People no longer believe working hard will lead to a better life, survey shows - <AUTHOR> https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/2020-edelman-trust-barometer-shows-growing-sense-of-inequality/11883788 <comment><USER2> It's crucial to work hard, but FOR YOU, not for your employeer. I have a family member who worked very hard at her dead-end job (was very loyal to the company) and became bitter after they fired her (made redundant because of computerization). If she spent part of that energy on strategising on how to get ahead in her career, she'd be in much better position.

<comment><USER3> I think the point is if you reach a certain level of wealth your money starts working for you, and you really don't have to do anything to get increasingly wealthier.

<comment><USER4> Not true other wise why would lottery winners and sports starts lose money to scammers etc Boxers in particular are prone to ending up in poverty.

<comment><USER3> Because they are terrible with money?

Rich people are rich because they see money as capital to create more opportunities with by investing it.

Poor people are poor because they see money as something to be spent buying more things.

That mentality doesn't necessarily change just because you suddenly come into money.

<comment><USER5> This is an _extremely_ reductive view of rich-vs.-poor. By "reductive" I don't mean _wrong,_ per se -- just that there can be an awful lot more to how much wealth one has than one's beliefs about What To Do With Money.

For years of my life I was, if not precisely "poor," simply not making enough to save a material amount of money. I was nearly 30 before I got the first job that paid me $25K a year. I was not, IIRC, in serious debt then, but savings had never been an option before then -- and what I used those newfound riches to do was move out of the apartment I'd been living in, in an area of Tampa known as "Suitcase City" due to its transient population. (It was also known for high levels of crime.) I still wasn't able to _save_ until that same job's salary was "readjusted for the market" to a whopping $36K.

There are things I didn't know then, sure; the company I was at had a 401(k) plan and I contributed to it, but I wasn't contributing at any higher level than the company matched. When my salary hit (gasp) $50K, that was almost certainly a mistake, but I didn't know that. When I was laid off I had maybe $10K in savings and another ~$15K in investment. By some standards I was still poor, but it was not because I "saw money as something to be spent buying more things" \-- it was in part because I didn't know much about the best ways to save for retirement, but in part because _I just wasn 't making a whole lot of money._ Rich people certainly "see money as capital to create more opportunities with," but heartwarming anecdotes about grocery baggers who became multimillionaires notwithstanding, statistically speaking, rich people also tend to hit relatively high incomes pretty quickly in life. (They also are likely to come from similarly rich families, which matters more than we often like to admit.)

<comment><USER6> His "reductive view" of rich vs poor is an answer to a very specific statement regarding Lottery winner and Sports Athletes which has been discussed many times with the same conclusion: they're just not good at managing money.

<comment><USER7> Right, and how can you expect them to be? If you throw a bunch of money into a poor person's lap, it's not like they magically have the knowledge and know how to invest it.

This is one argument against UBI - money increase alone isn't enough, the knowledge increase needs to come from somewhere as well, and that's not something you can get in the mail.

<comment><USER8> That's actually argument _for_ UBI -- knowledge at managing money comes from having any money to manage. (Unless you teach that in school, but that would be way too sensible)

<comment><USER7> There is a certain amount of knowledge that comes from the experience of managing money, yes. But also, the financial world has a lot of jargon and pitfalls that are aren't exactly easy to learn, especially as a high school dropout with no math background and no educated parents to turn to for help.

The _truth_ about UBI is that a lot of poor people's UBI is going to get completely eaten by predatory opportunists and then they will be in the same situation they are in. What they lack is mentorship. Without mentorship from people good at managing money, UBI (I predict) will not help the poor as much as you think - it will mainly help the educated middle class.

For example, there is a (poor, uneducated) lady in my church receiving the equivalent of UBI from the state of Maryland. However, despite "having money to manage" she has not spontaneously gained knowledge in managing money. I sat down with her once to help see if there was something more she could be doing to stop being in crisis mode all the time, and it was insane how many "bills" she was paying that weren't even real bills. There's this dark network of predators out there that send out mail with a red stamp that says "Payment Due by 1/22/2020". It looks like a bill. But if you read closely, it's actually not a bill but some home security service they are trying to trick you into buying. An educated person tears it up and throws it away. An uneducated person thinks it's a bill to pay and loses a fraction of their UBI. Another fraction of her UBI was going toward utilities she wasn't even using. One bill was nearly $70 from Comcast for cable TV, but I pointed out that she didn't even own a TV. We freed up nearly $200/month that day just by cancelling services she wasn't using and throwing away fake bills.

> Unless you teach that in school, but that would be way too sensible

Schools didn't used to have to teach you every basic skill needed to thrive in society. You could pick those up on your own if you are motivated, or through your parents.

<comment><USER8> But I expect a lot will not, and if a certain percentage of people in your network have a not horrible money management skill, chances you can find somebody to help. Or even just hear casual mentions of some of the things you did for that lady. Eventually most of the people will be ok.

That lady was lucky she knew you. But what should have happened is her sister, or friend, or neighbor, or grocery store cashier, should have been able to smack some sense into her long ago.

Some protections will be necessary for sure. I think there are some anti- gouging laws on the books already, and that fake bill should be classified as fraud if it is not already. Bigger potential money stream for organised crime will motivate enforcement, I'm sure.

Schools teach about traffic lights and using microsoft word. Somewhere between those some budgeting and compound interest lessons would fit right in. Society change and will keep changing, schools might as well keep up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm confused, the headline and start of this article claim "people no longer believe working hard will lead to a better life", but I can't find the supporting data anywhere in the article or the survey itself [1]? The survey does suggest that people in some places are pessimistic about their economic or social futures (divides pretty neatly as "you're optimistic if and only if you live in a developing country") but I don't know where the "working hard" bit is coming from.

[1] [https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2020-0...](https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2020-01/2020%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report_LIVE.pdf)

<comment><USER10> I agree.

Based on my reading of the study, the more accurate claim is: People no longer trust that their employers will take care of their long-term interests.

There's little doubt in my mind that this claim is true.

<comment><USER11> I agree and I think this brings up an interesting point: given the liquidity in the public stock market, employees are often more invested in the long-term success of the company than shareholders. For this reason, I think it's essential that employees are represented in a company's ownership structure if we want to ensure the long-term health of our economy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The best way to get ahead is to inherit wealth.

The next best thing is financial services where you help people with their wealth management.

After that you have to actually start working. Intelligence is key and must be applied to a STEM field or a niche trade/business.

If you don't fall into any of the above things are looking grim. Careers that don't result in high yield profit are looked down upon.

<comment><USER13> > The best way to get ahead is to inherit wealth.

I think you need to define 'best' here. 80% of American millionaires today are first generation wealth, so if by 'best' you meant 'most likely', you'd be wrong.

[1] [https://www.investopedia.com/financial- edge/0810/7-millionai...](https://www.investopedia.com/financial- edge/0810/7-millionaire-myths.aspx)

<comment><USER14> I don't think of most millionaires as being particularly wealthy. Most millionaires are simply people who can retire at 60.

<comment><USER15> Funny, because you'd be wrong about billionaires too, 69% of them are first generation [https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/03/two-thirds-of- billionaires-m...](https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/03/two-thirds-of-billionaires- made-it-themselves.html)

So which is it?

<comment><USER16> Right, but how many of those billionaires started as millionaires (or were born into a millionaire family)? When you have generational wealth, it's much easier to take risks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Hard work always has to be accompanied by being aware of reality around you. Working for UPS I saw all the ways my job could be automated and I knew it was a temporary thing.

I think the hardest thing about our forthcoming economy is that the only jobs that are going to be left are going to be ones a lot of people can't even do because they don't have the talent or smarts. But at the same time a lot of very important jobs are being left undone because we don't value them. For instance: social work, psychiatric health and childcare.

</comment><comment><USER18> I was forced to work less hard by my employer who was paying by the ticket, and that stumped my creativity badly, and the seniors basically told me they're just planning to retire on a slow burner career.

Success these days is mostly about bowing down and impressing the executive branch, which will reward your achiever attitude, according to their standards.

That said, im kind of fresh to work, and those guys got kids.

I think hard work is something reserved for hard things, and maybe what we consider hard work is just misidentification with a job, we on the cost of spiritual growth?

I think were just confused, since what was hard is these days no longer that, and we're experiencing a sort of midway shift.

<comment><USER19> > Success these days

Success has _always_ been about sucking up to the right people.

<comment><USER18> Unless youre someone like ghengis khan, or richard feynman, or elon musk/co.

I think there are different hierarchies to climb in different ways, and hirarchies seem to be distributed in such a way that ass-kissing climbup one makes the majority of the total, still isnt the only one tho, or way.

Wanna hear something funny? I saw a youtube/national geo. Video about chimps, actually about the ass-kissing hiera.

