Quest for Glory III and IV - <AUTHOR> https://www.filfre.net/2018/10/quest-for-glory-iii-and-iv/ <comment><USER2> I've always held QfGIV on a Pedestal, citing it as possibly my favorite adventure game of all time. I had grown up playing King's Quest and Space Quest, but didn't play Quest for Glory until college, and this game was the first one made available to me. The setting hit just the right mix of campy horror for me, and I loved the flexibility. I later played through the rest of the games, and got to appreciate them all on their own merits, but I always loved the fourth entry.

On a more recent playthrough, now with my partner, and the ability to see these games from a fresh perspective, I can see all that was wrong with QfGIV as it came up, and I found myself frustrated with it, especially because I held it in so high esteem. Same with QfGIII, but I never held it in too high esteem. (Hell, I don't even think we were able to finish it because of the bugginess.)

That being said, my partner ended up loving IV and we still frequently quote it to one another. But I'm forced to objectively acknowledge that the first two were just more solid games, and had very focused design and this translated into better player experience at the end of the day.

We didn't play Dragon Fire for obvious reasons (the same reasons we decided we're better off ignoring Mask of Eternity.) But we did play Hero-U for a while, and particularly enjoyed the Cole's Latest effort.

I highly recommend at least the first game for anyone that's into Adventure games but prefers to stay away from Sierra because of wonky logic/unfair scenarios/zombie states. The first game does a lot to blur the lines between tabletop RPG and adventure game in a very fair and enjoyable package.

<comment><USER3> The QFG games were my favorites growing up, except for IV which I still haven't completed (after 3 attempts ending up in an unwinnable state due to bugs, it's hard to start again).

It's almost hard to overstate how _good_ of a game QFG-1 is., so I won't get into that there.

As TFA mentions, QFG3 was critically acclaimed, and I loved it. It is absolutely the easiest of the games, but that meant it was the only game I was able to complete it with all classes solo; typically my group of friends would play in parallel and help each other out when we got stuck (as an aside, I still remember when someone figured out how to kill the Antwerp).

It was also gorgeous (compare [https://www.old-games.com/download/1523/quest- for-glory-2-tr...](https://www.old-games.com/download/1523/quest-for- glory-2-trial) to [https://www.old-games.com/download/1524/quest-for- glory-3-wa...](https://www.old-games.com/download/1524/quest-for- glory-3-wages)), and if not as polished as QFG1 still a lot of fun.

The only other three non QFG sierra games I played were KQI and VI and conquests of camelot. I played rise of the dragon as well, but that was a released under the dynamix label.

<comment><USER4> Played QFG1 all characters...but had to constantly log onto Prodigy and go to the billboards (BBS) "video game cheats" or something of that nature. I may have had to do that to answer some of the Sierra unlock questions referencing the booklet it came with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> QFG1 was an amazing game. It solved the main problem of adventure games: players getting stuck. The solution is embarrassingly simple: allow _every puzzle in the game_ to be solved in three different ways (corresponding to fighter/mage/thief classes, but any class can use the solution of any other class). For example, there's a bird nest in a tree and something is glinting inside. You can climb the tree, or throw something at the nest, or cast a "fetch" spell; any of those will work. That makes you feel that the nest is part of the game world, not just a "lock" requiring a unique "key".

And then adventure games promptly forgot that idea and went back to locks and keys. Last year's Milkmaid Of The Milky Way and Thimbleweed Park are artistically head and shoulders above the QFG series, but allow only one solution for each puzzle, so they feel like guessing games instead of worlds. I wish there was some new point-and-click adventure taking the QFG approach.

<comment><USER6> Multiple solutions is also a wonderful trait in games like Deus Ex. Didn't know QFG1 worked that way, now I have a reason to try it. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The ability in these games to import a character from a prior game's save state was incredible and is something I haven't seen in games since. Unlocking the special character class for doing so (paladin) led to hidden cutscenes and choices. I would be happy with a modern game simply recognizing I played its prior installments with much less programming required.

QFGIV's official remastered soundtrack is out on Bandcamp. I would link it but I am not sure how without creating a mess. It's a treat for the new and nostalgic alike.

