the low end and equivalent with many Midwestern cities. I'm guessing that the typical SF renter paying 25% of income on rent may be dealing with a _lot_ less space (and more roommates) compared to someone in Pittsburgh or Minneapolis.

<comment><USER52> The lower burden might also be because SF incomes are a lot higher than in the Midwest.

<comment><USER53> This is true, but I wonder why. Are SF employees simply that much more productive than elsewhere? (Serious question, it might be that for certain types of work, you really do need the talent base here, but a company is certainly paying a premium for it these days.)

<comment><USER54> Yes, they're some of the most educated people in the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Has anyone released a halfway-decent 'Rate My Landlord' site? Asking for a friend.

<comment> steve-howard They'd need to address the powerful incentive to create fake reviews.

<comment><USER56> While true, I think the bigger issue is that no landlord would, in their right mind, agree to be represented on a website that is almost certainly going to contain nothing but negative reviews.

If one stops to ponder what would make an individual want to rate their landlord on a "RateMyLandlord" kind of site, then the answer is pretty simple: hatred. The biggest reason for people to write such a review is to complain. Usually, the complaints people write stem from issues related to their inability / lack of desire to pay their rent on time.

Landlords hate not getting paid. Especially in major cities, where regulations basically annihilate their ability to operate in an honest and competitive way without significant impact on their financials. Getting their monthly rent on time is really the only way they can turn any kind of profit on their business.

My income is higher than it has to be for the place I rent here in Brooklyn. But I get charged far below market rents. Why? Because I pay my rent every month on time without hassle. Because I don't wreck my apartment, don't need many repairs, and don't bother my neighbors. So even though I could afford to pay the market rate, I am a 'good' tenant, so I pay the so-called "preferential" rent, which is almost $400 per month cheaper than the rent cap instituted by NYC's horrid rent control laws.

That's right. My landlord could actually charge me more, but he doesn't, because I'm not a shithead. What am I supposed to write in my RateMyLandlord review? That I am a good tenant and get charged lower rent than everyone else? There goes all of my reward for being a decent person.

I don't see any way for such a site to work without damaging reputations or ruining nice arrangements tenants already have with their landlords.

<comment><USER57> I was a good tenant. I paid on time. I didn't wreck my apartment. I did need repairs once: the hood (required by code) over my stove was never installed. I did ask for an exterminator repeatedly, because mice were coming in through the walls (there was a 2" gap between the floorboards and the sheetrock behind the baseboard radiator cowling; I caught 18 mice in one weekend). I did ask for an exterminator repeatedly, because about 15 months in bedbugs started coming in through my walls. About 16 months in, my landlord informed me they were going to begin eviction proceedings against me for failure to pay rent. I had paid every month, on time. The building had changed owners, and the new owner bungled their rent payment history. Had to hire a lawyer to send them a letter (along with a thick packet of supporting documents) declaring that no, in fact, I did not owe them four months rent.

So yeah, between illegally trying to evict me, never once exterminating that place, etc etc .... I'm glad I don't live in a building owned by a shitty landlord anymore. I'd give my previous landlord a solid F-; I'd give my current landlord an A. I'm also paying 150% what my previous place was for the privilege of having a landlord that doesn't violate the law monthly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> The ratio of median wage to median rent peaked in 1958 at 22% (or rather, 4.54). That was also the peak of the Baby Boom. Which makes sense, really, because the ratio of wage to rent is one of the fundamental determinants of male sexuality, especially back then, when it was less common for women to work. It was much easier for an 18 year old to afford their own apartment and start their own family.

People often point out that the median male wage in the USA has been declining since 1973, but what is rarely pointed out is that for men under the age of 25, its been falling since 1958. The loss of high paying low skill jobs means the only high paying jobs are high skill jobs. That has forced two adjustments on us: one, people start their adult lives later than they used to, and two, some people never get there, as they never acquire the skills to get there.

</comment><comment><USER38> Just one more symptom of runaway economic inequality...

The consumer has less and less real ownership/power. In good areas, the landlords have realized that year over year rent increases won't prevent units from being rented... and so, people are drained further unless they want to move away from where the jobs are.

</comment><comment><USER59> Financing for real estate projects dried up after 2008, and single-family construction is not an industry that can deliver overnight when demand has risen.

For more analytical view of the real estate market, check out UBS' report (which is bullish) [http://files.ctctcdn.com/f0054e99301/0f155366-4016-4c0f-ade0...](http://files.ctctcdn.com/f0054e99301/0f155366-4016-4c0f-ade0-8fbc6a479acf.pdf)

Looking at current buy-vs-rent ratios is not very useful, as we don't have much insight into the reasons for renting. Some prefer personal mobility that comes with renting, but some are just waiting on more affordable/accessible/convenient ownership options to pop up, and will be buying in a few years.

</comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash To anyone who noticed one of the cities with high rates of homeownership, that can work remote, withstand rough winters, and accept that their football team will never win the Super Bowl, MOVE TO BUFFALO!

Buffalo used to be a very wealthy city. It was the first American city with widespread electricity (thanks, Niagara Falls!), and because it's had some hard times, you can literally buy a mansion at (relatively) bargain prices and rent it out to half a dozen people, and you still get to keep the master bed and bath for yourself.

And there's the added bonus of living in a proud, blue collar city, where people care about who you are, and not what you're paid.

<comment><USER60> I grew up in Buffalo and I would not recommend this for a lot of reasons. There are plenty of other cities with affordable housing (including lower property taxes) and much more pleasant weather.

<comment><USER61> Where? Curious to hear your thoughts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Not a big surprise. Whether or not people want to admit it, economists like Piketty, and many others (even Marx) have predicted this. And the trend isn't going to stop.

The future is looking more and more like Elysium than Star Trek...

</comment><comment><USER63> What is the correct ownership rate? and why do we care about the change from 2006?

The data from 1956 to the present makes this whole article kid of boring. [https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/histtabs.html](https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/histtabs.html)

</comment><comment><USER64> With prices soaring into crazy heights, buying simply becomes harder and harder. The problem is - renting is becoming harder as well!

</comment><comment><USER65> Rent is a tax on the poor by the rich.

</comment><comment><USER66> Think of renting as "housing as a service". Ha.

Except for one problem, landlords. Most are not good people.

Would rather be my own landlord.

