Ask HN: Which plants can be planted indoors and easily maintained? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I'm a big fan of cacti. I've not managed to kill one (yet). Also anecdotally I found I was killing plants because I overwatered them. Turns out they don't need love as often as I (and I think a lot of people) thought. Apparently a good generic test is checking if the soil is damp - don't water if it is.

Anyway, just asked this question to the founder of a start-up I'm working with. She replied "Sansevierras thrive on neglect and low light calatheas are good" \- if that helps? As an aside / plug if you're in the UK: [https://bloomboxclub.com](https://bloomboxclub.com) \- she's set up HN10 which will give you 10% off all plants / plant subscriptions for the next few days and want some (more?!) greenery :-)

<comment><USER3> I'll second sansevierras (also called snake plant or mother in law's tongue). When I started working as a programmer I had one in my office in the back of a windowless office. It was amusing seeing how many people assumed it as a fake plant as they didn't a plant could live back there.

Zamioculcas (or ZZ Plants) are also another very hardy plant that do well in low light and can take a lot of abuse.

There is also Pothos, several types of ferns (Boston being the most aviable in my experience), Spathiphyllum (peace lilly), Dieffenbachia, Monstera, Spiderplant, Rubber plant, weeping fig, fiddle leaf fig. All of these are pretty common and should be relatively easy to find.

If you want some more interesting ones there are Calathea Triostar, Ficus Doescheri & Tradescantia Tricolor which all have a pinklish marbling, & Tradescantia pallida which is a deep purple.

<comment><USER4> Another thing about snake plants is that you can cut a few inches of a leaf off and plant it. Within 3-9 months or so it will sprout some new shoots.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Pothos is so easy to grow! I started with one last year after a move and have propagated it successfully 8 times... I'm currently trying to get coworkers to accept clippings so I don't have to throw away excess.

Snake plants are also easy to grow indoors.

When I was first looking around for indoor plants I found the NASA study [0] on house plants for air quality and went with the easiest to maintain of these.

To find how "easy to maintain" a plant is, just Google it and most sites that talk about care will let you know.

[0] [https://www.greenism.com/nasas-guide-to-air-filtering- housep...](https://www.greenism.com/nasas-guide-to-air-filtering-houseplants/)

<comment><USER6> Peace lily is extremely easy to grow, we've had some in the house as long as I can remember. Nice to know they're great for air quality too.

<comment><USER7> Probably worth noting that what is easy to grow for one user might not be for another - we all live in different parts of the world. At first glance, Peace Lilies wouldn't do well in my cold, dark and rainy part of UK.

<comment><USER8> I stood one on the window of my bathroom, and left it there for a couple of years.

Never watered it at all, and it thrived despite the leaky window. I always assumed it would get water, via condensation/steam from my shower and that seeemed to be the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm a big fan of Spathiphyllum[0] a.k.a. Peace Lillies. They don't need much light and you practically cannot over-water them. When too thirsty, they start slouching and recover quickly after adding water.

They seem to be good for the air quality and here's some anecdotal evidence: I have a room in my flat that had a weird smell about it. My son was sleeping in that room and the smell became very pronounced soon after closing the door. We put a medium-sized Spathiphyllum into that room and the stink is much less noticeable, even at night. My wife was skeptical but now we have them in almost every room of the house.

[0]: [https://www.thespruce.com/grow-peace- lilies-1902767](https://www.thespruce.com/grow-peace-lilies-1902767)

</comment><comment><USER10> Spider plants are basically immortal. I've traveled with cuttings wedged in an empty toilet paper tube on the back of a motorcycle before and then forgot about them for a few days.. and then they grew fine.

<comment><USER11> I had a friend who grew her spider plants in a fishbowl of water for years, somehow. They're insanely tough little guys.

<comment><USER10> Oh yeah, i've had a cutting i've been meaning to plant for about 18 months now in a teacup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Easier to read overview: Lifehacker [https://lifehacker.com/this-graphic- shows-the-best-air-clean...](https://lifehacker.com/this-graphic-shows-the- best-air-cleaning-plants-accord-1705307836)

NASA PDF - Interior landscape plants for Indoor air pollution abatement: [https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/199300...](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930073077.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER13> [https://www.amazon.com/Rare-ZZ-Plant-Zamioculcas- zamiifolia-...](https://www.amazon.com/Rare-ZZ-Plant-Zamioculcas-zamiifolia- House/dp/B000PYAGFU)

It doesn't need (or prefer) direct sunlight. It only needs water once a month.

The best part is it cost less than <$10 on Amazon.

I love mine.

<comment><USER3> Ah that drives me nuts. Its a super common house plant. Its tough as rocks though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have a few "Mother of Thousands" [0] which started out as a single plant that I was gifted but it grew so rapidly that I now have about 6 pots of them. They produce tiny little baby plants on the edges of each leaf which then drop off. They are also nigh on impossible to kill (I rarely water them). I used to plant all the tiny 'seedlings' but now throw them away as there are just way too many. Be aware though that they are toxic so maybe not a good mix with pets.

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

</comment><comment><USER15> Spider plants are one of my favourites, you can get them from pretty much any garden centre and they are easy to propagate/maintain. It's almost impossible to kill Mother-in-law's tongue. Dracaenas look great, too

</comment><comment><USER16> Bamboo and cactus are two easy choices. I keep a pair next to my bedroom window. It's amazing how much impact having a few plants in your house can have.

Sometimes I'll bring my bamboo buddy over to the desk and talk to it while doing rubber duck debugging [0]. I'd invite the cactus as well, but it's a bit too prickly. ;)

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

</comment><comment><USER17> You can plant a terrarium bottle garden. No maintenance needed. There are bottle gardens that haven't been opened for 40 years. It will develop some algae though, and it does look rather wild. Aquarium plans and ferns are suitable contenders. I have a Progestemon erectus plant in a jar, Hemianthus callitrichoides mixed with Eleocharis pusilla in a rectangular plastic box, Micranthemum 'Monte Carlo' in another box and in an open bowl filled 1/2 with aquasoil that we keep on the bathroom window and mist regularly. There are also more beautiful plants such as Bucephalandra or Cryptocoryne but I've only planted them submersed. Bucephalandra will attach to and grow on driftwood and rocks.

[http://theaquaticplantsociety.org/world-of- bucephalandra/](http://theaquaticplantsociety.org/world-of-bucephalandra/)

With bottle gardens as with tissue culture, your worst enemy is mold.

</comment><comment><USER11> I grow a lot of plants indoors, and the limiting factor is almost always light levels. If your space for growing has a large west or south facing window, you're in great shape! You will be able to grow most plants.

However, East or North facing windows will be able to grow low light plants, or need full spectrum (5000k) lighting.

Easy bright light plants include succulents, pony tail palms, avocados, bananas, and most herbs.

Plants that tolerate or thrive in low light are pothos, spider plants, parlor palms, the bromeliads, snake plants, and english ivy.

Of these, I suggest a spider plant, they're very hardy, nearly impossible to kill, and even don't mind being a little root bound.

Succulents require more patience, but are also fairly easy. Be sure to not overwater, and make sure they have enough drainage! Some indoor gardeners grow theirs in a mix of gravel and pine bark, in order to completely drain, and just fertilize every watering.

The most important thing is don't try orchids at first. Finicky things.

</comment><comment><USER18> To answer your question correctly, we'd need to know what's your climate like. But, if you didn't give us that information, I'd of course recommend you a cactus like everyone else.

But if you live in an island like me, Devil's ivy aka Money Plant is my choice. Scientific name: Epipremnum aureum.

[https://www.amazon.com/Golden-Devils-Ivy-Pothos- Epipremnum/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Golden-Devils-Ivy-Pothos- Epipremnum/dp/B0076ZJ21K)

It's an excellent plant that you'll quickly fall in love with, while requiring very little maintenance. In asian culture, this plant is considered to bring good luck, prosperity and money. Hence the name.

I recommend it not for those reasons, but from a purely plant owner experience point of view. You can control its direction as it can creep. Mine goes around my 27" monitor so it's really a beautiful sight to see.

</comment><comment><USER19> Depends on your goal, but I got a little succulent plant for Christmas that I've been keeping at my desk at work. I have almost no previous experience with plants, but I water it once a week and it has done pretty well for almost a year now. I gave it a name and it has been a nice little joy in my life.

</comment><comment><USER20> This is what I used to help cure my black thumb:

Cricket chirp when your plant needs water.

[https://www.adafruit.com/product/1965?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2LuJ...](https://www.adafruit.com/product/1965?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2LuJlaj-3QIVFf5kCh2eSAtPEAQYASABEgIWx_D_BwE)

</comment><comment><USER21> This may not be the answer you are looking for, but any plant will grow if you have a good light source and the right amount of water and nutrients. Add a grow light and some vermiculite to the soil and you can grow just about 90% of the plants available at your local gardening store.

</comment><comment><USER22> Ok, from a brief look into this before (I am in no way an expert) I think you would need to define what you see as a problem with indoor plants. Is it lack of light?

As a quick and not too detailed answer, take a look at the typical plants you see around offices - dracaena is one that comes to mind. I think it handles relatively low light and has the benefit of reducing mould particles in the atmosphere. Ficus is another one that I have had indoors and is really difficult to kill, though mine is outdoors now.