There was a young imp who was helping the aging alpha, he wasnt the strongest, but he was still made alpha by the old alpha, and the grooming kept happening after said appointmment. Funny thin is, the strongest chimp wasnt chosen, and was second in command! He could beat both in single combat, but not while both teamed up.

So i guess the ass kissing stuff has a role, i guess it selects for team players ... but damn man fo they Get toxic and abusive. It sorts of gives the impression that were not worth keeping around ... but then i see someone save a dog and my heart melts for our species.

<comment><USER20> The Khan may have stepped on the necks of Kings and raped queens on a whim, but you can bet he still took care of his own and placated the right people to give him that power to ravage the world outside his Mongols.

<comment><USER18> I wonder if its all cuttroat sun tzu ... it gets old here tbh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The growth rate of capital has exceeded the growth rate of wages for many many decades now.

So you have two choices:

1\. Invest in yourself

2\. Invest in the market

The first would mean you go to school, work hard, etc to earn a high salary. You hope that the payoffs of this will grow year over year. Turns out the long-term growth rate of wages is south of 4%.

The second path you can take is invest your capital in the SPX. I did a quick calculation: SPX level in 1990: 334, today 3273. (3273/334)^(1/30) = 7.9% annualized growth.

So basically the rich, the people with capital, earn almost twice on their investment doing nothing versus someone who invests in their career with hopes of earning more money.

<comment><USER3> Don't talk about the market on HN. Every time I bring it up there's a dozen people who insist that the stock market is a scam and no one should consider an appreciating asset as a contributor to their net worth.

<comment><USER22> The thing about stocks is, to me, that their value is completely divorced from anything other than "what someone may pay for it". Company posts losses, stock can go up. Company posts profits above projections, the stock can go down.

It's solely based on human behavior, which is completely opaque and illogical to me.

EDIT: Disagree if you want, but it's quite demonstrably true. The stock market keep going up only because we humans have put in protections to ensure that it can't crash. We will literally stop trading entirely to ensure that the overall trend is upwards. However, this is unsustainable; permanent growth (that outpaces inflation) is impossible.

Yet we keep (to me illogically) thinking that it will continue this way forever - to quote a sibling thread here "it's the only reliable way to generate wealth," as if it is permanently incapable of also generating poverty.

<comment><USER3> one person wants to sell to another person an asset. They agree on a price and then sell it.

what's illogical about that

<comment><USER22> The asset has virtually intrinsic value. It either pays no dividends or pays dividends which would take decades to match the purchase price.

The purchase "agreement" is also incredible arcane and nonsensical, as it can take one of a dozen different forms that have little in common with a standard transaction between individuals.

For example making money when the asset's price goes down (which also frequently involves psychological manipulation to make the price go down), or a third party purchasing and reselling the asset in the milliseconds between your "agreement" with someone else.

<comment><USER23> "Would take decades to match the purchase price": That's typically because such stock is on a very good growth trajectory, so you paying a high multiple is part of the risk you are taking.

Or, are you genuinely thinking that a business like Facebook should be valued at a 5X multiple just like your small one-person SaaS project would likely be valued if you were to put it on the market? The risk with Facebook is much lower, hence it commands a much higher multiple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The dangers of a free Internet people, the proles are becoming self-aware!

</comment><comment><USER25> Success requires 3 things:

1) talent. 2) luck. 3) hard work.

Talent allows one to have that idea that will provide a large client base when implemented.

Luck allows the ideas to catch on because it is the right time for those ideas.

Hard work allows the ideas to become products and services.

Hard work alone is not enough for success.

<comment><USER26> I would add 4): favorable conditions. This can mean being at the right place at the right time, being born into the right family or meeting the right people. Or you could put this under luck.

<comment><USER27> That's the same as luck

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > frequent consumers of news - remain far more trusting of every institution > than the mass population.

propaganda works

<comment><USER29> Pithy, perhaps, but not entirely justified. For example, the implied causation might actually be reversed, that people who naturally trust institutions consume more news. The causal relationship could also be external to both: some other factor, like financial stability, causes people to believe in institutions _and_ to consume more news. Or, the cause could even be direct, but much less cynical: The news may accurately inspire justified confidence in institutions. (Conversely, people who prefer to make up justifications or excuses might blame institutions _and_ prefer to not expose themselves to news that discomforts that worldview.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> What people call "hard work" is two different things.

One is the puritan work ethic, forcing yourself to do shit you don't feel like doing, day after day, to achieve some goal. That may or may not lead to a better life, but it always leads to burnout.

The other thing is obsession. You are intrinsically motivated to put in a ton of hours on something, and you get really good at it.

The problem is, society is veering farther from human nature, so that there is less and less overlap between what we're obsessed with, and what society considers useful.

<comment><USER31> Does this scenario match what you are saying?

A person who is a talented musician but got a generic office job that has early starts and late evenings. They work hard but never really progress past a certain point. After work they're exhausted so they just watch Netflix. At weekends they socialize with their friends and family.

Instead if that person had worked hard to dedicate themselves to becoming a successful musician their hard work would have paid off more.

<comment><USER32> Counter example: I knew a guitarist who was just amazing. This guy could play any solo, any chord, and improvize. He was quick, and had crazy exercises (besides his normal one). One exercise he had: 30 minutes per day, just strum to build up strength.

Unfortunately, playing music was his only gift. He lived alone on welfare. At least he lived in a country that gave him welfare. But I can easily imagine many musicians who focus on their craft and need to scour for food. Heck, that's to some extent even in my country the case, because if you're only good at music and horrible with money, you won't survive on welfare (I've seen that too, just not with this talented musician).

So IMO it's more complicated than that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Giant third world country (one of BRICS) citizen here. Only rich people believe that.

</comment><comment><USER34> I come from a very rough rural town in Kansas, I've personally known dozens of people who worked super hard their whole lives and still died in poverty and despair.

I'm not sure what the correlation is between hard work and success, but it's much weaker than at least ten other factors.

<comment><USER35> It's not about working hard. It's about working "smart" _and_ hard. You can work crazy hard to dig a hole in the middle of a field, but unless you are actually trying to accomplish a goal, the effort is wasted and leads nowhere.

In much the same way, you can bust your ass working as a cart fetcher at a grocery store, but unless you are intentional about how you are going to use that hard work to leverage yourself into a better position, you are just going to maintain.

Hard work should _always_ be balanced by some amount of self education and intention, or else you run the risk of treading water and getting nowhere.

The reality is that learning is an uncomfortable process. A lot of people find a comfortable rut and they seem to prefer just staying in it. This is why public education is so important. It forces people to give themselves at least a bare minimum amount of education. Just imagine how dumb and poor everyone would end up if parents weren't legally required to educate their kids.

<comment><USER34> Nobody in Kansas is wasting their time trying to dig a pointless hole to China, they are all pinching every penny and coming up with every hack, innovation, and shortcut they can to get by.

The fact that you think people who failed must be stupid or slow learners says a lot about your worldview.

<comment><USER35> If they are so smart but still barely scraping by, why don't they move somewhere else where there is more opportunity?

I mean... it's not rocket science.

<comment><USER34> Not everyone is a young male with minimal obligations to take care of other humans.

<comment><USER35> I grew up in a large family, and we moved over 10 times during my childhood. My parents moved our family every time we needed (like when my dad was laid off and couldn't find work).

It's a complete cop-out to say that only young men with no obligations can do such a thing. My parents had tons of obligations and responsibilities, and they found a way to move when necessary.

People get way too attached to the idea of staying in one place their whole lives. The world is a big place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > Despite strong economic performance, a majority of respondents in every > developed market do not believe they will be better off in five years' time.

This is because the economy is no longer working for the average/median American. Unemployment may be at record lows, but this is missing the point and is NOT the right number to be focusing on. This number does not capture all those people who have given up on working altogether and instead filed for disability and have given up hope. One way that we know this is that the suicide rate is at a record high and the average life expectancy for America is actually declining (which is very uncommon for a developed country)

</comment><comment><USER37> >>> "he is pure symbol: less a person than a shell company for a diversified portfolio of anxieties about the future"

As someone who closely follows & respects Thiel and for his clarity of thought + entrepreneurial ability, how do these outlets get away with writing stuff like this while still maintaining an audience

</comment><comment><USER38> Pretty easy conclusion to come to given the observably lazy people who are incredibly successful and don't have to worry about food/rent.

</comment><comment><USER39> Is not a right question to ask, everyone's "hard" and "a good life" is different from another. It's wildly inaccurate and a sensational headline

</comment><comment><USER40> Houses are nicer than they used to be. Cars, too. We are living longer, and are more active into old age. Smart phones provide communications, information, and entertainment we could only dream of 15 years ago.

People in general are more prosperous than we used to be. Maybe not in some aspects, but most certainly overall.