<comment><USER67> I don't own, but if I did I'd love a "landlord as a service" where I could just call or email someone about a problem and have them fix it.

<comment><USER68> This I think is important because I sure as hell have never rented anywhere where a landlord was some one to call if you needed to fix a problem.

<comment><USER69> Where I live, if the landlord doesn't fix the problem within a reasonable amount of time, you can fix it yourself and deduct the repairs from your rent payment. You should educate yourself on your local laws surrounding rentals if you haven't already; there are likely similar terms where you live.

<comment><USER68> and then what lose more money taking time off work to go to court when the landlord tries to evict you for not paying rent in full?

<comment><USER70> They won't try to evict you assuming you're abiding by your local renting laws, because I'd bet they've read them as well considering it's part of their job. A lot of landlords will take advantage of the fact that tenants often are not aware of these rules to get away with not abiding by them, but if you demonstrate that you know the laws they aren't going to mess around when you can sue them in small claims court and win handily. Not to mention, oftentimes if you do suffer some opportunity cost as a result of their actions, that cost can be included in the damages.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Developers: Earn Equity for Your Code at SF-Based Late Labs - <AUTHOR> http://tech.co/late-labs-2012-10 <comment><USER2> I get daily requests to join some random startup guys in their adventure, for equity.

They are all horrible and I doubt this model is going to work unless all the startups there are already profiting.

Having 100% of a business that makes $0, "but have the potential" isn't worth shit.

<comment><USER3> This is Nathan from Late Labs. Our goal as a company is to create a community of high level developers who can work on projects together. We are also playing around with the idea of using successful existing companies to let developers work on project together for them. What type of horror stories have you worked on? I know we all have these, our goal in the long run is to help make sure developers don't wast their time on projects that aren't stable :)

<comment><USER4> >What type of horror stories have you worked on?

If you're a developer, then you know what sort of ridiculous proposals are common.

"Build my facebook clone for absolutely zero pay, but I'm feeling gracious so you get 15%!"

I do, however, like the idea of working on granular bits of startups and distributing my risk in a way that makes me more likely to have something take-off than committing to a single startup but not necessarily having any more control than the 'freelancer' mode.

<comment><USER3> That's our long-term goal for developers. Think of the projects we'll let developers work on as creating a diversified portfolio of equity. A developer can either work on one project and take more of a lead position, or work on multiple projects over time (from Late Labs and from other startups we partner with), for a specific equity base. We know how much time and effort building a site/app takes, so we understand. And I've seen so many "facebook clones" proposals over time so I know the feeling, where the team tells you that they potentially have a 1Billion user market. We're going to keep away from that and focus on smart business and marketing strategy :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why do you Late Labs to facilitate developers working on "ideas"?

Developers have too much opportunity to work on the "next great thing" in exchange for equity.

<comment><USER3> Hey, I'm Nathan, one of the people working on LateLabs, and I definitely agree that there are infinite project possibilities for developers to work on. Our goal at Late Labs instead is to create a unique type of community that will allow high level developers to work together, and learn from each other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Do you like the idea of working on a project for equity that's more managed with other developers? And why? And would you use this as a learning experience?</comment>


Advice needed: "friend" stole my idea...what to do? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> Back in Jan I went to a person well respected in the startup community (PG knows her) in BOS. She was a friend of a friend, I've known her for years..she previously had a high profile startup that crashed in the dotcom era. I wanted to bounce the idea off her and get her feedback. So I sent a presentation (marked confidential) and followed up with an hour long chat, which was helpful. She moved to the west coast the day after we talked and 2 weeks later I find that she taken my 90% of my idea, mixed it up with social network and gotten seed funding from a small west coast VC. I've been developing this idea on a shoestring and on the side for 6 months. I've got a lot invested in this. She's hired a indian development firm and been spamming blogs with her site name to get registrations. I've applied for a patent, but not sure it can be of any help right now. What action should I be taking? (besides wanting to run her over)

<comment><USER2> Trust in karma. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," saith the Lord. :)

<comment><USER3> Karma doesn't exist.

<http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Ellis11.html>

<comment><USER4> That article falls a bit short, though. While probably there is no metaphysic power enforcing a karma balance, I like to think of the karma concept as simply another formulation of common wisdom. Some murderers get away with murder, but most probably don't, or if they do, they suffer from it etc. Likewise stealing ideas as a habit might eventually ruin your reputation and your career (although you might be filthy rich by the time).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I read all the comments and can't believe no one gave you some concrete advice. Sure, ideas are worthless until they are implemented but that does not JUSTIFY someone STEALING your idea and breaching the confidentiality! Just because you haven't implemented your idea fully, does NOT mean someone's JUSTIFIED to STEAL it!

Here's what you should do: expose her! That's right, start a blog, start the website for your idea and tell everyone how this person got the idea from you and breached the confidentiality. Post email exchange, provide a timeline of your conversaton with her, provide what you provided her with. Get it out in the sunlight. Investors and VCs will shun away from her since who wants to invest into a person that's a THIEF and invest into a company that might get sued by somoene (you)?! Startups have a low probability of success and these legal issues could just sink it. It's easier to invest into a "clean" startup.

Get the word out about her! Learn about SEO and work on getting your page to show up on the first page results when someone searches for her name. Talk to journalists (TC, GigaOM, etc) and get them to write about what happened to you. Expose her and get some publicity about your site in the process! Destroy her reputation! NEVER forget: in business, reputation is everything! Worst thing you can do is keep quiet about it.

<comment><USER5> Why waste the energy on revenge? Even if you succeed at destroying her startup, you'll be left with nothing. She won't have anything either, but that's pretty cold comfort.

Implement the idea yourself and do it better than she does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> If its any consolation, Google announced plans to emulate a lot of the functionality planned for our new email client, Litepost, days after we started announcing and exploring our ideas with the public and users:

<http://mail.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=suggest>

I'm not saying they ripped us of course (who could possibly prove that?) but I will say that the timing is awfully coincidental, given that the overall ideas behind our program have been in development for almost a year (and we just started publicizing our ideas recently)!

Personally I take it as a compliment, and am grateful/flattered to have such a large competitor emulating plans we've had in development for a while. (The main thing we heard while pursuing this idea was "How can you possibly improve upon Gmail?" Well now Gmail itself recommends recommendations upon its service.)