(As for easily maintained, I have had some dracaena before and they are pretty easy, but in both ended up getting some sort of disease after a couple of years).

</comment><comment><USER23> Air plants are fun and pretty easy - just dunk them in water every so often.

I have a Christmas cactus that is nice. I break off the long pieces and stick them back in the pot and they keep growing. I did this with my aloe plant too.

And I have a cactus or succulent that I know of as a Hot Dog plant, though google wasn't recognizing that name. It might be a variety of Rhipsalis.

Also I was given a basket of indoor foliage plants and I replanted them into individual pots. Most of them are still growing strong! Looking at a garden center or a florist's for a basket like that could give you a nice variety of easy-to-grow foliage that would make a good start.

</comment><comment><USER24> Fiddle Leaf Fig plants are a great choice.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=fiddle+leaf+fig&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=fiddle+leaf+fig&tbm=isch)

</comment><comment><USER25> I've had success with spider plants and "Wandering Jew" plants by growing them in water for a while, and then adding soil at some point, and watering every 3-4 days or when the soil gets dry.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophytum_comosum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophytum_comosum) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradescantia_pallida](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradescantia_pallida)

</comment><comment><USER26> Grape ivy will tolerate no end of neglect except heavy overwatering or sub 5 deg C. Good for getting lots of foliage, wiithout support it'll trail, or climb with a couple of sticks in the pot. Also very easy to take cuttings from, and will come back from near death neglect.

[https://www.shrublandparknurseries.co.uk/cissus- rhombifolia-...](https://www.shrublandparknurseries.co.uk/cissus-rhombifolia- ellen-danica.html)

</comment><comment><USER27> I have a few orchids inside my place. Most are Phalaenopsis, and one vanilla orchid. After talking with one orchid grower, they told me the key thing when taking care of orchids are:

* Do not overwater them (no standing water on the base of the planter). Keep the media moist.

* When the root turned white, give them water until they turned back to green (apparently they also photosynthesize).

I also have big gardenia in my kitchen and small gardenia propagated from the big gardenia that I put on my work desk.

</comment><comment><USER28> Cherry tomatoes (because they're smaller and lighter they don't require much support), chili peppers, maybe strawberries (mine ended up getting aphids though).

I've written a bit about this back when I played with indoor gardening: [https://sdfjkl.org/blog/starting- hydroponics/](https://sdfjkl.org/blog/starting-hydroponics/)

For obvious reasons I was only interested in food plants :)

</comment><comment><USER29> Chlorophytum comosum (spider plants) are good air-filtering houseplants that are also easy to take starts of: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophytum_comosum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophytum_comosum)

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

</comment><comment><USER30> Devils Ivy.

Leave it in water for years, or plant it and forget to water it for weeks.

It can grow quite long, so cut it, stick the cut-end back in the water and it will root and keep going.

</comment><comment><USER31> Dracena are attractive and easy to care for. Water them twice a month and feed them a couple of times a year.

They are a good indoor plant for beginners and they come in a lot of striking colors that you can mix and match in the same pot.

[https://www.pinterest.com/iarapraude/dracena/](https://www.pinterest.com/iarapraude/dracena/)

</comment><comment><USER32> There's a lot of things already suggested so I don't have a ton to add, but I didn't see green onions anywhere. You can grow them from the roots you cut off of the ones from the store. They'll grow in just a cup of water if you really want. Though they start to get kinda flavourless and mushy after a while that way.

</comment><comment><USER33> Ficus Benjamina, Aglaonema. I have both for two decades now, it last 1 week without water. No pests. Huge. Leafy.

<comment><USER22> Ficus seem to be pretty difficult to kill (mine is still alive after close to 10 years). Pretty sure it has gone a fair bit longer than a week without water.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> My wife received an orchid as a gift. I know nothing about gardening, but I've managed to keep it alive and growing for about 6 months. Just water it when the soil feels dry and re-pot it every other year is about the extent of the care instructions a DDG search turned up.

</comment><comment><USER35> Here is the list of house/indoor plants which promote cognitive function in order of ease of maintenance:

 _Areca Plam_ (Chrysalidocarpus lutescens AKA Dypsis lutescens) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dypsis_lutescens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dypsis_lutescens)

 _Mother-in-law 's Tongue_/ _Snake Plant_ (Sansevieria trifasciata) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sansevieria_trifasciata](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sansevieria_trifasciata)

 _Money Plant_ (Epipremnum aureum) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epipremnum_aureum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epipremnum_aureum)

 _Boston Fern_ (Nephrolepis Exaltata) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephrolepis_exaltata](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephrolepis_exaltata)

 _Peace Lilly_ (Spathiphyllum) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spathiphyllum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spathiphyllum)

 _Gerbera Daisy_ (Gerbera jamesonii) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerbera_jamesonii](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerbera_jamesonii)

 _Spider plant_ (Chlorophytum comosum) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophytum_comosum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophytum_comosum)

 _English Ivy_ (Hedera helix) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedera_helix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedera_helix)

Take the list of plants to your local plant nursery to see how many of them they have in stock. Buying them already established is much cheaper/easier than growing them from seed/cuttings.

According to Allen et Al 2015 (see link below), having pure/fresh air in your working environment _significantly_ improves cognitive function. i.e. having indoor plants makes you smarter!

> Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation, > and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in Office Workers: A Controlled > Exposure Study of Green and Conventional Office Environments ~ > [https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/27662232/4892924...](https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/27662232/4892924.pdf)

> _Conclusion_ : Office workers had _significantly improved cognitive > function_ scores when working in Green and Green+ environments compared with > scores obtained when working in a Conventional environment.

> We've been researching this for: "home" > [https://github.com/dwyl/home/issues/8](https://github.com/dwyl/home/issues/8)

Relevant YouTube videos on this topic:

[https://youtu.be/gmn7tjSNyAA](https://youtu.be/gmn7tjSNyAA)

[https://youtu.be/lPNYdSZRSdg](https://youtu.be/lPNYdSZRSdg)

[https://youtu.be/9dG9K8IQo7s](https://youtu.be/9dG9K8IQo7s)

<comment><USER36> A version controlled repo for a physical habitat. You're building the B&B from Cory Doctorow's _Walkaway_ :)

<comment><USER35> @noio yes, indeed there are similarities with Walkaway [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkaway_(Doctorow_novel)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkaway_\(Doctorow_novel\))

We will avoid the war. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This depends on how much light you have, what you mean by "easy", and what country you live in.

My personal opinion is that HN isn't a good forum for the question, especially when it's been written about on countless websites for specific locations/conditions.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm growing Genovese basil on my windowsill. I water it irregularly, yet it grows quite well. I'm hoping to do a nice pesto from it, but the smell alone is very nice.

</comment><comment><USER39> In the Northeast, I would recommend boxwoods, I have 4 and they are super low maintenance.

I have a large variety of rose bushes, but they require a ton of work.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'd like to add coffee, baby rubber trees, dwarf umbrella, earthstars (or any bromelaid, for that matter), and dracenas.

</comment><comment><USER41> Cane palm doesn't need much care or attention if you're looking for something more tropical.

</comment><comment><USER42> Pathos, jades, and other succulents are pretty easy. I water them once a week and repot once a year.

</comment><comment><USER43> Do mushrooms count? They don't need any light at all. Shittake just need some wet oak.

</comment><comment><USER44> I'm growing a Pineapple, and my SO is growing a Japanese Black Pine ! :)

</comment><comment><USER45>
        Blue Dream
        Green Crack
        GG4
        Dutch Treat
        Cinex

</comment><comment><USER46> Peppermint willl survive multiple weeks of neglect and abuse.

</comment><comment><USER47> Yucca cane.

</comment><comment><USER48> Cacti.

</comment><comment><USER49> I have a fig tree and a blueberry bush growing indoors with a 65w lamp and 70F constant temperature.

The fig tree is dying and the blueberry bush is fruiting :)

Kind of the opposite of what I wanted though lol :(

</comment><comment> another-cuppa Succulents are easiest. Things like peace lillies are also classic. Anything you could get from a supermarket is probably fine.</comment>


Ask HN: Most recognizable founders your respect - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys, I'm about to launch a game for iOS where you spell words from letters that move around the screen (letterlasso.com).
For launch, I'm making a level that is all recognizable tech founders, and I realized that founders that I know are probably different than the founders others know.
Who are the most recognizable founders you respect? (Skip Page, Zuck, Jobs, Woz, Gates) <comment><USER2> On yesterday's horrible news I would have to add Aaron Swartz who for all of us gave more than he took. RIP.

</comment><comment><USER3> Elon Musk

</comment><comment><USER4> Jack Dorsey (Twitter founder)

Letterlasso is a great name for such a game.

<comment><USER5> I think Evan Williams and Biz Stone are pretty well-known too (not just Dorsey).

I'd also add Sergey Brin, Larry Ellison, and Paul Allen, off the top of my head.</comment></comment>


Your taste is why your work disappoints you. - <AUTHOR> http://kottke.org/11/04/your-taste-is-why-your-own-work-disappoints-you Ira Glass talking about the process of honing your craft. <comment><USER2> Don't forget to watch the other parts of the interview as well, it's great stuff. Part two especially should also resonate with everyone who does something creative .