</comment><comment><USER41> I don't even have opportunity to work hard so it's just pointless, though I am from an extremely rural part of a third world.

<comment><USER42> I think it says a lot about the current state of the world that someone from extremely rural 3rd world is literate and has access to hacker news...!

<comment><USER41> It probably doesn't as much because I am most likely an outlier where I live (and a recent high school drop out).

Ignoring me though, there is something to be said about internet access. You may want to read up on jio and its impact.

[https://yourstory.com/2019/10/reliance-jio-quarterly-net- pro...](https://yourstory.com/2019/10/reliance-jio-quarterly-net-profit- subscribers-mukesh-ambani)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm always reminded of professional athletes. To be in the top 1% you pretty much need the genetics (inherit it). But that doesn't mean you won't get healthy by working out.

You will probably never be a professional athlete, but if you want to be healthy you must be disciplined with what you eat and work out, and you will become healthy.

You will probably never be 1% rich, but you still must be disciplined with how you spend your money and your time, and you can become wealthy.

<comment><USER44> You're underestimating luck. A better analogy would be a process that selects for the top 2% of athletes through competition, then enters them into a lottery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> that is what happens in debt driven world when progress stops and statistics lie. the "wealth" is created by printing money and acquired by those with better access, inflation indices do not account for things that actually matter - housing, education, healthcare

<comment><USER46> Inflation indices almost always account for housing, education, and healthcare.

[https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and- answers.htm#Question_1...](https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and- answers.htm#Question_10)

<comment><USER45> You are right I will have to look at the guidelines book at some point. My feeling they cannot possibly be right because observed wage stagnation combined with observed costs should never converge to low inflation. Do they even consider mortgages maturity length and interests when looking at monthly payments?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> S/better/easier Hard is the opposite of easy... Math checks out.

</comment><comment><USER48> "Despite strong economic performance, a majority of respondents in every developed market do not believe they will be better off in five years' time."

"Fifty-six per cent of the surveyed global population said capitalism in its current form does more harm than good in the world."

Developed markets represent a tiny portion of the "global population".

By and large globalism has caused significant income inequality in developed markets and declining social mobility. This seems problematic until one discovers that in the same 40 years billions of people have been raised out of extreme poverty by globalism and have access to education and health resources that didn't previously.

Source is the book Factfulness or the site: [https://www.gapminder.org](https://www.gapminder.org)

This article is woefully misleading.

<comment><USER49> >This seems problematic until one discovers that in the same 40 years billions of people have been raised out of extreme poverty by globalism and have access to education and health resources that didn't previously

I really think wealth inequality is a terrible metric for overall social wellbeing because it does not consider that the baseline has risen. It just comes off as a greedy attitude to be salivating over your neighbor's plate simply because it is larger, even though yours is quite full.

<comment><USER48> > I really think wealth inequality is a terrible metric for overall social > wellbeing because it does not consider that the baseline has risen. It just > comes off as a greedy attitude to be salivating over your neighbor's plate > simply because it is larger, even though yours is quite full.

Rationally, I'd say that you were correct, but that does nothing to address the feelings of the folks missing the "American Dream".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> what do you mean "no longer"?

working hard never lead to a better life.

the only thing this survey shows is that people are waking up.

</comment><comment><USER51> Good thread!

</comment><comment> tom-thistime Parts of this are commonplace: "Fifty-seven percent of respondents worry about losing the respect and dignity they once enjoyed in their country."

Sure. Decisions are made top-down, expertise is discounted, etc. The culture has drifted.

But then this frightening (to me) non-sequitur (to me): "Fifty-six per cent of the surveyed global population said capitalism in its current form does more harm than good in the world."

Based on available data, abandoning capitalism makes all these problems much worse, plus overshadows them with questions of basic survival.

<comment><USER52> It would be more accurate to say _unfettered_ capitalism does more harm than good.

I don't think most people want to grow a gnarly beard, take up hammer and sickle, and overthrow the bourgeois. People generally like the fact that Apple releases a new iPhone with a better camera every year, and that Gmail reminds them of that doctor's appointment they scheduled six months ago.

What they don't like is that the benefits of automation and increased productivity are going almost exclusively to the one percent. What they don't like is that a college degree is now minimal criteria for jobs that logically should not require one, and that the cost of that degree consumes the supposed salary benefits of having one. What they don't like is the fact that we're watching our ecosystem collapse in real time, and massive polluters tell us that it's our fault for using plastic straws.

People aren't calling for a switch to Soviet-style communism, they're asking for their agency back. They want to be paid wages that are fair, wages that allow them to pay the rent and put food on the table. They want to be able to retire, and they don't want to have to become Wall Street savants in order to achieve that goal. They want to be able to have their health needs taken care of without bankrupting themselves and their family.

Capitalism has made great contributions to our way of life. But unfettered capitalism, or worse, capitalism where the incumbents are protected by legislation, are syphoning off all of the value in our economy, leaving nothing for the everyday person. That cannot continue.

<comment><USER53> I understand your intent, but what people "want" reads like an utopian wishlist. It's not clear that any strategy sustainably can take us there.

All regulations are tweaks to free market capitalism, and more are definitely needed. But do you think that the masses that are rallying up behind authoritarian governments around the world are taking a view as nuanced as yours? I fear they are not.

<comment><USER52> Fair wages, health care, and stable retirement are a utopian wishlist now?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> The article's choice of conclusion to run with is a great example of journalists cherry-picking data to support narratives prevailing among the journalistic set.

If you look at the underlying survey, you have to look very carefully for the data that supports the headline: [https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2020-0...](https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2020-01/2020%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report_LIVE.pdf).

If you look at Slide 73, "my hard work will be rewarded" is one of the three questions that feeds into the "lack of hope" dimension. If you look at Slide 12, "lack of hope" is actually the _least prevalent dimension of the analysis._ Just 26% of people cited "lack of hope" as being "true for them."

There are many clearer conclusions that could've been made from the data. For example, almost everyone in the world sees businesses as more competent and trustworthy than governments. If you look at Slides 39-40, trust in business is 58% globally, versus 49% for government. People trust business even more than the media, which is the same as government at 49%. (Slide 42.)

Slide 52 shows that 52% of people list governments as "corrupt and biased" versus 38% for businesses. Slides 55-56 show that businesses in most countries are rated as at least competent, and in many are rated as ethical. Whereas government is listed as both incompetent and unethical in most countries. (Again, businesses outperform the media, slide 57.)

As to the data about "capitalism"\--generally, the polls on that question look very different when you use a question that explains what "capitalism" means: [https://reason.com/2014/07/10/64-of-millennials-favor-a- free...](https://reason.com/2014/07/10/64-of-millennials-favor-a-free-market- ov). In the U.S., for example, millennials prefer "free markets" to "a government-managed economy" 2:1. See also: [https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/05/23/grea...](https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/05/23/great- news-even-socialists-love-free-market-poll)

> The poll shows that Americans trust the "free market" to be in charge of > nearly every facet of society, including "the distribution of wealth" (by 40 > percentage points), wages (27 points), and "the economy overall" (29 > points).

Internationally, overwhelming majorities of people in emerging and developing countries "agree" with the statement: "most people are better off in a free market economy, even though some people are rich and some are poor." [https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4hP0Ux5fnuZfwOvqn7SnjS- oZac=...](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4hP0Ux5fnuZfwOvqn7SnjS- oZac=/1400x0/filters:no_upscale\(\)/cdn.vox- cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3665018/Inequality-01.png)

</comment><comment><USER3> Yeah...I mean I've made $25K in the stock market already this year for doing absolutely nothing

<comment><USER55> This is a bit disingenuous.

If you haven't sold you have not made anything - it's just that the market values the asset you hold higher than what you paid for it.

If you did sell you made 25k for storing your previous savings in the stock market

It is a choice you made about what to do with your money

<comment><USER3> Would you say the same to someone who has been holding Amazon stock for 10 years? Or Apple? Or has a home in SF?

Unrealized gains are gains. Of course it can go down but no one should subtract that number from their wealth. Appreciating assets are what make most people wealthy.

<comment><USER55> It can go up or down - OP is taking a risk and being rewarded for it

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> No, it won't. Working smart will though. Designing your life so passion, mission, and connection are overlapping. It is very possible to be fulfilled by your work while earning a good living and making a difference in the lives of others.

<comment><USER57> Even having the time to work at aligning these goals is a privilege many do not have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Working hard without thinking hard doesn't work. Working hard without taking risks doesn't work.

Working hard while thinking hard and taking risks has made me wealthy. YMMV

<comment><USER59> > Working hard while thinking hard and taking risks has made me wealthy

I'm sure there are plenty of people who did the same and failed.

There are always many factors to consider but I would say the key one is luck. With a bit of luck you can easily miss one of the others (working hard for example) and still become successful.