All this, however, corresponds directly to what PG says and some of you echo below:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html> 8\. Slowness in Launching

(I'm new to this whole arena, so it's taken us a while to a) find the right developers and b) get up to speed before launch.)

If anyone's interested in weighing in, I wonder if open sourcing our project might help it or be of general interest/utility... is anyone interested in "an Open Source Alternative to Gmail that You Can Install and Run on Your Own Servers"? If so, I could use some help.

I am actually interested in ultimately duplicating _and open sourcing_ a lot of the functionality of Google generally, in order to decentralize it (the operation and its power, which after all is only algorithms + horsepower) and nullify the negative privacy implications of Google. What do you think? Any takers?

I think the only possible contender to Google is an open source alternative. Let's Open Source Google!

PS From another news.YC article: "In Silicon Valley, Google-as-the-giant talk is deafening. As others have noted, startups used to get the question "What are you going to do when Microsoft does this?" and today, it's "What are you going to do about Google?" Source: <http://andrewchen.typepad.com/andrew_chens_blog/2007/04/google_a_tale_o.html>

<comment><USER6> (warning: sorry, off-topic a bit here...)

hey nathan - glad to find you on here. (it's Shanti)

I've been meaning to tell you... is your model a hosted one?

One space that Google (nor Sprout) will ever dominate is a software model where you allow clients to install your app on their own servers or VPSes. (i.e. a JumpBox)

Clients then get the best of both worlds: 1) Your killer UI 2) Privacy/Security/Control of their companies email data on their own server

Sure you've thought of this, just thought I'd give it a plug.

<comment><USER2> Hey Shanti- glad to find you here as well! :)

Yes this is along the same lines of what I am thinking recently too. It has become impossible to compete with Google 'on their own terms' (so to speak). So why not just tilt the gameboard a little bit, change the turf, even the playing field back out a little bit? :) (Pardon the worn cliches.)

But seriously, on a related note, here's a very recent article partially addressing this topic: Read/Write Web interviewing Google's open source chieftain (Chris DiBona): <http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/interview_with_4.php>

<comment><USER6> Nathan - yes, exactly.

I think there's a huge market for something like this.

Not to mention partnering up with other big boys in the space to leverage their networks / customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think you should launch your idea ASAP to compete with hers. Since she's using an off-shore dev team you might be more nimble in execution than she is. It's harder to explain to a bunch of guys over the phone exactly what you need done. I wouldn't advice partnering with her. You wouldn't want such a close business relationship with someone you can't trust.

</comment><comment><USER8> Don't feel bad. Just think of the original guy who came up with the idea for facebook. Zuckerberg was PAID to work on his friend's version of facebook, and he simply went off and created his own.

<comment><AUTHOR> I vaguely remember reading about it, that guy got royally screwed. I dont want my case to end up like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Launch immediately. It's your idea so you have a better understanding and the ability to innovate much faster than she ever could.

Who cares if she was 'first' to do it...just make one that is better.

Someone mentioned partnering up with her - don't do it. "Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me"

What a shame, a friend messing up another friend. This industry is definitely more cutt-throat than I thought.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'am interrested in this story because I might find my self in the same situation. Here is the strategy I applied so far.

1\. Keep key aspects secret. One always has to release some info, at least to get some feedback on the pertinence of the general idea or when we sell it. But keep some trump cards hidden in your pocket. This is often related to the 'how' aspect of the idea where you could make a difference with a "stealer".

2\. Proceed in a way allowing you to prove that you shared the idea with X or Y. This is one of the purpose of an NDA (non disclosure agreement). If you can proove that, then you have a leverage on the stealer's investors because you may publish it and it will call back into question their honnesty and fairness. If they ripped you, they could rip clients. This is why public opinion frowns uppon stealing ideas even if it's not illegal.

3\. If option 2 is not possible, then another leverage you have is that you can publish the idea and put the investors at risk to face many competitors and eventually freeware versions of it in a very short time. This is even more effective if the product is not out yet.

Be aware that you represent a direct threat to investment when comming up with such kind claim and want to use these leverages. So prepare your negation before using those leverages. This means that directly after presenting the problem to the investors, present the different options you have at hand. First present the options that would require some sort of cooperation from their side, second the only options left to you if they refuse (the one I presented above) and third that you are open to any other options that they may want to suggest and that would respect everybody's interrests.

Be aware that there are things that can't be undone and also that it is better to have half of something than all of nothing. You can remind this rule while argumenting your cause, but keep in mind that it applies to you too. So be ready to accept an arrangement if possible. Keep a very open mind about the options you will consider. For instance you could ask them to invest in another idea you might have, but be very carefull to not blackmail them into that. Just say that this would be an acceptable outcome for you if they agree to it and that you would then drop the case because you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Of course this suppose you have a valid alternate idea to show them when you say that. But be carefull with this because VC can easily get you out of your founded business if they want to. What you have to sell to VC is your capacity to create value by your inspiration or vision. This is what they are looking for.

There is alot more to say, but PG is much better than me at it.

</comment><comment><USER11> Well...

1\. Partner with her if possible.

2\. Get a lawyer's opinion. There may be legal actions you can take, but I can't provide any advice on this.

3\. Build faster and launch faster than her.

<comment><USER12> I'd go straight to #3. #1 won't work because he trusts her much less than before. #2 isn't bad, but lawyers = $$$ right? and that $$$ and time could be spent doing #3 no?

<comment><USER13> And #4: ideas are worthless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Pissedoff, stop worrying and do your work and get your thing launched. if people are copying your idea, it means its a great one. Second thing is, world is full of copycats and even if she had not steal u r idea, some one would have become your competitor pretty fast. so think her as your competitor and kick start to get her out of business.

</comment><comment><USER15> Are you pissed because you know that this woman has the contacts and industry experience to execute on the idea better then you?

A presentation and an hour talk surely hasn't given her much of an advantage. Go off and build your idea into a successful company. The day after it hits Techcrunch you'll have 50 competitors anyway.

</comment><comment><USER16> So she's outsourced the development and is spamming blogs to get registrations. Doesn't sound like too formidable a competitor to me. If you can code, you can develop your app and launch in less than than the time she's wasting trying to communicate with Indian developers in the middle of the night. Her industry connections won't matter so much if you launch a better product first.