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loxJ3FtCJJA> (building blocks of stories; very well illustrated!)

[2] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW6x7lOIsPE> (kill your darlings, failure is part of success, you don't want to be making mediocre stuff)

[3] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI23U7U2aUY> (taste & disappointment)

[4] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baCJFAGEuJM> (common pitfalls of making stories; be yourself; what's interesting isn't only your take of things, it's seeing you interact with other people)

edit: fixed the links

<comment><USER3> OT, but I've been listening to TLA for a few years now, and I had created a completely different image of Ira Glass in my mind. Watching these videos is like seeing a stranger talking with Ira Glass's voice.

<comment><USER4> you might be interested in the interview with him on the WTF podcast

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The one valuable key I have found to becoming better at your craft is to improve your identity. I have been studying accelerated learning for many, many years. How we identify with what we are doing has a dramatic impact on our performance and ability to learn. Identity is one of those strong beliefs we hold about ourselves and our capabilities.

Writing code is the best and only way to improve. But as everyone is aware this does not guarantee you become a better programmer. Over time I think everyone does to some extent but some become better quicker. What is the difference? I believe it is what we believe we can do.

I have taught many people how to play guitar. I always start by teaching them the basics and looking for my opportunity to convince them that they are now a 'guitarist'. Because they will never continue and fall in love with it until they can find some way to identify with it.

<comment><USER6> Any good books or pointers on accelerated learning you would like to share?

<comment><USER5> I have found a lot of books on the subject but most rightly titled books seemed to have only tips and tricks. Some are really good but don't really hit the sweet spot for me.

This book is good but and example of what I am talking about. [http://www.amazon.com/Accelerated-Learning-21st-Century- Mast...](http://www.amazon.com/Accelerated-Learning-21st-Century-Master- Mind/dp/0440507790/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931295&sr=1-2-spell)

But the ones I have had the most success with are the Neuro Linguistic Programming books by John Grinder and Richard Bandler.

[http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Magic-Vol-Language- Therapy/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Magic-Vol-Language- Therapy/dp/0831400447/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931060&sr=8-6) [http://www.amazon.com/Frogs-into-Princes-Linguistic- Programm...](http://www.amazon.com/Frogs-into-Princes-Linguistic- Programming/dp/B000H2REWS/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931060&sr=8-10) [http://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Hypnotic-Techniques-Milton- Er...](http://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Hypnotic-Techniques-Milton- Erickson/dp/1555520537/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931060&sr=8-16) [http://www.amazon.com/Insiders-Guide-Sub- Modalities/dp/09169...](http://www.amazon.com/Insiders-Guide-Sub- Modalities/dp/0916990222/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931060&sr=8-15) [http://www.amazon.com/Turtles-All-Way-Down- Prerequisites/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Turtles-All-Way-Down- Prerequisites/dp/1555520227/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931181&sr=8-2)

Also this is great for learning how to digest technical and college books.

[http://www.amazon.com/What-Smart-Students-Know- Learning/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/What-Smart-Students-Know- Learning/dp/0517880857/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931228&sr=8-1)

These are NOT affiliate links

<comment><USER5> I looked through my library and found a couple more that are really great for accelerated learning.

Sleep thinking: [http://www.amazon.com/Sleep-Thinking-Revolutionary- Problems-...](http://www.amazon.com/Sleep-Thinking-Revolutionary-Problems- Creativity/dp/1580624456/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304419302&sr=8-1)

The Einstien Factor by Win Wenger and Richard Poe. (Couldn't find the book on Amazon)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is very true. I think that a good taste is always ahead of one's works, almost by definition. I've never heard of an artist or a programmer who could just do exactly whatever they envisioned instead of a feeble attempt only.

(I bet Leonardo was never too happy with the smile of that little Mona Lisa either and probably couldn't really put his finger on what it was that he really wanted but couldn't just do.)

The counterpoint is that in order to live at least a relatively enjoyable life you will have to learn to cut yourself some slack. You have to have somebody, preferably yourself, to tell you that _"This is enough effort; this is good enough for now and given your skills you've done well._ " Not that you could ever give up on your taste but I think that the acceptance of "I'm not good enough yet for what I want but that's okay because I haven't given up either" is what will eventually propel you to eventually accomplish even better works.

<comment><USER8> I'm both an artist and a programmer and not great at either, but this is a common issue. I'd also recommend this essay: <http://gapingvoid.com/2004/07/25/how-to-be-creative>

All my attempts are terrible compared to what I imagined, even if I'm trying to be practical. Some of my attempts work themselves out to be better or different than what I imagined. Its a crapshoot.

There are a lot of creative things I've quit on that I probably shouldn't have. I think in the end we need to embrace and be compassionate with inner noob. Sure, he's not good and he gets odd stares from non-creative people, but in the end he's the guy who blossoms into the guy who everyone dismisses as an "overnight success" or "natural talent." Everyone forgets how incredibly difficult and demoralizing it is to waste time producing sub-par work just for the off-chance that you might get good at something.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the link, it's excellent. I've never seen that many things that are true on the same page.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Contrast with _why:

"when you don't create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. your tastes only narrow & exclude people. so create."

<comment><USER10> This is not the same meaning of the word "taste".

The quote from _why uses "taste[s]" as a substitute for "likes / dislikes" whereas Ira Glass talks about "taste" (singular) as "the ability to appreciate greatness".

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm 33 and I've been programming for almost 20 years. Rarely does my work not disappoint me still. It is getting better, though.

<comment><USER12> Things like Github only make this that much worse. In the old days I only saw my colleagues' code, most of which was nothing special.

<comment><USER13> Isn't it great to be disappointed when comparing your code against others? It gives you a set of higher standards to aim for and is preferrable to being the best coder from the small pool of people you work with

<comment><USER11> I hear what cageface is saying but you are right, and it's definitely a better mindset. I much rather have lots of good code to learn from and get inspired by, than only reading disposable code from uninspired corporate coders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Good artists copy, great artists steal. To develop good taste you need to observe lots of other, better work and try to understand what makes them so. Taste isn't something you inherently have.

<comment><USER15> > observe lots of others

100% correct. Speaking from first-hand knowledge: artists who develop their career in isolation from other artists generally produce either terrible or subpar work. There are exceptions but they are getting rarer as our culture becomes more global. In other words, globalization of culture sets expectations. Something similar may apply to the economy.

<comment><USER16> Many of the greatest painters starter their careers reproducing the works of old masters.

<comment><USER17> Well that's true for any field I guess... _"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"_ said Newton. Interestingly enough, he himself took inspiration from various sources all the way from John of Salisbury for that particular quote, somehow making that famous quote self- referencing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As someone who is "finally" starting to find success in my early 30's, this is something I think of a lot.

Think of all of the famous people you know of, who are doing great work right now. Now look at how old some of them are.

Steve Carrell is 48 years old. Jon Stewart is 48. Louis C.K. is 44.

All of them are great at what they do, but how old were they when they finally reached the top of their professions? Sure, you can think of small gigs they had in the decades before, but just think of how long they had to work at what they did to get where they are. I always wonder how often they came close to quitting. (I remember hearing an interesting story about this from Louis C.K., but I don't remember the details)

To do great creative work, you not only have to love it enough to work that hard at it, yes, you have to have incredible taste to always be finding that one little thing that you can improve - for decades and decades.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm an amateur chef and I cook for friends and family all the time. They're often happier than I am about the meal because I know it could be way better.

</comment><comment><USER20> Probably off topic, but the deadline point struck me most about the video. I'm a firm believer in self-directed learning, but I must admit that one of the benefits of having an overarching system that pushes you to deliver on time, such as school or a boss, can also have its benefits in setting the deadlines for you (and enforcing them). It takes a great amount of self-discipline to stick to one's own deadlines.

<comment><USER21> I recently discovered <http://www.stickk.com> . I haven't tried it, but my understanding is that you set a goal, a deadline, some stakes and a referee. If you don't finish in time, you have to pay the price (stakes) that you have set. This can for example be donating money to an organization you don't like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Yes, absolutely true. Anecdotally the first couple of novels I wrote (unpublished) disgusted me. I know the stories I want to tell and all of the things that make books in my genre (fantasy and historical fiction) suck. But I found myself reading the semi-finished work and finding the same plot holes and problems.

#2 was better than #1. And #3 is looking better and better as it goes on (I enjoy reading it, which is a good start :)).

Same with programming. I have scratty bits of PHP code from a couple of years ago that make me cringe. Today I am writing the same functionality - it still sucks, but not quite as much as it used to.

</comment><comment><USER23> I loved this, thanks. The hardest part about being a creative / writer, or even entrepreneur is the high expectations set by those you admire, and the impossibility of fully imagining the amount of time it will take you to reach their level.

I don't know how true it is, or whether others agree, but I have always felt (except with work of exceptional brilliance), that I have the power (given enough work) to create work on the same level of anything I can see and appreciate - the key, I think is knowing why I appreciate it.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think that is one of the most insightful and meaningful (to me) interviews I've heard in a while. When he plays his old piece and completely lambasts it, I felt amazingly inspired that, maybe, in 10 years I will be able to look back and say the same about my own work. But at the same time be extremely happy about it because I'll know that I'm well beyond where I am used to be.