<comment><USER60> This is where statistics are important to consider. If you do a task with a 20 percent chance of success but you do it 10 times, your chance of succeeding at least once becomes close to 100 percent. Many people balk at their first or second failure and stop trying, when the key is to keep trying over and over, learning and improving the entire way.

<comment><USER61> How many people do you think can afford to fail 10 times?

<comment><USER60> For a multi-million dollar potential unicorn? Almost nobody even gets one chance. But for a small business started on the side and slowly grown? Anyone middle-class can in the US IMO. You don't need investors or massive loans to start a small business in your free time, just customers that can be earned through word-of-mouth when starting out. Capital grows exponentially, so even small profits can compound into something significant if reinvested.

<comment><USER62> You do need enough free time to start said small business, though, as well as enough capital (even if not "massive loans"). For many people those requirements are pretty tough.

<comment><USER63> And don't forget how many people have clauses in their employment agreements saying that any IP they develop on or off the clock belongs to the company.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Can't Good Engineers Get Hired? - <AUTHOR> https://daves.blog/blog/why-cant-good-engineers-get-hired <comment><USER2> I think at the smallest companies, they do need engineers that can do everything. There isn't enough income to pay teams of people to do specific things, so you are going to have to be comfortable writing code, screwing around with CSS, pushing stuff to production, worrying about security, and laying the framework for hiring the next n engineers. There just isn't anyone else that is going to do it.

At bigger companies, it really varies. There is a lot of specialization, so you can definitely get away with only programming (or only doing SRE, or only developing build/testing tools, or only maintaining production machines, or only developing Linux on embedded devices, etc.) I think that is where you want to aim if you don't care about the details of the "full stack". And, I think it's perfectly fine to specialize; you can probably be more productive when you're focusing on only one thing.

I am 50% looking for a job, 50% doing my own thing right now. The biggest problem I have is that when companies need the skills I have, they have too many employees and I know everything is going to be "meetings to review the employee handbook" instead of engineering. If I were going to write a complaint about the state of the industry, it would be that. Do more with less people!

</comment><comment><USER3> Meta: Contrast ratio on the site is pretty poor.

</comment><comment><USER4> for Cthulhu's sake, put an opaque background behind the menu so that the article text doesn't scroll _through_ it.

<comment><AUTHOR> this is fair. thanks for the feedback, will try and figure it out

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Please increase the contrast ratio.

</comment><comment><USER6> More spam financed by triplebyte. Friends don't let friends vote this up.

<comment><USER7> The amount of ads I see for triplebyte and their copy cats is ridiculous. There must be huge money in it right now. Kind of reminds me of the code school fad a few years ago. I think they figured out actually educating people is hard/impossible. It's a lot easier if they can get you to pass some basic coding test and quickly place you with one of their clients for big $$$.

<comment><USER6> For the last few years there have been a vast number of articles on Tedium with the title "Hiring is broken" where you always find a few mentions of Triplebyte. It's an open secret that they've spent a lot of money on paying bloggers to not just get their message out, but to make sure you are surrounded by mentions of Triplebyte so you think it is a thing.

It seems that they've realized that using the same tired headline over and over on the same tired Tedium site is damaging their credibility so now they are spreading the cash around to other blogs, new headlines, etc.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to find a good UI/UX designer in NYC - <AUTHOR>

I just moved from Melbourne to NYC to be CTO of Blokify (blokify.com, just launched on the App Store). Our goal is to make 3D printing fun and easy for everyone.<p>We have met a couple of designers but I was wondering if anyone could recommend any good NYC designer meetups, job boards or forums? <comment><USER2> There are tons.

Dribbble, AngelList, Meetup, Behance, etc etc...</comment>


Facebook Continues to Sail Its Own Little Web - <AUTHOR> http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/Facebook_Continues_to_Sail_Its_Own_Little_Web

<comment><USER2> I've got to agree 110% with the notion that Facebook should probably work on it's output more than it's input. It's too easy to say they're kind of moving away from users, but that's just how it feels.

More and more features are being added that few people actively use other than developers and advertisers. Who was it, ReadWriteWeb that discovered there were very few applications built around actually networking versus games, and widgets that really do nothing but parse data (though some great applications have come out of that realm of development; Last.FM, Pandora, Delicious to name a few).

But at the same time, it really is kind of hard to see where Facebook is going, or trying to go. Ostensibly an Internet within the Internet is the only thing one can say because that's just how it seems, though I've got to go back to my original argument that echoes what's being said here: Facebook needs to focus on output more. The internet is open, and fwiw, Beacon, Live Search, things like this really relies little on user-to-user interaction.

We'll see I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER3> To _weave_ dammit.</comment>


Show HN: Do you read on the toilet? This web app is for you. - <AUTHOR> http://www.backlabel.gr

<comment><USER2> I'm going to be a little serious here, and suggest that you should actively avoid engaging with anything that might keep you on the toilet longer than necessary to do your business. That position puts a lot of strain on the rectum and anal hemorrhoids, and can exacerbate health problems that tend to go hand-in-hand with desk jobs.

That said, this app is frickin' hilarious.

<comment><USER3> To take it further, I suggest that everyone use a squatting toilet. If you have to use a western sitting toilet, squat on the rim.

<comment><USER4> Absolutely do not stand on the seat. Beyond getting dirty shoes all over the toilet, the asymmetic force during initiation is a great way to break the toilet seat or overcompress the wax seal beneath the toilet (I had an ex- roommate damage my toilet this way). Putting your feet on the rim is a good way to slip and fall. If you want to simulate a squat toilet with a Western fixture, raise up your feet on a step stool. Sit down first then raise your feet. </rant>

<comment><USER5> And before anyone thinks about disrupting the step stool market, it's been done:

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

Complete with puns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> OK, $10M Series A on $30M pre-money, 15% pool, standard preferred stock, offer expires Monday 5PM.

<comment><USER7> Too late, Yahoo has already agreed to pay $50M and integrate with Tumblr.

<comment><USER8> Shortly after acquiring, however, they shut down the product and cancel all plans of integration. All previous employees become assimilated.

<comment><USER6> OK, we'll buy it back, $1M, the seller can keep 20% for schmuck insurance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My heart has just sank into the pit of my stomach.

I am coding a very similar app, right this second.

I'm going to stop and have a scotch.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oooops! :/

<comment><USER9> Begrudgingly; congratulations. It was my bit of fun app after a serious start- up. The scotch will have to do.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Excellent, simple and funny.

Please can we not have any narky comments about this one, appreciate the joke move on with your life. It's typography is not important?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wondered how much productivity has been lost since the invention of the iPhone to extended bathroom breaks...

<comment><USER12> You're joking, but I'll attempt a serious point:

To call that "productivity [that has been] lost", means that there was productivity that should have happened and was somehow stolen.

Sure, there was "productivity potential" in those moments, but that's true for every moment. E.g when we're sleeping, making love or eating. We do we think we should be productive almost every second of our lives, or we "lost" something?

<comment><USER13> The comment mentioned _extended_ bathroom breaks, as in, when someone stays on the toilet for longer than necessary due to having a smartphone.

<comment><USER14> Isn't this why a few groups are working on iphone coding apps? :p

I had a teacher in elementary who didn't like her students staring at the ceiling while she taught. Thinking that we were trying to escape from the lesson, she put several famous paintings (Mona Lisa, Sistine Chapel, etc) on the ceiling so we would at least be learning to appreciate art while in her classroom. There was nowhere in the room to look which wasn't educational.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If you don't want to read this stuff, I would highly recommend Pocket (aka ReadItLater). You use an addon in your browser to bookmark articles, papers, videos, or whatever and Pocket will download it to your phone. You can then read your bookmarks while on the can, even if you don't have a good connection.

</comment><comment><USER16> Idea: A label of Dr. Bronner's Soap with text generated by Markov chains from usually overblown content, e.g. spammy e-books.

A @bronner_ebooks of sorts.

</comment><comment><USER17> Good joke, beautifully executed. Well done!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The fact that this is the #2 link on Hacker News right now says a lot.

<comment><USER19> Mostly that it's Sunday evening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Yes of course, everyone reads while on the toitey, that is a given. But I read the NY Times on my kindle, and occasionally, OK, you got me often, HackerNews (just a second while I flush) ok, where was I... ah yes, what is needed, in my view, is a nice little stand or holder for your tablet, ultrabook, kindle, etc., my arm gets tired, the old time newspaper was much lighter. LOL. I am sure someone has already patented something like that!

</comment><comment><USER21> Am I the only one who thought from the description that this would condense users' social media feeds, making them look like they were product back labels?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hm... Interesting...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Pretty cool idea, but I would love to see the actual back of the product I'm reading. It would be much more immersive, I think.

</comment><comment><USER23> totally lost interest after the 2nd page refresh.