</comment><comment><USER5> Ideas are easy. Execution matters.

You can either do the idea better than she does, or you can start working on another idea. Given that she's outsourcing the development, either one should be feasible.

Suing over ideas is just a waste of effort; the only people who come out ahead in the end are the lawyers.

</comment><comment><USER17> Under US law, it is first to invent, not first to file. Read David Pressman's book on Patent It Yourself.

The fact that you emailed her the presentation, IF any ideas are patentable, is proof enough.

This also proves those wrong who say that "Ideas are worthless".

</comment><comment><USER18> Leverage the 53,651 meme to your advantage: contact all the Web 2.0 startup sites (Techcrunch, GigaOm, Webware, etc.) and tell them that her service is a rip-off of your idea.

<comment><USER19> If the original poster has his service out when he does this, it could end up being both very bad PR for her and very good PR for him.

In fact, her ripping off his idea could end up being better publicity than he would've gotten anywhere else.

<comment><USER20> Future investors _hate_ the idea of IP conflict like this.

If the accusation is public knowledge, she'll have a difficult time raising a second round.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What are your options ... you can launch something better? Unless you have a patent, there is no point trying to talk to her .... What is your background and what is this idea? I would like to evaluate it better ...

</comment><comment><USER22> 2 options

1\. launch now 2\. start a blog about the event

nice-side-effect: get the rest of the world tuned into the idea and create a ton of competition in the space.

</comment><comment><USER23> In order to stealyour idea you first must have owned it. Thing is, ideas cannot be owned, patnents (processes) can. In conclusion, no one stole a thing from you.

<comment><USER24> Process patents won't help if someone who is in a sane country where such daft ideas aren't countenanced wants to copy the idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> But pissedoff you stole your idea from Reddit/Myspace

</comment><comment><USER26> If your idea was so simple that a friend could steal AND execute as YOU envisioned, your friend isn't he problem--your idea is.

<comment><USER27> Lots of people say that, but I don't think it's true. Just because an idea is simple doesn't mean it's a bad or unprofitable idea.

MySpace was a really simple idea, most of which had been done before, just not all on the same site. The reason they were successful wasn't because of the strength of the idea, it was because they got their site out there when the only real competition was Friendster, and since their site relies on network effects for much of its usefulness, it has been difficult for others with the same idea to be successful.

She screwed you over, but I doubt there's much you can do about it except try to beat her. Also, people who do things like that should have to pay with their reputation, but if your idea is too obvious, people will just think you're lame when you tell the story.

<comment><USER26> MySpace succeeded because of great execution. Simple ideas once executed well become great ideas.OP should forget this and continue concentrating on releasing a great product.

<comment><USER27> MySpace definitely executed well, but no one has a monopoly on good execution. In your original comment, you said that if someone else could execute as well as he could, then there's something wrong with the idea. That's not true. There's a good chance that the poster is already screwed, because the person who stole his idea is probably competent. Just because the idea has been marinating in his head longer doesn't mean that he will be more successful. The suggestion that the advantage gained from being the person to come up with the idea in the first place is substantial enough to offset the head start that the person who stole the idea has isn't firmly based in reality.

With that said, I still think he should try to compete with her if he thinks the idea is worthwhile, but he should definitely reevaluate whether or not it's worth it to leave his job/school to do it full time. At this point, anything less than full time isn't going to accomplish anything.

<comment><USER26> Simple: has that woman built the product as well as the OP planned; has she achieved/executed the marketing plans as well as he is planning to? I want to bet the answer to both questions is "no" in which case at this point it is a probably a waste of his time to even think of her.

Back in '01 when my uncle was doing his startup, couple months before his site's launch we ran across a site that was VERY similar to what he was building. And here was a site that looked like it had been born out of my uncle's business plan. Few months later that site would fold--and we're still in business today.

Better question is HOW well is she doing what you planned to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> first off, just wanted to say that this sucks, and you have a right to feel pretty pissed right now.

my first suggestion would be to contact this person directly and discuss what has transpired.

Other issues aside, there might be an opportunity to partner, especially if she has funding and you provide the development expertise.

</comment><comment><USER29> how about partnering with your friend, seeing as you are the originator of the idea. Does he need you to execute upon this idea?

Has he launched yet?

</comment><comment><USER30> Hm, I have some good advice for you... but I'm not sure about some details, why don't you e-mail me your presentation so I can work those out? :-D

</comment><comment><USER31> What was the idea?

<comment><USER32> Yeah, you might as well tell us all now, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> It was a YouTube for documents. :-)

<comment><USER6> You mean Scribd?

<comment><USER33> Seriously.

The thing you should seek now are better friends, and better ideas. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Romans 12:19

</comment><comment><USER35> not much of a "friend"</comment>


View Event Testing in Swift - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@eofster/view-event-testing-in-swift-bce860bb682f <comment><USER2> Related VIPER architecture: [https://www.objc.io/issues/13-architecture/viper/](https://www.objc.io/issues/13-architecture/viper/)</comment>


Libra still needs more baking - <AUTHOR> https://voxeu.org/article/libra-still-needs-more-baking <comment><USER2> Libra is going down the same rabbit hole as Liberty Reserve. Designing a private currency always leads to insurmountable regulatory pressure.

There is nothing moral about agencies such as the FATF. They are products of geopolitics, not user interests. Expect compliance requirements to get more and more byzantine with no end in sight.

You can either comply (a losing battle) or you immunize (a-la Bitcoin).

<comment><USER3> > _you immunize (a-la Bitcoin)_

Honest question: do Bitcoin proponents honestly believe it "immunises" them against the law?

<comment><USER4> I'm fairly sure GP meant that Bitcoin itself is designe to be immune to legal interference. Individual users are not, although by employing a very strict security regime, they can in principle stay completely anonymous.

<comment><USER5> > by employing a very strict security regime, they can in principle stay > completely anonymous

Doesn't that necessarily require avoiding legitimate financial institutions at all costs?

<comment><USER6> Bitcoin isn't meant to interface with existing financial institutions.