Never give up.

</comment><comment><USER25> It's not just the work; I've come to accept (on some level) that I need to keep moving when working on projects and not fixate on a single detail to get it exactly right. But there's also the nagging feeling that programming is just, well, not all that deep creatively.

I can't shake it, and its rather pernicious.

</comment><comment><USER26> Not sure I completely agree with this idea. I used to own an art gallery and saw many artists, early in their careers, who actually THOUGHT they were great, but who were actually terrible. Some of those same artists later DID become great and produced masterful works (and were embarrassed by their early works). For some people I think it's possible for taste to improve as they walk along their creative journey.

Another example: I wasn't frustrated with my code when I first started because I didn't even have the taste to know it was bad.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It definitely spoke to the writer in me and also the entrepreneur. Sometimes I get this ache inside and when I'm unable to express myself. Even now I can't say it right.

Finally after a lot of hard work people finally understand what took me a long time to translate. I always imagine how the creator of Mad Men or any site that works beautifully must have really beaten themselves up to get that good.

</comment><comment><USER27> Something similar I had written a year back: <http://tuhinkumar.com/journal/good-taste/>

</comment><comment><USER28> I think most of the time I'm not happy with what I do 'cause I know I could do a lot better and I know what I need to do to achieve that. But seems like I just can't quit my bad behaviors and do what needs to be done.

</comment><comment><USER29> My work always disappoints me because there's the idealistic image in my head and I could never get it right on paper, no matter how hard I try just like I could never draw a perfect circle.

</comment><comment><USER30> Perfectionism pays off, but its a savings bond, not a pennystock

</comment><comment><USER31> This is simply brilliant. Thanks for posting this and making my day. Onward..

</comment><comment><USER32> i can relate to this comment, I have been programming for only a few years but seem to get constantly frustrated with where I currently am compared to where I want to be.

</comment><comment><USER33> He makes an interesting point. I'd like to hear him address the other side of it too though: What about people who have good taste but won't actually be capable of producing work that meets their high standards even after trying for a decade?

He says after 8 years he was still an awful reporter, but I don't think good taste necessarily guaranteed he'd become a good one. Seems like a lot of people could head pretty far down the wrong path if they just take his word.

<comment><USER34> I think the other part that makes you good is actually liking the process. When you don't care what the outcome is, the journey becomes the reward. And that can lead to some pretty awesome creative work :)

<comment><USER33> Think about all the struggling artistic types out there though. Ask any unknown rock group who they like and they'll probably name the same legendary bands like Zeppelin, Floyd, etc., but most of them will never make it anywhere.

Tons of people have 'good taste', but I think there are certain careers where it's not a valid indicator of future success... not even close. Telling a musician "you have good taste, so you'll do well if you just keep trying" would be horrible advice 99% of the time. Hell, I wouldn't even say good taste is a prerequisite for music, because people always think the innovators are completely insane until they become the next big thing.

<comment><USER35> Methinks "good taste" refers not to the set of things you decide are good or bad, but to the perception and analysis you use to make such decisions.

It's best if you're able to explain yourself. The consummate person-with-good- taste-in-music should be able to listen to Led Zeppelin and say, "Ah, this is good, they do XYZ really well, those are the things that make this song good"; and it should be _right_ , which means that if you took Led Zeppelin and had them do X not as well, and played the result to members of the general public, they would react much less enthusiastically than they would to the original song.

Being able to say "this is good" or "this is bad" is a start, but the really useful thing is to be able to go deeper and say "this is good overall; XYZ are good aspects of it; ABC could have been done better". 'Cause then you can tweak ABC and make it even better, or go to a comparable project and fix _its_ XYZ.

It's sometimes possible to use your taste to be successful even if you're not able to explain yourself with words. If you're carefully listening to your project (or using whatever sense is appropriate; imagine a man closing his eyes and calmly giving his entire attention to the sensation), and you just _feel_ that a certain thing isn't the way you like it and needs to be changed in a certain way, and you make the change, and repeat the process until you're satisfied... If you have very good taste, then these _things_ that you felt needed fixing were precisely the things that the consummate person-with-good- taste would perceive and describe, and your product should now be really good (at least, much better than before).

If you have that kind of taste, and if you have control over your project (or if the people working with you simply trust your decisions), then you can get success without ever developing the ability to articulate just _why_ a particular thing is good or bad. On the other hand, it is probably possible to have excellent taste in most regards but to just be flat-out wrong about a couple of important things. To guard against this possibility, it is useful to be able to explain yourself and to compare your words with others's.

You can probably start to learn to articulate your tastes by experiencing several things that are similar, but you definitely like some of them more than the others, and thinking about what makes them different and what might explain your preference. You'll have to be careful--not to attribute like or dislike to the wrong things--but you will probably make progress sooner or later.

See also "Blink", by Malcolm Gladwell.

<comment><USER36> _> Being able to say "this is good" or "this is bad" is a start, but the really useful thing is to be able to go deeper and say "this is good overall; XYZ are good aspects of it; ABC could have been done better". 'Cause then you can tweak ABC and make it even better, or go to a comparable project and fix its XYZ._

This is a very good point, and I've seen it as my own musical tastes have developed. I have several friends who are in bands, and while they appreciate praise and fan adoration, they seem to be doubly appreciate when I say something like, "Your solos are a little too clean; turn up the distortion a bit," or "The lead is being drowned out by the harmonies."

By offering very direct constructive criticism, you are signaling to the artist that you appreciate their work enough to listen _that_ closely in order to help them make it even better. On several occasions I've taken to conspicuously listening to a single band member, and without fail that person played better simply as a result of being scrutinized.

Being that critic and scrutinizing yourself in that same way is probably the surest way to improve your own art. That is why taste must come before good art. And that is why the best artists never seem satisfied. If they ever had been satisfied along the way, they never would have made it as far as they did.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN: My startup just got its first paying customer - woohoo - <AUTHOR>

Over the past few years, I've written about 60 small Facebook applications -- mostly having to do with enhancing productivity -- and recently, I gathered the 10 most useful and packaged them in a bundle:
http://fab.pressbin.com
Yesterday, I got my first paying customer.
They say the first customer is the toughest to acquire, so I'm glad I've cleared that hurdle!
Now, it's time to attract the next 999,999. <comment><AUTHOR> Hyperlink: <http://fab.pressbin.com>

</comment><comment><USER2> That's great, congratulations. I took a look at your pricing page and you may want to consider putting the annual price in like terms, i.e. say $12/year instead of $0.99/month. When I read annual, I expect the price to be stated in that unit. Maybe you can tack on a "Pay for 6 months, get a year's worth of service if you get the annual plan" line somewhere.

<comment><USER3> I agree with bakhlawa on this one. Don't make your poor customers do math, they will hate you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Congratulations! You must be very excited, I know I would be.

I wonder, did you think about positioning your product for Facebook Page owners only? I guess you could price your product a bit higher then if you did. Or maybe you are aiming at individuals?

</comment><comment><USER5> Congrats!

A bit of aesthetic feedback: I'm using ie8 with a 1382 X 864 screen res and your header on your pricing page appears as follows: <http://i.imgur.com/yeUCZ.png>

</comment><comment><USER6> Great collection of Facebook apps! Try spreading your work, or even better good stories from people who use it, on relevant Facebook marketing blogs.

</comment><comment><USER7> Congrats!

You have some really nice apps. Perhaps you should try charging more?</comment>


Ask HN: What headphones do you use in the office? - <AUTHOR>

When I programming/reading at work, I often listen to music. I currently have a pair of great in-ear headphones (Shure E2Cs) that are lightweight, portable, and sound great. However, they get a bit uncomfortable after a few hours, and I was thinking about switching to a pair of circumaural headphones.
I was wondering what headphones the rest of you use in the office (if any)?
I was hoping to take some inspiration from your choices, as I suspect my requirements are similar to most of yours. For what it's worth, the big things I care about are that they not disturb a coworker who I share the office with (~6ft away) and that they should cost under $200 (although, obviously, the cheaper the better). Size/heft/appearance aren't a big issue, since I'm willing to leave them at the office all the time and just use my E2Cs most of the time. <comment><USER2> Sennheiser HD280 Pro <http://tinyurl.com/dd475w>

They are massively comfortable, and quite tight on the head so no one else can hear anything. If I dont feel like music I sometimes wear them anyway as they are great at blaocking out the noise.

Oh and did I mention they sound amazing.

<comment><USER3> Great for the money, but in my personal experience they become really uncomfortable after about an hour. It's kept me from using them as often as I would like. Maybe I just have a weirdly shaped head.

<comment><USER4> Try the Beyerdynamic 770 pros. I own both the Sennheiser 280s and the Beyerdynamics. To me, the Beyerdyamics are more comfortable, have better highs, and better sound isolation. You can even find 80 Ohm versions of these if you look. (So you can use them with your laptop or iPod without a headphone amp.)