<comment><USER8> _I haven 't seen in games since._

It was fairly standard at the time and still is in episodic adventure games (e.g. Mass Effect, Dragon Age, etc). Strictly episodic games with character continuity are themselves a lot less common, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'd love to see a 'where are they now' type feature on all of the Sierra Games folks. A lot of the original Origin people pop up from time to time (Star Citizen, Garriot, etc), but the Sierra people seemed to have dropped off the face of the earth!

<comment><USER2> I know that Ken and Roberta Williams are currently travelling on a boat, doing various consultancy work. (Apparently as of two days ago, they're moving back from travelling the world on a Nordhavn to wanting to do a tour across half of on a smaller boat, but still fascinating nonetheless)

[https://www.kensblog.com](https://www.kensblog.com)

<comment><USER10> I was kind of hoping this would require the password 'Ken sent me' to get into it. Thanks for the link, that's interesting. I have also been curious about the Sierra guys over the years, despite having never met them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm going to be in San Francisco soon and I actually really considered making a pilgrimage to the original Sierra Oakhurst building [0] which says something about how much of an impact their games had on me. I can't say that I stayed with QFG all the way through III and IV but QFG I (aka Hero's Quest) is one of my all time favorites.

[0] [https://forum.guysfromandromeda.com/topic/171-sierra- oakhurs...](https://forum.guysfromandromeda.com/topic/171-sierra-oakhurst- location/)

<comment><USER12> JamStack Conf by any chance?

<comment><USER11> No but that conference looks cool :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I recently stumbled on my original Hero's Quest 1 (non-vga) disks when digging thru a box... I forget who owned the trademark but they had to change the name of the game.. after it had been released :) Thief for life.

<comment><USER14> The original name was owned by Milton Bradley / Games Workshop, used in a board game of the same name ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest))

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> _Then, because the parade of Gothic-horror clichés apparently wasn't enough, the Coles added H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos to the mix (or, as the manual calls him, "P.H. Craftlove"). The two make decidedly uneasy bedfellows._ [long description of why they're mismatched follows]

Somebody hasn't played Bloodborne.

</comment><comment><USER14> QfG I (the original) was the first game I ever played on an x86 (and the first game I played on a color monitor). I cannot understate how amazing that experience was, and feel slightly sad that newer generations will not be able to experience the same leaps in technology and game design. :)

<comment><USER16> Pff. Find yourself a member of the Lost Amiga Civilization to talk to, they'll tell you how much a step _backward_ gaming on x86 was :)

<comment><USER14> I only used an Amiga twice growing up (did own a C64 though), so I can't speak to the experience much, but I do believe they were amazing machines from what I have heard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Honestly, his QfG4 section is lazy. Sorry, but in QfG3 he talks about the history of the series, the changing character of the game, the setting, what worked, what didn't (mostly didn't), and gives it a very thorough treatment.

But that changes when he gets to QFG4. In this section, he devotes 1428 words to discussing the game as a game, and 2074 words to discussing the bugs. It's a let-down. That should be a cautionary paragraph or two, especially since he acknowledges that the CD-ROM version fixed them and the CD-ROM version is what people would be playing today.

</comment><comment><USER12> QFG would be the best game of all time if it wasn't for Planescape Torment.

</comment><comment><USER5> Also check out Heroine's Quest: [http://crystalshard.net/?g=16](http://crystalshard.net/?g=16)

It's basically QFG1 with a Nordic coat of paint and enough new stuff that you'll feel like you're playing it for the first time. I loved it.

</comment><comment><USER18> > pick nose

Congratulations! Your nose is now open.

</comment><comment><USER19> QFGIV was buggy and infuriating but by far the most artistic and evocative entry in the series. If Coles had had a little more time or access to a properly finished engine QFGIV would be one of the most famous games of the era. As it is, it's _worth_ metagaming your way through, which is highly unusual for that period in gaming history.

QFGV is a steaming pile of cow shit.

</comment><comment><USER20> Unprompted but relevant plug for a cool coffee table book, played my nostalgia nerve like a fiddle.

[https://www.bitmapbooks.co.uk/products/the-art-of-point- clic...](https://www.bitmapbooks.co.uk/products/the-art-of-point-click- adventure-games)

</comment><comment><USER21> I still have a 3.25 "floppy" with my QFG character on it.