<comment><USER7> Correct. It's actually in the first line of the Bitcoin whitepaper's abstract:

> A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments > to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a > financial institution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wouldn't it be simpler for facebook and for its users if they just implemented some sort of "FB Pay" equivalent to WeChat Pay that's tied to their messenger app and be done with it? I'm definitely missing a lot here as I haven't kept up with the latest libra updates but I seriously fail to see why making or calling this a cryptocurrency is the way they chose to go although I'm pretty sure there's a fair amount of greed and powerplay behind this.

Tbh, it is starting to sound a lot like some sort of real world e-coin that is tied to some of the least privacy concerned corporations, banks and governments and with none of the advantages of an actual decentralized cryptocurrency. It looks as it will basically be just an analogous to marked dollar bills but with easier digital traceability? Or am I going too much into conspiracy theory territory?

</comment><comment><USER9> What is Facebook's supposedly compelling justification for for being behind Libra? On its face it makes about as much sense as having Facebook provide health insurance or a grocery store.

<comment><USER10> Sending money to friends/family around the world is still a lot more difficult than it should be. Facebook is already the central hub for lots of families and communities, so being able to easily send money over Facebook would be nice, and having that tied to a specific traditional currency would be a bit inconvenient.

<comment><USER11> Hmm. That makes more sense now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Given that it seems like Libra wants to be an actual currency and comply with pretty much the demands of a national currency, which is to say stability, availability of monetary policy, features to clamp down on terrorism finance and compliance with domestic law, wouldn't it be much more sensible to elevate this entire project from Facebook to a national one?

Get more economists on board to design the institutional infrastructure, people to get the legal compliance right, and then make it the e-dollar. (or something more global in cooperation with other states). Isn't this at the end of the day what people want out of this, the digital equivalent of a normal currency?

<comment><USER13> > and then make it the e-dollar

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't most of our money already digital? What do we gain, other than exchange fees if we want paper dollars and cheques?

<comment><USER12> Ideally, no transfer fees I suppose and universal access for every citizen which was supposed to be one of the distinguishing points compared to say credit cards.

It would have the potential to cut a lot of the middlemen out. I always found it curious that with cash we basically take it for granted that there's a ubiquitous, legally guaranteed payment infrastructure but with digital currencies it's more like a splintered set of services that take a quite considerable cut.

Also a very practical, relevant case. In a situation like this corona crisis, there'd be a trivial way to send everyone their 1200 bucks.

<comment><USER14> A lot of that is more a failing of the US financial system than financial systems in general, of course.

In my country (Australia), our Government could deposit money into the bank account that paid their last tax return with in less than a day... We have no transfer fees and real-time transfers (you can link a phone number to your account too). For international, things like TransferWise are pretty compelling and have crazy low fees...

<comment><USER7> There are people who don't have and cannot open bank accounts, especially in third-world countries. Cryptocurrencies (I'm talking about Bitcoin and friends) give them a way to receive money from anywhere in the world and store it safely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Really, really worried about the above-law-and-regulatory-measures governance that Facebook is exercising nowadays

<comment><USER16> we're in an age when big corporations are starting to wield more power than governments. And nobody elected them.

They'll have their own armed forces, soon enough

<comment><USER17> No, we're in an age in which innovative projects are suffocated by shady politics before they even onboarded their first user.

Remember the letter sent to Libra consortium members by US senators? [1]

They threatened Visa, Mastercard and Stripe with extreme regulatory scrutiny of _all_ their payment business (not only Libra-related) in case they would stay on the project. The threat worked and the threatened companies left the consortium soon after.

This is right out of the playbook of despotic governance: create laws so complex that everyone is probably violating some of them all the time and then selectively enforce the law against those you don't like.

[1]: [https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown- sc...](https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-schatz-warn- payments-providers-of-risks-with-libra-association)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Good, let Libra die for good.

</comment><comment><USER19> I would never use Libra, and I'm not sure there are many who would. But good luck to Zuckerberg, I'm holding 190c 5/1s, so hope they make some smashing announcement come earnings!

<comment><USER20> Remains to be seen what Libra actually would be. It is mostly at drawing board for now. I could use it if it had some compelling use cases. There isnt much privacy with financial transactions anyway.

<comment><USER19> Not especially simple to buy contraband using dollars electronically, over the internet. If we assume those contraints, there are existing solutions that actually work without as much immediate interference.

A dollar replacement with zero additional benefits (like those mentioned above) seems like the exact "solution without a problem" that existing "blockchain" tech was pretending to not be. TL;DR - this won't work!</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Web2Desk – Your favorite websites to desktop apps in one click - <AUTHOR> https://desktop.appmaker.xyz/ <comment><USER2> I just tried this. It's so useful.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm glad that you liked it

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wow, this is pretty neat! Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your kind words</comment></comment>


Old trees grow faster than young ones, store more carbon - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/tree-growth-never-slows-1.14536

<comment><USER2> If the goal is to capture Carbon, I think one should compare on a "per square meter" basis.

I know nothing of that, but let's speculate and do some loose dimensional analysis (corrections welcome)

Energy input from the sun scales with area. So, if energy intake is the major growth limiter of a forest, size shouldn't matter, as far as CO2 intake per square meter per year goes.

If, on the other hand, a forest can capture plenty of sunlight, but is CO2 limited, having more leaf area per square meter might help. Similarly, deeper roots that can go with larger trees can help a tree grow faster if the limiting factor is mineral intake or reliability of water availability in summer.</comment>


Why did the US Government claim Kindle violates civil rights? - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Why-did-feds-claim-Kindle-violates-civil-rights_-1006723-99801389.html

<comment><USER2> This is the scariest line of the article: 'Now, Perez is at work on a far bigger project, one that could eventually declare the Internet a "public accommodation" under the ADA. That could result in a raft of new Justice Department regulations for disabled access to all sorts of Web sites.'

<comment><USER3> _In 2008, Minneapolis-based retailer Target Corp. agreed to pay $6 million to the National Federation of the Blind, a Baltimore-based advocacy group, to settle charges that the design of Target's retail pages on its website illegally denied access to the visually impaired._

It already started a couple years ago.

[http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100727/NEWS/10072...](http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100727/NEWS/100729917)

<comment><USER2> It is one thing for a mult-national business, but I am a little worried that some expensive regs will hit non-business sites.

<comment><USER3> Think the Justice Department is going to be checking market cap before sending out ADA letters?

<comment><USER2> That's what I'm worried about. Not everyone has the resources to make everything accessible to everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article is libertarian bullshit.