If you don't care about sound isolation, it's hard to beat the Grado headphones for price/performance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sony MDR-V6 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_MDR-V6> [http://www.amazon.com/Sony-MDR-V6-Monitor-Headphones- Voice/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Sony-MDR-V6-Monitor-Headphones- Voice/dp/B00001WRSJ/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1237208817&sr=8-1)

<comment><USER6> A lot of sound techs who record outside rock these I've noticed. I have a pair and they are quite nice, durable, and sound pretty good. I picked mine up for like $60, which is very reasonable i thought. Comfortable and are sealed, so you can tune others out and the music in.

<comment><USER5> They really do block quite a bit of noise; with music playing I usually don't hear anything else, even in a noisy shared work environment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Grado SR80: <http://www.gradolabs.com/product_pages/sr80.htm>

Very nice.

<comment><USER8> Brilliant headphones _BUT_ they are open back and send just as much music outwards as they do inwards, so not a good choice for commuting or if you work in a room full of people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I find that sometimes music distracts me. Instead of earphones, I use earplugs (the wax type) that works pretty well. Especially useful nowadays where I work near a construction site and very inconsiderate neighbours.

<comment><USER10> Do you find the wax ones better than the foam ones? The foam ones are comfortable and convenient, but they don't block enough noise. I'm particularly bothered by nearby speech, e.g. in a cube environment.

<comment><USER9> I do.

I'm using [http://www.epharmacy.com.au/product.asp?id=3902&pname=Ea...](http://www.epharmacy.com.au/product.asp?id=3902&pname=Ear+Plugs+Antinoise+3+Pairs+Surgipak+6244). The packaging says it's -21db. I searched a little and found [http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/369209-REG/Hearos_2210...](http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/369209-REG/Hearos_2210_Foam_Ear_Plugs_.html) which rates as -32db which sounds surprisingly high, but I've never tried it.

For the foam ones that I'd used, the wax I've got is much better. It could be the way I wear them or maybe their size. Using the wax earplugs, with very loud construction works at say 200m away, I can block out enough for me to work and I can't hear the TV in the other room with open door.

One thing with wax though, they are waterproof. I do feel a little pressure build up so it might take a little getting used to.

<comment><USER10> Thank you for the response. I may give the wax a try. I recall trying a pair, many many years ago. I also tried silicon some years ago; from that, I have some idea of what you mean about the difference in feel.

The foam plugs I wear are rated at something like -29 or -31 dB, depending upon which exact box I have (even though they all carry the same brand name). Even if the rating is accurate, it is measured against a frequency / frequency spread that does not apply much if at all to speech.

Here's a resource I've been considering mining; I haven't pulled the trigger on an order, yet.

<http://earplugstore.stores.yahoo.net/>

It appears to be a Yahoo store account. Maybe pg could get us a discount? ;-) (Viaweb went to Yahoo, right?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Checkout this link. [http://www.headphone.com/guide/by-headphone-type/sealed- type...](http://www.headphone.com/guide/by-headphone-type/sealed- type/?ob=ourPrice&dir=DESC)

</comment><comment><USER12> I have a pair of RCA HPNC300's, they weren't all that expensive and their noise canceling works great. I even wear them at home, they can cut out a lot of background noise as they clear a lot of the bass noise that tends to overpower other sounds.

I used to fly a lot and they worked amazing, it really helps when you don't hear the rumble of the engines.

The only problem with the HPNC300's is that they're on-ear headphones and as I wear quite thick-armed glasses once every few days the headphones just really pile on the pressure. If you don't wear glasses then I don't imagine you'd ever have a problem with on-ear, although personally I'm also looking for a good pair of circumaural (over-ear) but I don't really have a need to spend money on them now. When I got my current pair of headphones the price difference between noise canceling on-ear and over-ear was just shit stupid, it was like double-tipple the price for equal dB reduction through the noise canceling and not simply being a $400 pair of ear protectors with earphones built in.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've had good luck with AblePlanet headphones ([http://www.ableplanet.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_...](http://www.ableplanet.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=38)).

Very similar to Bose technology, considering Bose has since sued them for patent infringement.

</comment><comment><USER14> KOSS's "The Plug" (not SparkPlug) <http://tinyurl.com/dkcryy>

They act like ear plugs (expanding foam in your ear canal) but play pretty darn good music quality too. And cheap. Really, I can't go wrong with these.

<comment><USER15> I have these. I found that, for my ears, they're more comfortable if I take off the foam part and turn it around, so the wider part of the cone faces outward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have Microsoft LifeChat LX-3000s ([http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft- JUG-00001-LifeChat-LX-3000-H...](http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft- JUG-00001-LifeChat-LX-3000-Headset/dp/B000J4WPW8/)), since we use skype once in a while. They're nothing remarkable sound-wise, but they're pretty comfortable, cheap, and they have a mic.

My only point against them is that there's a volume / mute box about a third of the way along the cord from the headphones, and it tends to bump into things, fall off the desk, etc. That's probably true of many similar headphones, though.

</comment><comment><USER16> I used to use AudioTechnica ANC ATH-ANC7 Noise Reduction headphones. I found that the active noise reduction doesn't really work in an office setting because there is some serious leakage when active. The noise reduction feature works great on a train/plane/coffee shop (anywhere there is lots of ambient noise) though. On a train, it cuts out the rumble and smooths it out so there is very little oscillation (e.g. no rumble but some low frequency sound).

Now, I just use my RadioShack headset with boom mic. The ANC7's are bulky and tend to hurt my ears if I wear them too much.

</comment><comment><USER17> BeyerDynamic 770 Pros: <http://bit.ly/zbEBB>

You can wear them all day and barely notice. Great bass. You can turn them way up and there is almost no leakage.

<comment><USER4> Not only is there little leakage, but the sound isolation is quite good. The isolation is significantly better than the Sennheiser 280s, as well as the comfort. (I own both.) The Beyerdynamic are also the best sounding closed headphones that I own. I find that they have better highs and a more pleasing sound than the Sennheiser 280s, and are just as detailed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sennheiser CX300S Canalphones. Bought them on a whim from newegg but I'm pleased with them. I can't be isolated for more than about an hour before some emergency crops up so the comfort is less important.

The HD280s are amazing though, I think I'll be getting a pair of them for home soon.

</comment><comment><USER19> good info, big timesink:

<http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f103/>

<http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/>

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm quite fond of my Sennheiser PX100's. They're cheap, exceptionally lightweight, and outrageously comfortable. Plus, the sound is quite decent (on par with the Sennheiser HD280 Pro).

</comment><comment><USER21> I've had a pair of Beyerdynamic DT250-80s which haven't had any problems in 7 years of daily use.

</comment><comment><USER8> Etymotic ER-4p in the office and Er-6i out and about.</comment>


Is the decline in rape due to the accessibility of porn on the internet? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bakadesuyo.com/is-the-decline-in-rape-due-to-the-accessibili

<comment><USER2> Perfectly possible. But, without proper studies this could be as possible as global warming caused by lack of pirates.

</comment><comment><USER3> My views are of little use here (autism) but judging by what my friends say about celebrities, brief celebrities (they even have a sexual view on rebecca black _shudder_ ), any possible random woman in the street or online - No, no this isn't the case. They are very vocal with their views on so many more people because all the worst (or best, depending on how you look at it) pictures of celebrities are brought to their attention. Rapes may well be down, but it seems so much more misogynistic than when you only had terrestrial TV and the street to comment on.

<comment><USER4> It's possible that porn tends to promote misogyny as well as tending to reduce rape.</comment></comment>


First photo of Cadillac Lyriq EV's nearly 3-foot monster display - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2020/07/20/exclusive-first-photo-of-cadillac-lyriq-evs-nearly-3-foot-monster-display/ <comment><USER2> What a gaudy abomination! A big part of it's functionality appears to be distracting the driver --- and impressing the boomers next door.

Take most of the screen away, leave the bare essentials needed to successfully and safely operate the vehicle --- and then if you have additional pertinent info for the driver, convey it audibly or verbally.

Just my opinion.</comment>


Hostility toward spiritual traditions may be hampering empirical inquiry - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/opinion/sunday/science-religion.html <comment><USER2> The article containing the quote from Richard Dawkins can be found here:

[https://uktech.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/dawkins-on- theology/](https://uktech.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/dawkins-on-theology/)

To paraphrase, he's arguing that very little beyond the obvious has come from religious teachings, and much of the rest can be proved false with science.

The article posted suggests that science may have more to learn from religion, given that science has shown there is some benefit to practices like meditation and ritual. This reads a little bit like a justification for all of religion after science was able to pick some of the interesting parts out and show they have use beyond a religious context. I'm not sure I buy the argument. A seized engine doesn't become workable simply by showing the bolts are still in good condition.

<comment><USER3> But would science have ever come up with the concept of meditation in the first place? How long did it take for it to be accepted in the western scientific tradition as something possibly worth investigating, something with value beyond mystical yogi hocus pocus?

Almost any historical practice with social or psychological meaning would have been understood at least partially within the context of a "spiritual tradition". If you write off anything that smells of religion you throw away an awful lot.

<comment><USER4> Yes. The original similar concept is called TENS. Oldest, uses electric current simulation.

The other concept was using sound interaction with brainwave monitoring - monaural and binaural beats. There are also light based variants.

Yet other used magnetic fields and another is called tDCS.