<comment><AUTHOR> What would keep your interest?

<comment><USER24> Real product labels?

<comment><USER25> Some fodder may perhaps be found here:

[http://www.dsld.nlm.nih.gov/dsld/index.jsp](http://www.dsld.nlm.nih.gov/dsld/index.jsp)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Would you read product labels if they were randomly generated? If you couldn't possibly know them by heart? If you didn't learn something new about the world?

Randomly generated walls of text are no fun :-(

</comment><comment><USER27> No. I mainly read HN and blogs in the toilet.

And before having Internet or a portable device I always bring a book with me. I always thought that the bookshelves must be in the bathroom: pure inspiration.

</comment><comment><USER28> Saw this while sitting on the toilet reading my brand-new iPad mini.. My first Apple product.. Thought for a second, how did they track me in here!

</comment><comment><USER29> hiarious! indeed. Me doing marketing, I'm also intrested in the front. Is is it much of efford getting the front of the packages aswell. I would love to compare the individual USP's of the product. With this change.. wow.. this could be a tool people might even pay for :) thanks for the great joke.. Since I'm through with my stuff on the toilet I went for WordBliz ;)

</comment><comment><USER30> The label size should be variable. Not every item needs one of each category.

</comment><comment><USER31> At nearly every company I've worked at or consulted for, the only peace to be had anywhere in the building was in the bathroom, on the toilet. That's a sad state of affairs in an information+ideas economy. So I won't be firing up any apps on the john, thanks very much.

</comment><comment><USER32> maybe its just me but I don't understand what the joke is ? I read through a label and didn't find it humorous ? Is it possibly because i didn't read the right one ?

</comment><comment><USER33> Cool, but hate the justified text. Makes it harder to read :/

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah I know... I'm trying to figure out a way to keep it justified without all the gaps due to random content and unusually large words.

<comment><USER25> [http://www.mnn.ch/hyph/hyphenation2.html](http://www.mnn.ch/hyph/hyphenation2.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Noted. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> you people are disgusting, who would spend more time on the toilet than is needed breathing in their own farts and smelling their own shit. And yet all over the net there are people who are proud of it.

Go to a doctor or change your diet. If your plumbing works taking a dump takes about the same time as picking your phone from your pocket and unlocking your screen - rendering the whole reading to keep yourself busy useless.

</comment><comment><USER35> waited this for my entire life.

</comment><comment><USER36> I was kind of disappointed it didn't have real products.</comment>


Ask HN: Does Anyone Use Code Folding? - <AUTHOR> Does anyone use code folding? If so, what do you feel are the biggest benefits it gives you?
Also curious to see if anyone has any strong reasons against it?
The main benefit I can see is that you can use the folded code as an outline of the classes/functions in the file. <comment><USER2> Code folding is awesome for Lisp. Once a function is working, you rarely have to look at it again. Seeing just the first part, eg: +(defun squared (x) tells just about everything you need to know for reference. If not, the documentation string can easily start on that line, too.

Of course a fold that pops up the documentation string on mouse-over would be the cream on top.

</comment><comment><USER3> I use code folding in Xcode to quickly check if a method is being used in the code base. Code folding allows me to shrink down the amount of scrolling I need to do. Code folding allows me to access the methods I'm checking on that might be "below the fold."

</comment><comment><USER4> Yep, and I here when people do not align line comments properly

<comment><USER4> Hate*, not here :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use code folding when editing the TXR man page, because it's close to 69000 lines long. I developed some custom Vim folding rules for that. Here is what it looks like fully folded:

      +--353 lines: .\" t '\" vim:set syntax=groff:</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----
      +--  3 lines: .SH* NAME</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---
      +--  5 lines: .SH* SYNOPSIS</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----
      +-- 54 lines: .SH* DESCRIPTION</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--
      +--563 lines: .SH* ARGUMENTS AND OPTIONS</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
      +-- 47 lines: .SH* STATUS AND ERROR REPORTING</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----
      +--2290 lines: .SH* BASIC TXR SYNTAX</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--
      +--7519 lines: .SH* DIRECTIVES</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--
      +--2238 lines: .SH* TXR LISP</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
      +--47280 lines: .SH* LISP OPERATOR, FUNCTION AND MACRO REFERENCE</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
      +--4613 lines: .SH* FOREIGN FUNCTION INTERFACE</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
      +--1306 lines: .SH* LISP COMPILATION</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--
      +--1114 lines: .SH* INTERACTIVE LISTENER</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
      +-- 98 lines: .SH* SETUID/SETGID OPERATION</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--
      +--149 lines: .SH* STAND-ALONE APPLICATION SUPPORT</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>
      +--  4 lines: .SH* DEBUGGER</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----
      +--852 lines: .SH* COMPATIBILITY</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>
      +--315 lines: .SH* APPENDIX</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

Then if we open, say, the FOREIGN FUNCTION INTERFACE section, that looks like this:

      .SH* FOREIGN FUNCTION INTERFACE

      +--- 35 lines: On platforms where it is supported, \*(TX provides a feature called the</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>
      +--- 21 lines: .SS* Cautionary Notes</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--
      +--- 79 lines: .SS* Key Concepts</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>
      +--- 53 lines: .SS* The FFI Type System</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----
      +---428 lines: .SS* Simple FFI Types</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--
      +---1091 lines: .SS* Parametrized FFI Type Operators</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
      +--- 12 lines: .SS* Additional Types</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--
      +--- 69 lines: .SS* Endian Types</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>
      +--- 95 lines: .SS* Bitfield Allocation Rules</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----
      +--- 44 lines: .SS* FFI Call Descriptors</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
      +---491 lines: .SS* Foreign Function Type API</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----
      +---544 lines: .SS* Foreign Function Macro Language</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----
      +---157 lines: .SS* Zero-filled Object Support</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
      +---177 lines: .SS* Foreign Unions</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
      +--- 91 lines: .SS* FFI-type-driven I/O Functions</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-
      +---227 lines: .SS* Buffer Functions</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--
      +---997 lines: .SS* Foreign Arrays</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

The Vim setup is this:

      :au BufRead,BufNewFile txr.1            set foldmethod=expr | set foldexpr=TxrManFoldLevel(v:lnum)
      :function TxrManFoldLevel(lno)
      :  let s:line = getline(a:lno)
      :  if a:lno == 1
      :    return ">1"
      :  elseif s:line =~# '^\.SH'
      :    return ">1"
      :  elseif s:line =~# '^\.SS'
      :    return ">2"
      :  elseif s:line =~# '^\.NP' || s:line =~# '^\.co\(NP\|SS\)'
      :    return ">3"
      :  elseif s:line =~# '^\.desc' || s:line =~# '^\.TP'
      :    return ">4"
      :  elseif s:line =~# '^\...IP' || s:line =~# '^\.IP'
      :    return ">5"
      :  elseif s:line =~# '^\.TH'
      :    return "<1"
      :  elseif a:lno == 1
      :    return ">1"
      :  elseif getline(a:lno-1) == "" && s:line != ""
      :    return ">6"
      :  else
      :    return "="
      :  endif
      :endf

It has quirks, but does the job more or less.

</comment><comment><USER6> I use it constantly. It helps visualize code flow in larger files by collapsing branches of loops or conditionals.</comment>


Show HN: Tool for creating interactive plots from custom logs - jerry-hn https://github.com/jerry-git/logplot/blob/master/README.md <comment> jerry-hn logplot is designed with embedded devices in mind. The main motivation for building a tool like this is to visualise errors and trends of state machine states in order to easily identify anomalies in the behaviour of the target device.

However, as the required configuration is quite generic, there might be also a number of other potential use cases.</comment>


If your website's full of assholes, it's your fault (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://anildash.com/2011/07/20/if_your_websites_full_of_assholes_its_your_fault-2/ <comment><USER3> I think it depends on the website you're wanting to run..

I was part of a now-dead "threaded message board", which had a somewhat cliquey view of what should/shouldn't be posted. In the evening when the moderators were away, the discussion became more interesting as it strayed off-topic.

Eventually the community wanted 'to fork' so I decided to build something myself. I'm not IT trained, so first version was PL/SQL on Oracle - all I knew. v2 was the product of me buying an O'Reilly PHP/MySQL book (I still have 'platypus' somewhere).

People came.

First few years were a mess. The more technically literate people used to hack me for fun - but then would confess and provide security tips.

As the mood took me I'd add features, and then if they became troublesome fixed/killed them.

The odd person would arrive and cause trouble, and I'd have fun working out how to make them stop. (correlate logins with emails, password, IPs, browser fingerprints etc). Then maybe experiment with hiding troll-posts from the other users, whilst displaying it to the troll, who thought they'd been ignored - etc etc. Or maybe auto-embed some very dodgy zero-sized images in their feed, if I know they were going through a company/university proxy.