"The market" doesn't solve problems that aren't profitable. Apple have been stellar at creating accessible devices and software for a long time and it's wonderful that they include these features for free. Screen reader software for Windows costs a fortune, and while it is more full-featured it's often overkill for someone who isn't totally blind but just has trouble seeing a normal high-resolution screen.

Amazon and Google (with Android) and other tech newcomers are not going to think about accessibility unless there is a stronger force than "the market" pushing them to.

So, if it means adding accessibility features is a necessary condition to being awarded an education contract, I'm all for it.

<comment><USER5> I'll buy that, if you'll also agree that this ruling is liberal bullshit. Even if it conforms to the letter of the law, it is definitely not the intent of the law.

Please note I'm not asking anyone to be less liberal or care less about the ADA; I'm simply observing this is a violation of the intent of the law and of common sense. The fault here is the government's, I'm not pinning this on liberalism in general.

This sort of thing is actually dangerous; it generates anti-ADA sentiment in the public at large. Which would be unfortunate, as the ADA is broadly a good idea. (There are corners I can quibble about, but that's because I'm the contentious sort. It's mostly good.)

Also, even as a little-l libertarian, I would observe that much of the reason the market was "solving" this before the government clumsily stepped in is that the market was well aware that this requirement was coming as a result of the already-existing ADA law. They probably just thought that maybe the government would let them run a test project _before_ they tried to put it into production, at which point they would dot their is and cross their ts, something I find a rather reasonable assumption. Markets are very, very good at serving the majority, and they are very, very good at serving niches with resources proportional to the size of the niche, but if you want the entire market to serve a niche for social reasons you will need government intervention to do it.

<comment><USER6> > if you want the entire market to serve a niche for social reasons you will > need government intervention to do it.

That doesn't tell us who should pay the costs.

If "the people" think that something is a good idea, "the people" should pay for it.

<comment><USER5> "The people" are paying for it. I am not deluded into thinking the ADA is free. They pay in generally raised prices, somewhat slower economic development, and the projects that are never born because they couldn't comply with the ADA, which this project nearly fell under.

It is not anti-little-l-libertarian for a people to democratically agree to pay a little extra via governmental means to accomplish something the market isn't good at. It is anti-capital-L-Libertarian, but I'm not claiming that's what I am.

The real problem is not that our society thinks the ADA is a good idea, the real problem is that for things that like we allow ourselves to be systematically deceived that the cost of the ADA is zero, and we don't have to think about the costs and benefits. This is a pervasive problem; neither liberalism nor conservatism includes explicit concepts of analyzing things for costs and benefits, which is why I consider neither philosophy directly applied actually suitable for ruling us. It's a very good idea to have underlying principles for your governing philosophy but they must always be filtered through a worldview that acknowledges our finiteness.

(Also, I am a little-l-libertarian, so when I said I'm not pinning this on liberalism in general, it is not because I was not a wee bit tempted. It was because it wouldn't be fair or true.)

<comment><USER6> > "The people" are paying for it.

My claim is that they don't see that they're paying for it and they should. This isn't ADA-specific.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The Kindle may not have been perfectly suited for blind people, but I don't understand why printed textbooks aren't worse.

<comment><USER8> Under US federal law publishers are required to provide some compatible format such as ICADD, SGML or ASCII that easily be translated to braille.

<comment><USER7> But if they're providing an alternative for printed books, why can't they provide the same alternative for the Kindle?

<comment><USER8> I'm not making an argument about publishers and accessibility of textbooks. I'm just stating a fact that was overlooked in the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if there is a market for a braille-based ebook reader. Refreshable braille displays already exist and it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to build one in an ebook form factor that could read ebook formats.

Edit: I looked into it a bit. The refreshable braille displays on the market are very bulky, primarily so they can deal with the necessary wear and tear. While I'm sure a smaller, lighter version is possible (especially since it doesn't need features like cursor location) I wonder how small you can actually make it before you drastically cut down on its life.

</comment><comment><USER10> _Of course, most Web access problems are already being solved by the market, but that won't stop the Justice Department's zealous civil rights enforcer._

I just came in to hear the guffaws of the UI designers over this one. The UI guys where I work have read a lot about accessibility and think it's fascinating. Boy, will they be excited if they ever get a chance to add accessibility to a real product.

</comment><comment><USER11> I will not state an opinion on the content of the article. I am unsure what is and isn't true. What may be helpful to know is that the Examiner is not highly regarded in the district. It is little more than a tabloid for the district's rich lawyers. [http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/30063/its-all- in...](http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/30063/its-all-in-black-and- white)

</comment><comment><USER12> A government that has an expansive attitude is like a positive feedback loop - we all know how that eventually ends - at best we get oscillations.

</comment><comment><USER13> Anyone have version of this story which isn't dripping in sensationalism?</comment>


Windows "Next" hate is nothing new - Suraj-Sun http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-next-hate-is-nothing-new

<comment><AUTHOR> I never understood people's love for Windows XP. It maybe started to get good after a few service packs but I found it to be unstable and prone to slowing down after a short while of use even into SP2.

Whatever initial criticisms of XP that had come out were probably justified (It definitely was and still is an ugly operating system). I don't agree with the author's point that people automatically hate whatever windows version come next. It just seems that way because we haven't had a good windows since 98.

The only reason why windows 7 actually turned out to be a decent operating system is because it needed to be, the competition(OSX, linux) was gaining ground under XP primarily because of how bad it was. Sure I imagine that the age of XP had something to do with it but I remember installing linux back in 2004/2005 after one to many blue screens with XP and not looking back until windows 7.

</comment><comment><USER2> Essentially ...

"Does this mean that everyone is going to drop Windows 7 in favor of 8? Probably not; chances are that a ton of businesses and consumers will still be running it when Windows 9 (or even 10) comes out. But that's not necessarily because they hate it, it's just the way people adopt new OSes – with new hardware."

... So will companies and consumers upgrade to laptops with touch screens?</comment>


Youth 'cannot live' without web - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8305731.stm

<comment><USER2> Quite a turnaround from the mid 1990s when admitting you actually used the Internet made you stick out like a geek at school. Well, in the UK anyway :)

</comment><comment><USER3> Inevitable. What will really be interesting is when they're older and realize that instant access to all human knowledge is a basic human right, and launch satellites (or finally get mesh networks working right) for truly ubiquitous internet.