There is also hypnosis, pretty old.

These have nothing in common with religion yet are similar to meditation when measured... not exactly identical of course.

I'm quite sure someone would figure out a link between specific thought patterns and physiology in a specialized field like neuroscience...

<comment><USER5> TENS and tDCS are nothing like meditation and have nothing in common.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am an atheist but I believe pursuing religious thought can be a laudable thing for individuals who do it as a spiritual and self-reflective exercise.

When it becomes an instrument of social control, whether that means using religion to excuse bigotry or merely using religion as an excuse for manipulation or control in your own household, then I can no longer agree and feel it is an intrinsic civic duty of all people to actively discontinue that portion of religious practice.

Somewhere there is also a gray area related to what I would call "faith-based reasoning." In some circumstances it's fine to make decisions by consulting some form of faith. But in others, say denying a child's medical care, it is clearly indefensible.

On this side of things I subscribe to the idea that was described on LessWrong in terms of "making beliefs pay rent in the form of anticipated experiences." Along the same lines I admire a quote from Robin Hanson: "I wish there was less of a feeling of entitlement to believe whatever you want, and more of a sense of social responsibility to believe accurately."

<comment><USER7> I just Ramanujan wikipedia page, his mathematical insights were often inspired by his faith (as he said, even though it's hard to understand what this means). It was in complete opposition of his fellows in UK when he went there. Funny contrast.

Religion also as a different domain of study.. human life. Hard science was concerned with ideals and material. Few for what your soul~ needs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you'd like to understand the Greek religion and specifically the intellectual core of it -- which was opposed by Christianity but is philosophically pro-science and math -- read Plotinus. 700 years after the Pythagorean beginnings of spiritual-scientific integration, by the time of Plotinus, there was a core recognition of "The One" or "Oneness" as the origin and basis of reality -- and goodness. Acheiving this oneness ("henosis") is possible for anyone through meditation, ritual, psychelics, etc. Plotinus claimed to have merged with the Oneness of the universe several times. This oneness is what Alduous Huxley described as the "perennial philosophy" found in all religious traditions.

This oneness is, also, fully commensurate with science. The notion of "oneness" sounds like monotheism, but is so dramatically different. It was, in fact, the reason Christians got so worked up about the Trinity -- and killed off the Arian heresy (who believed that Jesus was born after god, as an emanation of the one) -- because otherwise, you fall back into this competing pagan philosophy that begins with One, and then builds the universe through "logos".

Few know this, but early christianity was out of the Essenes Jewish sect, which was described as Pythagorean by the historians of the time, Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. This creates a possible future for the Catholic Church to use textual sources to integrate with science and not throw away everything. Won't be easy, but wtf else will be done with all those churches and billions of dollars?? Jesus was the voice of the logos, according to early church father Origen.

In the meantime, atheists/pantheists like myself can read Plato, Plotinus and Pythagorean texts for inspiration on how a quantitative world gains qualia -- and how harmony serves as a secular (yet spiritual) source of value. Did we did all come from "the one"? The big bang claims that the universe was fit into a sphere smaller than a proton-- that's about as close as it gets.

Happy to provide references, but the terms are searchable.

</comment><comment><USER9> The "God of the gaps" phenomenon works both ways. I don't think the scientific method depends upon religion, nor would I want to live in a world without science. However the idea/phenomenon of once something is in the science column it is no longer in the religion column doesn't really make any logical sense to me. If an organized religion funds legitimate science, does it automatically cease to be somehow related to religion in their eyes? Doubtful, and this doesn't even take into account that much of the contemporary university system spun out of religious institutions in the 12th century.

<comment><USER10> > However the idea/phenomenon of once something is in the science column it is > no longer in the religion column doesn't really make any logical sense to > me.

It doesn't mean the phenomenon is so longer relevant to religion, or that religions can't offer some insights into how the phenomenon might effect humans, but it certainly obviated the need for religion to invoke the supernatural to explain the mechanics of the phenomenon. Which is, after all, what the "God of the gaps" perspective pertains to.

<comment><USER9> Right, I just wonder to what extent someone like [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître) or even Einstein felt the need to distinguish science vs religion as they pondered scientific concepts. I think the debate or dichotomy makes far more sense as reason vs xyz rather than science vs religion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does this article actually say anything? To me it sounds like a bunch of nice words without any message.

<comment><USER12> Psychology could learn something from studying some of the tools religions apply for example to for example influence and guide people.

Which is sure is true, just like you can learn a lot watching a used car salesmen with the tools he or she uses. Robert Cialdini wrote some great books about that topic.

The author is how ever mixing up things here on purpose, best seen with the title.

>What Science Can Learn from Religion

It should read what Psychology can learn by studying religious groups. Those two are very different things.

<comment><USER10> But that's just saying that science can learn from _studying religion_ , not that science can learn by following the teachings of religion. Of course science can learn from studying religion, just like it can from studying the rainforest, or stars, or diseases.

<comment><USER13> It's saying that the bias against religion in the sciencey tribe presents a barrier to actually studying religions as sources of psychological knowledge that are better than random speculation (presumably on the grounds that there was some competition between religions, so that religions that were based on bad ideas about psychology died out and the ones that remain are based on better-than-random ideas about psychology)

Sciencey people think religions are wrong, so they are prone to acting like all ideas to come out of religion are bunk. They shouldn't, so the hostility of sciencey people toward religion hurts science.

<comment><USER3> A most excellent summary.

It's funny how hardly anyone in this comment thread seems to have taken away this message. I do however see a whole lot of rather defensive comments about how religion is useless and bad for this reason or that reason, or attacking the article (which I thought was very reasonably written) for religious apology. I think that offers a visible example of the phenomenon under discussion - any suggestion of positive things flowing from religion is met with a kind of allergic reaction.

<comment><USER4> The religion as a concept has a use or a few. The allergy cuts both ways, with religious people not wanting their sociotechnological or psychological practices broken down and appropriated without core memes.

To do so is considered heresy or worse. More so if done with required irreverence of science where anything can be shown wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Hostility toward spiritual traditions may be hampering empirical inquiry.

The hostility is not towards the tradition, it's towards the selected individuals who take it upon themselves to aggressively attack all secular issue, and then shied themselves under the "religious haters" shield when one defends their invaded territory.

<comment><USER15> I am surprised we don't hate scientists who developed devastating weapons ! Instead I see otherwise. I think there are also extremists in secular camps by this definition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why should science learn from religion [0] or religion learn from science? They serve two different purposes.

"Science" (ultimately the scientific method) concerns itself with empiricism, and exploration of outcomes without regard to their inherent meanings and purposes. This is GOOD.

Religion / Ideology (whether with a deity or not) is teleological and imparts purpose and meaning to empirical observations as well as things that are beyond empiricism. This is also GOOD.

Both should probably work together. But they should probably remain separate concepts.

[0] "Religion" in my mind includes all teleological ideologies; things like 'capitalism', 'Marxism', 'Nazism', 'Baathism', 'emacism', etc.

</comment><comment><USER17> > While fundamentalist faiths cast science as a misguided or even malicious > source of information

I wonder which faiths they are talking about here.

When it comes to Christianity, well, we love science. We look at it like this - science answers "what and how" while religion answers "who and why". So there's no competition between the two.

For more on the topic: [https://soundcloud.com/bulldogcatholic/122518-but- why](https://soundcloud.com/bulldogcatholic/122518-but-why) (around 4:00 mark)

<comment><USER18> > When it comes to Christianity, well, we love science. We look at it like > this - science answers "what and how" while religion answers "who and why". > So there's no competition between the two.

"Why" questions are either nonsense (like, questions about some made-up "ultimate purpose") or "how" questions in disguise, "who" questions are presupposing an answer to what are actually "how" questions, in order to pretend that it's not a scientific question.

<comment><USER19> >"Why" questions are either nonsense (like, questions about some made-up "ultimate purpose")

In addition to religion, you're outright dismissing entire fields of study, philosophy, ethics, law etc... that are extremely relevant to all of our lives. Whether you believe the "why" questions can every be answered is one thing, but dismissing them as nonsense without even trying to support your argument is extremely arrogant.

<comment><USER18> Do you have an example of a "why" question that is not a "how" question in disguise and that you think is not a nonsense question?

<comment><USER19> Why should I should I try to minimize the suffering of another person if it has no impact on myself and there is no chance of a reward?

<comment><USER20> This seems to me a "how" disguised. Presumably, you WANT the answer to be conducive to people caring about other people. Or would you accept as answer "No, there's no reason to care about others in this situation"?

So if you want a particular answer then you are asking "How can I make it so that people care?"

<comment><USER19> >Or would you accept as answer "No, there's no reason to care about others in this situation"?

That's an acceptable answer. My next question is: "Why don't you believe it's wrong not to care about another's suffering?"

And you say: "There is no inherent right or wrong--self interest is the only arbiter of morality."

And we go back and forth until you get to a level where you've basically made an arbitrary assumption.

That assumption is an axiom that you base your world view on. The why that came before that discovery wasn't nonsense

<comment><USER18> > That's an acceptable answer. My next question is: "Why don't you believe > it's wrong not to care about another's suffering?"