After a while it just all got quiet and relatively happy, and it's been puttering along since 2003.

It's currently got over 9 Million posts, a load of marriages and children - and a few deaths with some 'best-of posts' for the departed.

I'm fully aware this isn't impressive as a potential unicorn, but I feel there's a bazillion other little sites, like mine, happily puttering along out there that are overlooked.

<comment><USER4> You're not IT trained but you knew Oracle PL/SQL?

Edit: I know it's gauche to complain about downvotes, so I'll explain my question further. I find his situation extremely interesting as I associate Oracle with the "IT-iest" of "IT" things.

<comment><USER3> I've no idea why you'd get a down-vote either - whoever that was, "Hang your head in shame and reverse that click"

<comment><USER3> thank you

<comment><USER3> I'd so love to believe that was the same person, who clicked down then up :)

Pretty sure it wasn't - due to the piss-poor design of Y-combinator's forum.

"I don't like click" hides the thing you don't like.

Can't think of anything worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like what he says here, but I note that this particular version of his blog doesn't have comments on it. My guess is that the site has changed since 2011.

He makes a really good point that there are lessons to be learned from, "disciplines like urban planning, zoning regulations, crowd control, effective and humane policing, and the simple practices it takes to stage an effective public event".

But I think what he's leaving out is hierarchy. In 2011, I think a "moderator class" and a "commenter class" was all you needed. But if you want people to treat each other well online, you need something more than that. There needs to be stakes. There needs to be value in building up your standing in the community, there needs to be something to be gained and lost in exchange for the community policing itself.

Right now, a community like Twitter has a sort of chaotic hierarchy. There is the average user, the influencer, the blue checkmark, and the Twitter employee/algorithm doing moderation. Who is answerable to who? How does one climb up the hierarchy? What value does a blue checkmark have in moderating an influencer? Can they? Are average users ultimately incentivized to be dicks in order to get the attention of influencers and blue checkmarks?

Maybe it's time for communities as big as Twitter to make some decisions about this and tame their userbase with more rigid and well-defined hierarchies.

<comment><USER6> Are there other disciplines in which hierarchies have helped improve discourse?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> >>> Advertisers, hold sites accountable if your advertising appears next to this hateful stuff.

This.

One thing that could be very effective is screenshotting genuine brand ad next to vile screed.

How long would it take for a 'bot to look like a white sheet wearing moron to YouTube, and then a little bit of sentiment analysis and you could automate this. Just publish the "daily worst brand fuck" on FB or YouTube.

(Alongside the "monitor tweet feed of politicians for death threats and pass to the cops" idea I have when I get the time I am really honestly going to ...)

<comment><USER8> It's not quite that simple either, and going through the advertisers can cause other negative side effects.

This just happened recently on YouTube: there was a big uproar about sexual- ish comments being posted on videos of children, such as linking to timestamps with upskirt glimpses or similar. Advertisers got contacted about it, and some of them said they would stop doing any advertising on YouTube until it was addressed somehow.

In response, YouTube _completely disabled all comments on videos featuring children_ , and deleted all existing comments. Now there are legitimate channels related to children that had completely reasonable comments (which they moderated) that no longer have any ability to have discussions on their videos. Their ability to interact with their viewers/communities was destroyed because YouTube decided to go scorched-earth to make sure they'd satisfy the advertisers.

<comment><USER6> > YouTube completely disabled all comments on videos featuring children, and > deleted all existing comments.

This sounds like a good mitigation step to me, considering that we're talking about child predators. The incentives are aligned properly here.

<comment><USER9> > The incentives are aligned properly here.

You sure about that? To me it seems like YouTube's incentives are to minimize the chances of advertiser irritation, while the incentives of the children would be to maximize their engagement while minimizing (the impact of) predation. Getting rid of children's channels entirely would be an acceptable outcome for YouTube, but I doubt the children in question would agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The first site to come to mind is voat.co. I explored it out of curiosity a while after the "purging of intolerable subreddits" a couple years back. The impression I got was that of a seedy underbelly of aggregate news sites like reddit, populated by a mass of displaced misanthropes. It didn't take long to nope out of there.

<comment><USER11> I wonder if it's possible to be the less moderated alternative to a popular platform without just becoming the platform for horrible people.

To give an example, in its FOSTA-related policy updates, reddit also banned exchanges of heavily-regulated products like alcohol and firearms. There was no mandate to do so, as safe-harbor provisions are very much intact in case, for example, a reddit user sells a gallon of homebrewed beer to a 20 year old. Such changes might provide motivation for people who aren't at all horrible to move elsewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Well, duh. The problem is applying these policies - because blindly applying policies usually leads to mixed results (innocents banned, trolls using a loophole in policy and proliferating). But to quote the author -

> we have a way to prevent gangs of humans from acting like savage packs of > animals. In fact, we've developed entire disciplines based around this goal > over thousands of years.

We 'just' need to introduce institutes of online courts, judges, lawyers, and presumption of innocence (good thing that enforcement can be automated, so we do not need the execution squad). Also, you kinda need someone to write these policies, and approve them. Maybe an elected group of people - maybe even two groups, to balance the democracy/influence?

If you are not already doing it for your website, you are obviously an irresponsible moron.

<comment><USER13> Did you see this: a random jury of your online peers [https://www.minds.com/minds/blog/power-to-the-people-the- min...](https://www.minds.com/minds/blog/power-to-the-people-the-minds-jury- system-975486713993859072)

I support this kind of stuff in theory but it is incredibly difficult to get to scenarios where this actually happens. You need to be massive scale for it to occur with any regularity.

<comment><USER12> Yes, - and a lot of online communities on the internet has reached that scale. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit...

In case of reddit, the problem is even more interesting. There are subreddits, so it is naturally segregated, and moderators and community are local. The communities can use downvotes to 'stone' an offender, and local elected moderators can enforce a ban. In case moderator or community mishandles the process, 'federal' admins can intervene. So we are pretty much at medieval level of justice there (much better than whatever constitutional dictatorship facebook and twitter have).

<comment><USER13> I deleted my Reddit account long ago. Opinion based downvoting is so toxic on small subreddits, and cannot be disabled in any meaningful way.

<comment><USER14> I deleted my account after someone who was obviously just being a dick to me in a subreddit got me temp banned for trying to reach out to them in a PM and be civil. The guy posted the message which was entirely civil and claimed it was harassment. No threats, no name calling, suggested based on his public posts that we had a lot in common and it looked like in another topic we might be good friends, how that leads to a site wide temp ban I don't know, but his completely dick, personally insulting comments because he disagreed about a software feature we're apparently wanted. Thanks Reddit I'll pass, honestly most social media is pretty much a cess pool which is why, present company excepted, I avoid it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This post is more reasonable for smaller curated communities, but as we can see from, well, every large social website that exists currently, it can be difficult to scale. I'm curious what the other thinks the solution would be to an obvious example like Twitter. When a website consists of so many groups of users that everyone's definition of 'assholes' contradicts the others, you find that banning them gets to be pretty difficult, not to mention the amount of humans that are required to moderate.

edit: Even if you have a policy that seems perfect to you, it will not be executed perfectly in practice when there are 1,000 different people attempting to enforce it as moderators.

<comment><USER16> Having worked at Twitter on abuse, I think that Twitter could do far more. They've gotten better, but it's still trivially easy to evade bans, the moderation decisions are frequently terrible, and there are a zillion other things wrong.

That said, I think an ad-funded global discussion is impossible. You can't do good user moderation with that little money (~$0.10 per user per day total revenue, with a tiny fraction of that going to abuse prevention). I think Twitter should allow people to create semi-private spaces, zones for discussion where users can be much more firm about moderation. It should also make collaborative blocking and muting much more effective.

<comment><USER17> Thats kinda of what Mastodon is isn't? People are free to spin up their own communities with their own rules.

Everyone complains about Twitter but when alternatives are presented that gives them the power to do what they are asking for no one wants to try them.

<comment><USER16> Mastodon is more distributed than what I'm thinking. But yes, even if it were, network effects mean that people won't leave Twitter. Which is why I think it's necessary for Twitter to do better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've been grappling with this for a while. I run a site/app that is a popular team based hidden roles indie board game. Apparently its full of assholes. I mean I get it, the theme and dynamics don't lend itself to happy players really but I got nothing - I've put hundreds of hours into volunteer moderator tools and they work great, the site itself does not have a griefing/racism/hate speech problem, but it does still have an asshole problem. Not sure what else I can do, other than take credit for it. =/

<comment><USER14> I mean, the game itself sounds like the type that would draw people who wanted to prove to others how smart or good they are from your description(PvP). I find that community/coop based games (PvE) tend to draw less assholes because of the type of people who enjoy those games.