</comment><comment><USER4> The internet has basically, and correct me please if I go overboard, become a massive cultural melting-pot. It's like a single country above all these borders in the real world, and that I think appeals to a lot of the people today.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm 43, and a "digital native", too. And I question this "understand deeply" thing. I would not claim to understand the Internet deeply, and I'm only a professional user since 1992, or so.

<comment><USER6> It's the difference between a 18 year old French speaker that learned French from the cradle, and a 43 year old French speaker that learned French to fluency in college.

<comment><USER5> The point I was trying to make is that many of the so-called digital natives don't know shit.

I'm only doing computing since 1981 or so (it was mostly goats, earthen floors, abacuses and kerosene lamps before), and every day I'm painfully reminded how little I know. Now enter the so-called digital native.

So excuse me if I laugh politely at your metaphor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's not just "youth" that feel that way - I know I do - but I'm old and irrelevant now that I'm 30.</comment>


New Debian project leader talks open source careers, PPAs and more - <AUTHOR> http://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/829303-new-debian-project-leader-talks-open-source-careers-ppas-and-more <comment><USER2> PPAs are an antipattern.

One of Debian's (many) advantages vs. Ubuntu is that there isn't an ecosystem of poorly maintained but easily found packages around the core.

Lending Debian's reputation to such an ecosystem will not improve Debians' standing or user experience.

<comment><USER3> > One of Debian's (many) advantages vs. Ubuntu is that there isn't an > ecosystem of poorly maintained but easily found packages around the core.

Context: I'm a full-time Debian user.

I firmly believe that the future is not around packaging as we've been conceiving of it for the last decade or so, but around packaging in the form of containers[0]. As a Debian user, I'd be really happy to see Debian keep an eye towards containerization as a a first-class citizen of the distribution, the way apt(itude) and dpkg are now.

PPAs can either fit into this model or work against it, depending on how you look at it. They can either enable the creation of containers by virtue of being more flexible and more easily used inside container builds, or they can serve as a crutch for low-quality packaging standards. So, I'd be excited for PPAs in Debian, but I'd like to see them adopted as a tool to facilitate first-class containerization in Debian, rather than the way they are used in Ubuntu more as a place to hold unsupported or less-supported packages.

[0] Not necessarily Docker or even Docker-like containers, but containers nonetheless.

<comment><USER4> what do you think of [https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/tutorials/build- snaps...](https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/tutorials/build-snaps/)

<comment><USER5> That's the tutorial - o you have a more detailed link?

<comment><USER4> For an explanation of Snappy - or how to get/run/use it?

Here is a couple of links for the former

[http://thenewstack.io/snappy-ubuntu-a-new-cloud-os-with- supp...](http://thenewstack.io/snappy-ubuntu-a-new-cloud-os-with-support-for- docker-in-a-post-shellshock-era/)

[http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1434](http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1434)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From: [https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PPA](https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PPA) "Security

PPAs have not undergone the same process of validation as regular ubuntu packages. End users install PPAs at their own risk. Although each key is cryptographically signed, in order to confirm an uploader, keys are not matched to specific individuals, except via their "launchpad" accounts.

Subsequently, installing a PPA should be considered to be a low-security alternative as compared to the main repository, but marginally higher security than simply installing software at random from the internet. As part of adding a PPA, you trust the developer to not only install packages, but also to allow them to provide ongoing updates."

This pretty much sums it all. It's not matter of hostility towards PPA or trying to keep things oldskool. With all effort towards signed, verified packages, reproductible builds etc. adding functionality like PPA is for me nothing more as installing "shareware" windows apps from random sites. Building packages by yourself is not that hard especially with fpm or checkinstall.

<comment><USER7> You might gain some trust in a team which maintains a particular PPA. You import their key manually, and the key is not auto-updated or anything.

Installing shareware windows apps from "random sites" seems riskier, they're not signed by a single uploader's key which you import just once.

<comment><USER6> You're right. I've trolled a little. But still, this brings security issues with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is employment via Open Source contribution really as widespread as he suggests?

Any examples of (smaller than a distro) projects with known paid contributors?

<comment><USER9> Qt, LibreOffice, OpenStack, Linux itself, WebKit, GStreamer, Wayland just to name a few have both paid and freetime contributions (often from the same people too).

Neil works for Collabora, we contribute to quite a few projects in our paid time. ;)</comment></comment>


Google Bounce Rates: The Untold Story - <AUTHOR> http://www.distilled.co.uk/blog/ppc/google-bounce-rates-the-untold-story/ <comment><AUTHOR> My apologies if this is elementary to some (most?) of you... I for one appreciated verification of my understanding of this particular concept.</comment>


The Flop Heard Round the World (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090301419_pf.html

<comment><USER2> I guess this is here as commentary on the Apple watch and the associated hype?

Personally, the thing that disappoints me about the Apple watch is that Apple is no longer even trying to talk about bringing computing to the masses through ease-of-use and reasonable prices. Now they sell a $12,000 watch. (I guess that trend started with the 20th Century Mac)

edit: had the price wrong at $25K

<comment><USER3> Or you could buy the low end one (still very nice) that has the same internals for $350. But keep grinding your ax.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AXINGi3z_Uk/U03c6ZPz- PI/AAAAAAAADs...](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AXINGi3z_Uk/U03c6ZPz- PI/AAAAAAAADsc/_P6pgaoDBSo/s1600/starship-troopers-001.jpg)</comment>


Tools for Bootstrappers - <AUTHOR> https://justinjackson.ca/tools <comment><USER2> That's a lot of affiliate links......</comment>


What technologies will you invest on during 2017? - <AUTHOR> With 2016 coming to an end, I always find helpful to reflect about the future.<p>What trends do you plan investing on, in the form of learning, development or deployment during 2017 and why? <comment><USER2> First, JavaScript and modern Java (Spring Boot etc.): To me those are still the most important technologies in B2B software.

Docker and microservices-related patterns and technologies in general: While not the silver bullet they're sometimes depicted to be microservices have some interesting characteristics beyond scalability alone.

Finally, Blockchain-related technologies (and decentralisation at large): There are interesting potential real-world applications beyond finance (supply chain management, for instance).