First, that's a straw man. It's a straw man because they didn't say they didn't care about another's suffering, they said there might be no reason to care in that particular highly unrealistic scenario that you presented that was intentionally crafted so as to not have a reason to care.

Then, in so far as you refer only to your hypothetical scenario, the answer has already been given: Because there is no reason, or at least there is no reason that they are aware of. If you were asking them for justification as to why they aren't aware of any reasons, that's obviously a nonsensical question if you don't provide a reason for which they might be able to investigate how it came that they weren't aware of that reason.

> And we go back and forth until you get to a level where you've basically > made an arbitrary assumption.

No, that's bullshit, and probably a whole load of equivocation to make the unreasonable seem equivalent to the reasonable.

<comment><USER19> >Strawman

It's not a strawman, it doesn't matter what the reason the person gave was. I'm not trying to make my hypothetical person supply the easiest answer to attack, I'm not even trying to attack their answer.

>No, that's bullshit, and probably a whole load of equivocation to make the unreasonable seem equivalent to the reasonable.

It's not possible to have beliefs that aren't based on assumptions. I guess you can think that's bullshit, but your belief doesn't make it so.

<comment><USER18> > It's not a strawman, it doesn't matter what the reason the person gave was. > I'm not trying to make my hypothetical person supply the easiest answer to > attack, I'm not even trying to attack them.

Well, maybe, that depends on which path of the equivocation we follow.

> It's not possible to have beliefs that aren't based on assumptions. I guess > you can think that's bullshit, but your belief doesn't make it so.

Yeah, that's the equivocation I am talking about. You didn't say "you've made an assumption", you said "you've basically made an arbitrary assumption".

Let me guess what you are really trying to say:

"It is just an assumption that reality is real, therefore, if you think that that assumption is acceptable, you should also not have any objection to the assumption that god exists/gave us morals/some other unjustified supernatural claim."

Right?

It's not that there isn't an interpretation of what you wrote that is indeed true (kindof), it's just that that interpretation is irrelevant to the argument that you are trying to make, which relies on a different interpretation, which unfortunately is not true.

<comment><USER19> >Yeah, that's the equivocation I am talking about. You didn't say "you've made an assumption", you said "you've basically made an arbitrary assumption".

Arbitrary isn't the right word. Not self-evident is better.

>Right?

No, I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists.

>the argument that you are trying to make, which relies on a different interpretation, which unfortunately is not true.

You are having that argument with yourself, not me.

>unfortunately

I don't think I could write a more condescending, disingenuous statement if I tried.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> That smells of equivocation. There is science, the methodology, and there is the body of knowledge constructed using that methodology, colloquially also often just called 'science'.

Yes, obviously one can use scientific methodology to study religion, and given that religiosity is a very common human behavior, it is hardly surprising that you can learn something about human psychology this way, thus contributing to the scientific body of knowledge.

But that does not in any way suggest that the methodology (that is, the epistemological practice of science) has anything to learn from religion, which is obviously the claim that Dawkins and Pinker are rejecting, because that is the claim that religions make when they make assertions about how the world works, as all religions do.

So, the article at best substantiates the obvious and completely uncontroversial interpretation of the title that you can make empirical observations of religious behaviour, while failing to provide any arguments in favor of the interpretation that at least some people will be prone to read into the title, that religion somehow has to offer any useful methods for distintuishing fact from fiction that should be adopted by science.

<comment><USER21> I think you are absolutely correct. Many famous scientists were and are deeply religious. Science as a methodology is antithetical to religious methodology. The only problem with this is that some people think it's a problem. Science attempts to make observations, build models and predict things based on those models. It tries to actively falsify its own models by checking whether new observations follow the predictions based on the models. Your choice of whether or not to believe in the reality of the models is still your choice. While unfair and out of context, I like to quote Einstein here: "God does not play dice with the universe". He didn't like quantum mechanics because it didn't sit well with his belief of how the universe worked. Similarly, after Michelson and Morely won the nobel prize for demonstrating that the speed of light was a constant, no matter what reference frame you were in, they spent the rest of their years trying to disprove it! They knew that the consequences of a constant speed of light was crazy physics as envisioned by Einstein and they didn't believe in that kind of universe. This happens all the time in science. We use our scientific models because they are useful, not because we believe in them as some kind of absolute truth. Granted, some people do believe that, but that belief is not science. The big takeaway is that it doesn't matter what you believe if you are using a scientific methodology. It is irrelevant -- you use what works, not what you believe.

Religion is a methodology of belief. I can't tell you the number of people I've met in my life who would curl up and shut out the world if they didn't believe in something more than they could measure or extrapolate form existing models. This is human nature, for better or for worse. Belief is necessary for most people -- even scientists (though, as I said, quite a few of them choose to believe their own models).

Like some people, I have a problem with many organised religions. Historically, religions have been very adept at using people's belief in order to liberate them from their money or their freedom (or even their lives!). However, I don't think religion, per se, is the problem. Like I said, people need to believe something and religions offer that service. It's just that having inserted themselves into that picture, people have a tendency to abuse their position (often with a considerable amount of internal justification, but I think it is abuse none-the-less). On the other hand, I've seen religious organisations do a world of good as well. This rallying force of belief is _extremely_ strong. Even when countries have made religion illegal, they simply insert the state as the object of belief. This is because (IMHO) belief is necessary to the normal operation of human communities (and sometimes also because they want to abuse their populations ;-) ).

WRT the idea that traditional ideas may have useful applications for science, this is undeniable. But many traditional ideas are also just snake oil. The best methodology for telling the difference that I know of is science. Starting with the assumption that traditional ideas are likely to be beneficial, I think is a poor idea. However, so is starting with the assumption that traditional ideas are necessarily snake oil. If you have a question, make observations, build a model, make predictions, test those predictions with new observations. You might be wasting your time, but you might not. That's science. If you want to believe something and it makes you feel happy, then go for it. That's religion.

<comment><USER18> > However, I don't think religion, per se, is the problem.

That I would disagree with. The defining characteristic of religion is faith, or the acceptance of unsubstantiated claims as factual truth. Faith is the most dishonest and irresponsible epistemology there is and has an obvious potential to be used for justifying unlimited badness, as has been demonstrated over and over. Ideas that have such massive risks I would say are pretty obviously a problem.

> Like I said, people need to believe something and religions offer that > service.

That sounds very much like an unsubstantiated claim. The mere fact that it is common does not imply an innate need, but would be explained just as well by indoctrination--and the fact that lots of people who once felt just that need do overcome it using rational thought also suggests that it's at least not as inherent to humans as you make it out to be.

> Even when countries have made religion illegal, they simply insert the state > as the object of belief.

I don't think that's a contradiction. Countries that aren't autoritarian just don't care about (lack of) religiosity of their citizens, but authoritarian states always demand submission to their doctrine and thus ban all other belief systems--in the case of theocratic states, they ban all other religions and sects, in the case of non-theocratic states, they ban all "traditional religions". None of that is about religion vs. lack of religion, it is only about banning competition.

> This is because (IMHO) belief is necessary to the normal operation of human > communities (and sometimes also because they want to abuse their populations > ;-) ).

I don't see why that should be.

<comment><USER22> > The defining characteristic of religion is faith...

That's actually not true. One clue here is that many religions do not ask for faith, which is to say one does not actually observe a demand of faith universally in religions. Faith _per se_ is not observable, so it would not do as a defining characteristic of religion.

Frequently, religions only ask for ritual observance. This is the defining characteristic of religion -- ritual observance that affirms a person's commitment to a community and its values. Whether people "really believe" or not has no simple effect on whether the ritual serves to reinforce shared values or not. Many people feel bonded to a community and its values even when engaging with a mythology that is obviously fictitious, as for example when people go to the desert to burn the man every year; or dress up like aliens and head to Star Trek Vegas.

<comment><USER18> > Many people feel bonded to a community and its values even when engaging > with a mythology that is obviously fictitious, as for example when people go > to the desert to burn the man every year; or dress up like aliens and head > to Star Trek Vegas.

Seriously? You are including hobby clubs of sorts into the definition of religions in order to support your claim that many religions do not ask for faith?

So, atheist associations with regular meetings are religions, too, then, I suppose?

<comment><USER22> It is probably better to think of most religions as very dramatic hobby clubs.

Just having regular meetings is not enough to be "performative" or "ritualistic". What if the atheist association always began every meeting with a hymn to Richard Dawkins, and then a ceremonial swim of a little model HMS Beagle around a miniature island, always widdershins (opposite to the sun)? This would be the beginnings of religion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> How to systemically abuse various groups of people for centuries?

How to use people's fear of the unknown for tax free profit?

How to dress up bigotry so it sounds like something less obviously horrible?

Did I miss anything?

<comment><USER24> Please don't do religious flamewar on HN. We're hoping for somewhat higher quality here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER23> Then why is the article even allowed?

<comment><USER24> Because it makes intellectually interesting points that can be responded to thoughtfully.

<comment><USER23> Right. Just don't mention all the abuse and everyone can pretend everything is fine.

<comment><USER24> That's certainly not the intention here! But HN is not a good place to sort of vent the fumes that have resulted from abuse, in an unprocessed way. The feelings are legitimate, but if you (or I or anyone) simply blasts them out, we're not really conversing. We're either venting—not a community activity—or battling, which is about defeating enemies rather than exchanging information.