<comment><USER18> Yeah it is the hardest of hardcore PvP games - it involves people having to lie to other people, every game. Throw in internet strangers and an ELO system and yeah it becomes an impossible thing to moderate other than "don't use hate speech or get banned". I just wish I knew what I could do better. Things like this get me down a bit. [https://old.reddit.com/r/SecretHitler/comments/b9l1kv/secret...](https://old.reddit.com/r/SecretHitler/comments/b9l1kv/secret_hitler_io_should_be_taken_down/)

<comment><USER14> I mean it sounds like the game is attracting the type of people who would be attracted to the title, and then sticking around for the challenge. I don't think that's a problem you really need to invest in solving. Eve online has a similar problem with the ability to rob entire months of work with betrayal. Any game where lying can lead to a positive outcome is generally going to encourage a mindset. If your players like the game then it's the niche that you're serving, doesn't seem to be anying wrong with that, they're having fun. My question to you would be are you enjoying running the game and building it, you're there now important person in this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I feel like Anil Dash is pretty much the last person who should be talking about internet "assholes". He's very often on the front lines of Twitter mobs and is generally extremely caustic. He should reflect on his own behavior online before preaching to anyone else.

<comment><USER20> This is a fairly classic ad hominem comment.

What difference does it make who makes this argument, if the argument itself is sound? On the other hand, if the man is 50% saint, 50% angel, and 50% genius, what difference would that make, if the argument itself was terrible?

Comments suggesting that he shouldn't make this argument do not actually address the argument itself. In the best case, they are a distraction from the subject being discussed.

In the worst case, they are a form of tone policing, which is a tactic for silencing sound arguments by complaining that they are not being made by the right people, or in the right way. Example:

A man murders another man. The police torture him into a confession. He complains about the torture. Is he the last person that should be complaining about violence? But if not him, who? Must we wait for the perfect angel of an innocent victim of police brutality, before we act on it?

<comment><USER21> It makes all the difference in the world who's making this argument. He relies heavily on the idea that there's some universal category of "assholes" that websites should ban, and that if any website doesn't it's their fault and everyone should pressure them to fall in line. There is no such universal category that everyone agrees on. So what he's really arguing is that people who _he considers assholes_ should be banned by every decent website that wants to receive advertising money, and it's impossible to seperate that argument from his specific moral values and actions.

<comment><USER20> In my opinion, your comment is stronger if you simply state:

 _[This argument] relies heavily on the idea that there 's some universal category of "assholes" that websites should ban, and that if any website doesn't it's their fault and everyone should pressure them to fall in line. [However,] there is no such universal category that everyone agrees on._

That is simple, direct, and leaves him out of it. And I believe it is better without dragging his character and motives into it.

<comment><USER21> That argument doesn't work. Obviously the assholes won't agree that they should be banned, and you can just argue - as he does in this post - <USER2> anyone who doesn't think the supposed assholes should be banned is doing so because they're one of them. Judging the merits of this really does mean thinking about the actual concrete values that he's fighting for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _" You should have real humans dedicated to monitoring and responding to your community."_

If you're a for-profit company, you have to pay them. At least minimum wage. See _Hallissey v. America Online, Inc._ They're employees.

<comment><USER23> Reddit moderators are volunteers, it's an unpaid position.

<comment><USER22> If the U.S. Department of Labor wasn't out to lunch, Reddit would be in trouble.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It is your fault, but, nevertheless I disagree that it is bad to not do stuff about it (although of course you can do it anyways if you want to). I prefer not to have such stuff; I allow any except that I do not have unlimited bandwidth ahd disk space, so there is that consideration only. Clients can use kill files and other filters (if accessing them by NNTP) to avoid messages they do not like. Messages can also be copied on other servers, which may have different policies; I do not policy your server that copies the messages, but only not to overly flood the bandwidth. My software, called "sqlnetnews", deliberately does not support control messages (you can still post messages with a "Supersedes" header, since it can still be useful sometimes, but it won't result in the old version deleted; it does, however, reject any messages with a "Approved" header). Maybe you hate me for it, but Dave Hayes has "Freedom Knights" and it is like that (but in my case, for Unusenet rather than Usenet). While cancels can be posted (as long as the "Approved" header is omitted), they are not processed. I will not force anyone to use these services and will not disallow others from making echo services (a feature of Unusenet, designed to enforce that you have freedom globally even if not locally (local policies are up to the server administrator, not me)).

</comment><comment><USER25> What's an example of a major site with a good community?

<comment><USER26> free karma answer: "Hacker news"

<comment><USER27> Yeah no, when's the last time you've actually seen the rules enforced?

<comment><USER28> All the time. I see dang smoothing things out like almost daily. You can also turn on "showdead" in your profile options, and maybe you'll become more aware of it.

<comment><USER29> I keep showdead on all the time, because sometimes I see insightful, thoughtful answers that are dead for no reason intrinsic to the comment. Then I can vouch for them, and I hope they become visible to others — though the workings of that system are opaque to me.

I get annoyed reading the same smarmy-sounding "Please don't post unsubstantive comments" replies from dang all the time — but it's what makes this site work, when so many others don't.

<comment><USER28> Those two things are related. The warning messages are what happens before the account gets shadow-banned. Sometimes you can walk back in a dead commenter's history to see what caused the problem and it's obvious. Sometimes it's not apparent because it can happen for multiple reasons.

Personally, I'd rather have the constant out-of-bounds reminders than not. I've never seen one of those warning messages on a comment that didn't deserve it, I'll take the 'please play nice' requests all day if it quells ugly flame bait, and that's exactly what it seems to do. He's giving people both notification that it's out of bounds and advance warning that there could be consequences. Much worse is out there and easy to find. Do you have examples that are much better, on a comparably sized forum?

<comment><USER29> Like I said, it's why this site works and others don't. I'm not aware of a better solution. Facetiously, I suppose you could take the approach of the app 'Yo': constrain the possible messages to exclude anything potentially offensive.

<comment><USER28> I used to work for Disney and we were tasked with constraining the possible messages to exclude potentially offensive material. It does keep out the obvious no-effort messages with swear words, and it does tend to reduce negative messages. But it was interesting and sometimes fun to see the creative ways people would write bad words or sexually suggestive materials or tell each other off. It's not possible to stop all offensive content with constraints or technology. Not yet anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Most places benefit from having strong and effectively enforced moderation policies. However, I also think there's significant value in having some places that don't, that serve as content-neutral platforms, the social media equivalent of the post office.

<comment><USER31> > I also think there's significant value in having some places that [...] > serve as content-neutral platforms.

You may be right about the value of such places, and Anil Dash's prediction that such places will be full of assholes may right, too.

<comment><USER30> Oh certainly. I just disagree with his point that ALL websites have a "moral responsibility" to police their users.

To remove illegal content and conduct? Sure, but not to prevent assholery.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Does this guy have a significant investment in Facebook?

</comment><comment><USER33> Thank God for free speech and God Bless President Trump.</comment>


Solving ITA's Word Numbers Puzzle - <AUTHOR> http://nathan.ca/2011/12/ita-word-numbers/

<comment><USER2> This is a fun puzzle. Here's my take on it. I stopped reading the article after the introduction so I could attack the problem fresh, so hopefully this isn't the same as what the author did.

The trick is working backwards. We want to quickly count the number of occurrences of each letter in the list of number words. Knowing how to do that, we just have to do a linear scan over the cumulative counts for A, B, C, ... to find the interval into which the query index fits. If it helps prime your intuition, my inspiration is counting sort with the counts evaluated partly analytically.

Number words can be divided into a fixed set of recurring components: one, two, three, four, ..., ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, ..., twenty, thirty, ..., hundred, thousand, million, billion. Build an inverse index that maps each letter to the set of all component words that contain the letter, paired with an occurrence count. For example, the inverse index would map T to {(two, 1), (three, 1), (ten, 1), (twelve, 1), (thirteen, 2), ...}.

With this in hand, the problem is reduced to counting the number of each component word in the string.

Let's consider that subproblem for the component 'nine' ('nineteen' and 'ninety' are separate components) for numbers with up to n digits. Numbers with the digit pattern xxx...xxx9 each contribute one occurrence of 'nine', and there are 10^(n-1) such numbers ('... nine'). Likewise each xxx...xxx9xx contributes an occurrence, and there are again 10^(n-1) such numbers ('... nine hundred ...'), the pattern xxx...xxx9xxx has 10^(n-1) members ('... nine thousand ...'), etc.

This same analysis applies to all ones components (one, two, three, ..., nine), and an analogous analysis applies to other components.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have a ruby solution that takes 20s to run on a machine that's about 5 years old.

I just brute-force generate the strings from 1-999999, as well as "million- prefix" strings of the form "(1-999)million". These are then sorted in the same array. Also compute the sum of the length of the strings from 1-999999 while we're at it.