</comment><comment><USER3> (re)learning modern javascript properly with a focus on writing desktop like applications and data visualization.

Take my machine learning knowledge from the realm of the statistical/theoretical and toy problems to the realm of solving real world problems for paying customers.

I also want to get more into making things and doing things like wood working, CNC work and interacting with the real world via electronics and microcontrollers, but that is purely for fun.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'very always been a software guy but recently I've been getting into hardware recently, particularly with the raspberry pi. I built a barbell tilt sensor using berryIMU and raspberry pi to track my squat technique and analyze it.

For the coming year I'm going to learn more in the IoT space, particularly getting devices to talk to each other and using machine learning on the firehose of data.

</comment><comment><USER5> Revising Python from scratch in order to have it as a passepartout for nomadic gigs until 2020 and beyond.

</comment><comment><USER6> \- Docker \- Javascript \- D3 \- Node \- Google Compute Engine \- Google NoSQL data store,

</comment><comment><USER7> For my personal projects I am betting on Blockchains and Cloud functions (aws lambda/azure/etc).

I guess 2017 will be the year of small/no framework projects for me ... just because I want to ship instead of fight looking for information.

</comment><comment><USER8> C#, F#, .NET, Visual Studio, Xamarin, TFS, Azure, TypeScript.

</comment><comment><USER9> For a small, personal project I'm working on: I'll learn about XMPP, ejabberd, firebase.

For another small personal project: visualizations (D3.js, especially treemaps). I'll take data from an ecommerce website and display something like what MIT's Observatory of Economic Complexity does to give a big picture of what is selling on that website (categories, products, etc).

My initial idea was for people buying and selling cars having to go through each posting. Instead of doing that, it would be cool to show a scatter plot of postings which would make it easier to detect a good deal.. I'll probably add features like setting alerts for certain parameters and receiving an SMS/email notification if a car matching that shows up.

The site doesn't have an API, so I'll have to get the data by crawling it (Scrapy and Beautifulsoup).. They do use schema.org/Product, though. So it'll simplify things. What would complicate is that many people don't know how to use currency properly (we use cents in usual parlance, and the unit in formal postings. Many can't do the transition).

[https://github.com/jhadjar/krawlr](https://github.com/jhadjar/krawlr)

I'm following a course (Statistical Learning, [https://lagunita.stanford.edu/courses/HumanitiesSciences/Sta...](https://lagunita.stanford.edu/courses/HumanitiesSciences/StatLearning/Winter2016/about))

Other than that, I'm learning React and looking into options to do a custom app for a friend using Bootstrap's dashboard stuff and React instead of Odoo which he finds cumbersome (he has a very small business).

I've been looking at Learning Management Systems because it'd be cool to propose a course in the local language for high-schoolers here according to the national program. Most don't speak English. I'm hesitating between this and doing something like Duolingo but for maths where you could solve problems by writing equations which would be _interpreted and evaluated_ by the system (thus looking into SymPy).

I'm currently unemployed and there are no jobs so I have time, but it's structure and discipline that is the hardest to achieve. Maybe I could use the React/Bootstrap dash/Electron to make custom apps for local businesses. If I had a bit of money, I'd really want to experiment with Hydroponics.

I'm also in contact with local model airplane enthusiasts and looking into ways to streamline the process of creation (build an app they'd use to make it easier for them to make airplanes, maybe add simulations).

</comment><comment><USER8> Datalog, Prolog, Mercury, Eve, RDF/OWL, SparQL, etc.

Fifth generation computing is coming.

</comment><comment><USER10> Elixir/Phoenix, Vue.js & ES6.</comment>


The myth of idiot proofing - <AUTHOR> http://philosophtly.blogspot.com/2009/06/myth-of-idiot-proofing.html

<comment><USER2> > Despite years of trying, making programming languages look more like English > hasn't helped people become better programmers.

That's because human languages are geared towards interactive communication not towards describing problems and solutions precisely. That's why computer languages resemble rather precise math language.

I don't like idea that you should keep inconvenience in place to keep of idiots. Idiots won't succeed anyway but inconveniences harm professionals and novices.

Maybe PHP is too easy but mysql_real_escape_string() is too damn long. And that's why web is full of SQL vulnerabilities.

<comment><USER3> I think the web is full of SQL vulnerabilities because lots of people do not understand that there is a problem with using user submitted data without some kind of tested sensitization method calls that are not homebrew. In all reality they should be using stored procs with named parameters dynamic sql queries are usually hard to do right(depends on the language, php makes it hard).

If you use a stored procedure for user auth and the input comes in as x'; drop table users;-- the system will not drop the tables because the parameters get auto quoted.

<comment><USER2> You could easily design language that would prevent most cases of sql vulnerabilities.

It would only need SQL as first class datatype with it's own literals (let's say sql""). It should not be concatenable with strings. Strings should not be easily convertible to SQL datatype. Any other data should mix with SQL only trough formatting operator (let's say %). Formatting operator should of course provide proper escaping by default.

You'd had to write: mysql_query(sql"SELECT * FROM table WHERE id = ?" % $id); instead of mysql_query("SELECT * FROM table WHERE id = ".$id); because mysql_query() would require parameter of type sql (not string) and you could not concatenate sql with anything else.

Similarly you could prevent XSS attacks by making HTML first class datatype. You could even have native simple templating engine built into formatting operator for HTML.

Stored procedures are bad because they are not straightforward. You can't expect people to keep off the grass and walk around while the shortest path leads directly through the lawn.

Guy responsible for PHP coming up and saying to PHP developers "The Web is broken and it's all your fault." (<http://www.internetnews.com/bus- news/article.php/3631831> ) pisses me off a bit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One thing I disagree with in this blog post is the implicit idea that you should know what you're doing before you try to do something. Unless you're building rockets, often times the best way to learn is by just jumping in and making something, even if your first attempt is poor.

<comment><USER5> This is true - doing is undoubtedly the best way to learn.

What I meant was that you shouldn't do something _for money_ , or to be _put into production_ before you know what you're doing. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Idiot proofing? I thought in computing that was wrapping bubble wrap around the sharp edges and praying they don't hit a button.

</comment><comment><USER7> anyone who says "fool proof" does not understand the ingenuity of real fools.

<comment><USER8> as douglas adams put it, "a common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."</comment></comment>