This might make more sense if you review [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) about the intended spirit of this site. These other links might also be helpful:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html)

[http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html)

[http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Brown bears return to Chernobyl after a century away - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30197341

<comment><USER2> This is the interesting point that people miss:

 _" We have our models to predict radiation exposure but it does it in a very crude way - an average over a very large area - but we know that animals interact with the environment in different ways," observed Dr Wood."_

Our models for environmental exposure are crude because we are really really good at getting people out of harms way. There are the Hiroshima and Nagasaki data points, there is Chernobyl and Fukishima (3 mile island didn't have a large enough foot print to be qualitatively change the models). We err on the side of caution (nobody wants to be the one that said "ok move back in" and have those people die later as a direct cause of that. Large mammals are an excellent proxy for human habitation.

The bottom line is that we call an area 'uninhabitable' because we don't have good models to reason about what would happen if people lived there. It is possible people could live there just fine, but nobody is going to 'try it' to find out, because the flip side is so dire.

</comment><comment><USER3> My understanding is that wildlife has been returning in some form or another, since shortly after the accident.

Someone, I could have sworn BBC but all that's coming up in searches now is PBS, did a documentary about wildlife in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. I could have sworn it was about the wolves in the exclusion zone but touched on many topics.

If I recall correctly, the iron curtain itself actually helped wildlife somewhat by creating a strip of land across many European countries (where the fence itself was constructed) that wildlife was documented using as a highway for travel now that the fence has been torn down and that strip is largely left alone.

Fascinating stuff, both for the nuclear explosion, and the subsequent impact on surrounding wildlife.

Edit: I think this is the one that I saw. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iap7wXlMFIQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iap7wXlMFIQ)

<comment><USER4> I also suggest this BBC Horizon documentary[1]. It has a quite entertaining segment where they test the radioactivity of small mammal specimens from around Chernobyl.

[1] [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xwy1o5_bbc-horizon- nuclear-...](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xwy1o5_bbc-horizon-nuclear- nightmares-2006_tech)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great, here come the Yao guai :(</comment>


The link between middle-wage jobs, wage inequality, and worker welfare - <AUTHOR> https://voxeu.org/article/link-between-declining-middle-wage-jobs-rising-wage-inequality-and-worker-welfare <comment><USER2> One of the things I've learned as I started digging into wage inequality statistics is that performing this data analysis is extremely complicated. Demographics have changed dramatically between then and now. The labor force participation rate for women has nearly doubled from 1950 to today. The US keeps income statistics on a per household basis, and marriage rates and household sizes have declined dramatically. The percentage of the population that is immigrants has tripled since 1970. The age distribution has changed, as well as college attendance rates (four years where young people are earning no income). Racial distributions have changed, which creates complex effects. (Phenomena that are better explained as racial discrimination show up as income inequality. Also, the median ages of people of different races varies quite dramatically, from 28 for African Americans to 43 for white non-Hispanic Americans. So some of what you might characterize as racial inequality actually ends up being age inequality.) The shift from hourly factory work to salaried service jobs, the create of tax income like the EITC, etc., all make these analyses extremely complicated.

To isolate what you might think of as income inequality due to structural economic factors, you'd want something like individual lifetime income adjusted by race, immigration status, and gender. I have yet to see anything that thoroughly adjusts for all of these confounding factors.

<comment><USER3> Ran into this a lot myself. So far I haven't been able to get very far to consolidate all these variables. Whenever I see threads pointing to economic growth or decline, I'm left saying there are tons of confounding factors, but without being able to offer the right answer.

If you have any good reading to point to, please let me know. It's one of the things I'd love to have a good answer to, and that should be able to be answered to some extent, but isn't. Moreover I feel even many top economists routinely invoke extremely simplified single-variable perspectives (e.g. average wages per worker, or average household income) which indeed leaves out so many confounding factors that I've almost lost my expectation/hope that people even consider this kind of stuff... Only in academic papers which look to study something specific, are these confounders taken into account. But in general studies of economic growth or changes in or comparisons of economic wellbeing of various demographic subgroups, it seems the simple-perspective prevails. I get that many of these discussions are inherently political, thus susceptible to cherry-picking perspectives, but I'm still surprised there isn't some standard method so far that is more complex than charting 'household income for xyz'.

Any pointers to good literature is most welcome, and thanks for posting!

<comment><AUTHOR> > leaves out so many confounding factors

Indeed, that's one of the key problems with retrospective analysis. Fieldwork studies are promising. I find John List exploring this area and think his work is interesting: [http://www.fieldexperiments.com/papers/recent/](http://www.fieldexperiments.com/papers/recent/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "The current Western psychiatric wisdom states that suicide is the result of mental disorder in 98% (1) or even 100% (2) of cases. However, a number of recent studies (3–5) have reported that, in Asian countries, mental disorder has been found in less than 50% of those who completed suicide.

In the late 19th century, Emil Durkheim, a sociologist, published (6) important observations. Durkheim found that suicide was primarily a function of social circumstances; he stated that people suicide when they are not supported by or well integrated into the society, and that mental disorder was relatively less important. The majority of his observations have been supported: for example, he found that marital breakdown frequently led to suicide, particularly among males, and this has been repeatedly demonstrated (7)." Source - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431736/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431736/)

<comment><USER5> Interesting. That mean that low/medium mental disorders are not big deal in an environment of stability/happiness.

"If you are ugly, and everyone love you, it don't matter!" I remember this...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The conclusion is that computerization and automation are not the root of the change, which is at least contrary to popular wisdom. In an era of increasing returns to capital, relying on wages may ultimately be a losing strategy.

<comment><USER7> Thomas Picketty did great research in this area. The way I understood part of his theory is that the rate at which the value of wealth increases is faster then the rate at which wages increase. In other words, those people who own things like land and factories see the value of those things increase faster than workers see their wages increase.

<comment><USER8> And that cycle usually ends when a few people get their heads chopped off and things reset. It would be nice if we could figure out a better way to spread the wealth without costly and violent revolutions.

<comment><USER9> Can you not take on risk? Then you can obtain your own wealth.

<comment><USER10> It's nice to think this and there certainly are high-achievers who accomplish this, but Piketty's research relates to the economy as a whole and the entire point is that the economy's aggregate return on capital is outpacing economic growth (r > g). This means even if some do obtain wealth, ultimately there's more losers than winners. Outliers mean little in statistics and economics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've read that politicians pushed the H1B program to drive down wages in the STEM fields, in order to reduce perceived wage inequality. The top 1/10 of 1% can remain hidden if the bottom 50% aren't seeing the much more visible top 10% driving their BMWs around.

<comment><USER12> Skilled immigration is an economic home run, those opposed to it are similar to the NIMBY's in the Bay Area that vote down all new housing so their home values rise.

IMHO, there is no conspiratorial reason politicians pushed the program, it was common sense. H1B is a flawed half measure of a program because of upper middle class voters.

<comment><USER13> _> Skilled immigration is an economic home run_

Your response is tangential to the original point.

OP asserts correctly that increasing supply of labor depresses wages, by lowering the negotiating leverage. Your response handwaves it away with "skilled immigration is better for the whole economy".

Sorry to burst your bubble - this is a thread about balancing the wages / profits split. OP is right; the higher the supply of labor, the lower the price of labor, thus leaving higher proportion of the surplus as profits. Aka the dreaded _inequality_.

It's fine to prefer profit over wages, if that's how you make your living. But let's not pretend we're for increasing wages while in fact for increasing profit.

<comment><USER14> But this is _all else being equal_ , which is the "lump of labor" fallacy.

It's not obvious that skilled immigrants have the net effect of reducing the wages of non-immigrants with those same skills — tons of new firms are started by skilled immigrants and/or their kids, and the current SV economic expansion particularly so.

So, sure. If you already assume that the pie is of fixed size and a skilled immigrant reduces the work available to others, then you can draw the conclusions you do. But otherwise it's a weak argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Could someone explain the symmetry in figure 2? Why top-bottom is so strongly linked seemingly completely ignoring the middle two quartiles?

</comment><comment><USER16> The oldest millennial is now 38. This group - now the largest as a percentage - will see wage growth year over year for the next 15 years for three reasons 1) their skills improve year after year 2) employers will have a harder time replacing them - and will pay them not to leave 3) productivity is about to accelerate after a decade of flat productivity.

</comment><comment><USER17> US inequality is up but global inequality is down.

[https://ourworldindata.org/extreme- poverty](https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty)

<comment><USER18> > US inequality is up but global inequality is down.

Not sure if you are implying otherwise, but the reduction in global inequality doesn't necessarily require growth in US inequality, although that's the form that this has taken.

Growth in US inequality is to an extent a policy choice: US GDP has grown a huge amount during the same period, but the same period the majority of those gains have gone to those in the top fractions of 1% of the wealth distribution.</comment></comment>


Apple's Mac Business To Shrink For First Time Since 2003 - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/apples-mac-business-expected-to-shrink-for-the-first-time-since-2003-2009-4

<comment><USER2> What's that semi-recent website that let's you put people's predictions up and check on them later?</comment>