Then, run through the sorted array, keeping a running total of the length. Each time you hit a "million-prefix" string, it's easy to compute the total length of all the numbers that start with the prefix - it's just the sum of the string lengths from 1-999999 plus 999999*prefix-length.

If this subtotal doesn't push you past the 51B limit, then keep going. If it does, then run through the 1-999999 numbers only, adding each one to the total individually, until you reach the magic 51B mark.

The practical upshot is that you can skip millions of numbers at a time.

Ugly code here: <http://codepuppies.com/ben/ita/t2.txt>

</comment><comment><USER4> Cool! A very nice read.. thanks for sharing. I actually looked at that puzzle but decided strawberry fields was more interesting. My solution comes up with reasonably efficient answers within a minute or so, even on a 1000h eeepc :) I don't have a nice writeup like you but the README contains a brief explanation (in concordance with the rules for the puzzle): <https://github.com/BruceJillis/Strawberry-Fields> I decided to post this because you mention constraints and my solution is written up in a constraint logic programming language (eclipse), it might be interesting to translate your solution and compare.

</comment><comment><USER5> [http://conway.rutgers.edu/~ccshan/wiki/blog/posts/WordNumber...](http://conway.rutgers.edu/~ccshan/wiki/blog/posts/WordNumbers1/) I read this write-up of the problem years ago that takes a different approach.

<comment><USER6> Interesting that this and the OP's solutions result in different answers.

<comment><USER7> That's because you missed the hidden Part 4 where Shan&Thurston finish their solution:

[http://conway.rutgers.edu/~ccshan/wiki/blog/posts/WordNumber...](http://conway.rutgers.edu/~ccshan/wiki/blog/posts/WordNumbers4)

<comment><USER6> Ah, good call. Very easy to miss that link.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> couldn't you just use "sort" to sort the file on disk and then offset into the file to find the answer? i would expect sort to work fine for files larger than memory (and if it doesn't i bet there is some tool that does - merge sort with tapes is not so old...)

[edit: you'd need to add, then strip, carriage returns between numbers, i guess]

<comment><USER9> You could, but that's incredibly slow.

<comment><USER8> really? for what value of incredibly? i bet it's way faster than writing all that code.

[edit: to save people reading below i missed the sum requirement, which this wouldn't do, and a rough back of the envelope calculations suggests it would take about the same length of time as the code took. so i was wrong, sorry...]

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't have 70 GB of disk space free (two small SSDs in my laptop), but I just started running it on my old machine and will let you know the results. The grammar, parser, and traversal functions took me somewhere between two and three hours in total to think up and write; my gut feeling is that writing and sorting 70 GB of data on a spinning disk would be slower, though I may be wrong.

Another issue with using sort that you still need the sum of the numbers. You could store this as "wordnum;realnum", but now you've got over 100 GB of data to sort, and you still need to parse this out when you do your single pass after to get to the correct byte count. You could spend some time optimizing the sorting format (again using tokens), but now you're spending time doing work that's getting you even closer to an actual solution in code.

The coded solution is also scalable, although you could argue the necessity of scaling in this context. If a company were to introduce this puzzle looking for some byte in the first trillion numbers sorted (instead of billion), you'd be looking to sort several terabytes of data on disk; the constant memory solution, once tweaked to include the billions case in the same way the millions case is handled, would take roughly 15 minutes to run.

<comment><USER8> ah, sorry - i had missed the sum of numbers. also, after reading the sort man page, for fast sorting you may need to write out the data in a set of files (each of which fits in memory), sort each separately (well, sort before writing), and then use sort --merge to join them.

i'm impressed at how quickly you wrote the code. i guess it would have been better to say "i bet it would be quicker for me...".

[edit] actually, you can probably work it out. say you get 10MB/s to a disc. you need to write 10 files (each 7GB) which takes 700s or about 10 minutes each. so it's about 100 minutes for writing them (sorted in memory first) and then about 100 minutes reading them in the merge (i'm thinking you can filter the output to find the answer without writing again). so you'd expect around 3 hours, or about the time the code took to write.

[edit 2 to avoid yet more posts] thanks + good luck with the job application (i did one of their questions a year or two back and, while it was really interesting, all i got as a reply was "we've finished hiring this year"... although in their defense - and perhaps like you - i was doing it more for fun anyway)]

<comment><AUTHOR> Upvoted you for the interesting discussion.

After I saw your first comment, I started writing out all billion numbers. It appears to be getting exponentially slower, which I suppose is to be expected as the file gets too big to fit in available contiguous blocks (there was only 100 GB free before it started).

It's been running for about an hour and is only half done, although writing 7 GB files would definitely be much faster; I don't know if sort --merge creates one big file at the end or not, but there are ways around that since it would be the bottleneck. It does sound like it could be done with sort in a semi- reasonable amount of time, although there'd still be more work to do once it's sorted.

In terms of writing the code itself, the parser is pretty similar to a toy computer algebra system I had written in the past (it's much simpler), so I had some pre-disposition to it in that sense, and the traversal is fairly straight forward given the grammar. I chose a problem that I thought I could solve in an afternoon because I knew I had real work to do the following Monday and still had to write the blog post, and Parkinson's Law may have helped me push through it a bit too. :)

Edit to reply to edit: This puzzle is actually retired from ITA's fleet, and I'm not interested in applying to ITA/Google anyway. I'm happily employed, and actually this is sort of the reverse: I'm looking to hire remote software devs at BuySellAds.com and was hoping this would pique the interest of the qualified segment of devs looking for a job.

<comment><USER10> My thoughts are this problem is complex regardless. It's pretty good that you could solve this all in one afternoon.

Are there any blogs, programming books, that you recommend that would help, someone improve their programming skills?

Thanks

<comment><AUTHOR> I subscribe to the school of thought that you learn by doing, so my best advice is to put yourself out there and write some code. I've read lots of blogs, and a small handful of programming books (K&R, parts of SICP, parts of CLRS, Programming Pearls), but at each step I took it upon myself to actually do what the author was doing. Reading code or watching lectures isn't going to make you a better programmer any more than watching tennis will make you a better tennis player. You presumably already know the rules, you just need to practice to get to the next level.

Try writing anything that sounds fun. Write your own JSON parser, or a trie, or a B+ tree, or an implementation of the travelling salesman or knapsack problems. Wikipedia will get you started on all of these, and from there you can write the code. Too often people promote the idea that "Well, JSON libraries exist, why write your own?", but that misses the point. For one, it's fun. Professional tennis players exist too, and I am definitely never going to be as good as they are, but that doesn't mean it's not worth playing tennis if I enjoy doing so. More importantly, though, if you've written your own JSON parser, then the next time a new protocol or file format comes out and your language of choice isn't officially supported, you'll be able to write your own and be ahead of the game. All of these skills are transferable.

An added bonus is that when you go to apply for programming jobs, your portfolio of fun side projects will speak volumes about your ability to code. Don't worry that you don't have the best, most efficient, most popular JSON parser. The important part is that you spent your personal time bettering yourself, and that you are interested in being great at what you do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is pretty cool. It's a shame they haven't retired the problem I solved to get an interview there.

<comment><USER9> Why is it a shame that they haven't retired something cool?

<comment><USER11> If they had retired it, then we could discuss it :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hint: Gauss. Sum of numbers 1 to 100.

Using Gauss's insight, Ruby can solve 10,000 times faster than a naive C solution.

I solved this a while back, while high on drugs my dentist gave me. Blog post is down, but code is here: <http://refactormycode.com/codes/8-integer-puzzle>

<comment><USER9> What of the magic numbers in this solution?

ThousandRange: def child_values @thousands * 1_000_000 + 499500 end

      def child_sizes
        NumberWriter.write(@thousands * 1_000).size * 1_000 + 18440
      end

MillionRange:

      def child_values
        @millions * 1_000_000_000_000 + 499_999_500_000
      end

      def child_sizes
        NumberWriter.write(@millions * 1_000_000).size * 1_000_000 + 44_872_000
      end

<comment><USER12> The size of the strings for that range of numbers. So, e.g. all of the strings starting with "twenty" will have that length of string (here, 6) * 10, plus the "one" in "twentyone", etc. The "one", "two", "three", etc have the same length whether they're preceded by "twenty" or "thirty".

Account for the repeated strings "hundred", "thousand" or "million" and what follows them and you'll get the magic numbers above.</comment></comment></comment>


Coronavirus recovery: Von der Leyen calls €750bn recovery fund 'Europe's moment' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52819126 <comment><AUTHOR> TL;dr the European Commission proposes a 750bn Euro rescue fund - bigger than the GDP than Poland, Sweden or Belgium - to help countries finance the recovery. Many have described this as Europe's 'Hamilton Moment' as it's the first joint debt issuance for the EU countries.</comment>