<comment><USER22> 5.25" or 3.5"... :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> hiden goseke

</comment><comment><USER24> QFG rules</comment>


Ask HN: What are some good newsletter etiquette? - <AUTHOR> Looking for a guide to start sending email out to people, but not sure what is right to do, consent wise.
For example, if someone emails me about my product, is it ok to add them to a mailing list for product updates?
Thanks. <comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure that unless they ask to be on that mailing list, it wouldn't even be legal to simply add them to it. I suppose that is country dependent, though.

Story time: I asked a Logic Audio plugin developer a question about one of their plugins that I might have been interested in using. They put me on their mailing list without my requesting it, and over time I was getting tens of emails a month from them about that product and others that they had. I was ignoring all of them since they were literal spam about things I simply wasn't interested in.

They got bought out by another company that sold Music e-magazines as well as software, and suddenly I was inundated by spam from all their different areas.

It took me quite a while to get off their lists, and I assured them that because of what they had done, I would never buy anything from them, no matter how incredible or desirable - they'll always have competition, and I'll be going there instead. All because they mishandled my one question about one product of theirs that I didn't even own (and henceforth never will.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Use double opt-in.</comment>


Ask HN: What is necessary for a startup ecosystem to thrive? - <AUTHOR> I was discussing with some friends what should change in our city that would incentivize the creation of a startup ecosystem, or similar, some sort of tech hub.
Is it government programs? A big company growing or coming here and attracting others, or just attracting top talent? Incubators?
I was hoping to see a discussion on that topic so any links are also appreciated. <comment><USER2> PG actually wrote an essay[0] about this a few years back. It also happens to be one of the few available on youtube[1] if you would rather watch than read.

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

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpfdtgW6_oI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpfdtgW6_oI)

</comment><comment><USER3> Jim Clifton discussed this theme in his book- The Coming Jobs War. Chapter 7 describes Entrepreneurship Vs. Innovation and how the U.S. is still in the dark when it comes to cultivating enterprisers and successful business models. The biggest predictor of new jobs—-new customers.

Relative to change in your city--

Focus first on finding new customers for your locally based companies. The customers themselves don't need to be local, they could be anywhere.

> [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12596785-the-coming- > jobs...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12596785-the-coming-jobs-war)

</comment><comment><USER4> Well, I'd say it's the following, based on what I've read and heard:

1\. Successful companies in the area, especially ones which started as venture backed startups or pay really well. Many new startups are founded by people who got paid a lot of money in their tech company careers, and many of them seem to be backed by entrepreneurs who made it big in the past.

Also shows those wanting to start one that there's success to be had in such a venture.

2\. Lots of 'easy' money going around for new companies. This is one major reason it's much easier to do well with a startup in the US (especially Silicon Valley) compared to Europe; the former has people willing to spend millions on a moonshot that's unlikely to go anywhere. The latter won't back it, and will miss out on the next Google/Facebook/Uber/Netflix/whatever because it's 'too risky'.

Also, when I mean lots of money, I mean lots of it too. Note how much your average US startup seems to get from VCs, then compare to how much your average European one gets. You need a lot of cash to get the best engineers/designers/whatever involved. $50,000 funding probably won't cut it.

3\. Access to good education nearby. Not quite nerds as Paul Graham says, since I feel it's more those in university who are best placed to get involved in startups. They've got a lot of time, no real commitments, a bunch of other smart people nearby in a similar situation, and enough oddball ideas to turn into businesses. Actually, when I think about it, universities seem like the best place/time for a lot of young people to get involved in a lot of crazy ideas for the same reason; note how many YouTubers and internet celebs got started in college too.

Oh, and maybe a cultural attitude that treats being an entrepreneur as something to be respected, and building a company as a good life goal to have. Way too many places still have this idea of 'success' as 'get a job, work up through the ranks, get married with two kids and a dog and live in the suburbs somewhere'

<comment><USER5> As a counter point to #1, Zappoas CEO Tony Hsieh's attempt to build out Vegas downtown as a tech hub didn't/hasn't quite worked out so far: [https://qz.com/687192/how-tony-hsiehs-vision-to-create- the-i...](https://qz.com/687192/how-tony-hsiehs-vision-to-create-the-ideal- startup-city-faltered/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> A successful startup maybe is a great way to foster a startup culture in the surrounding environment.

Three examples:

1\. Skype excited people in Estonia towards startup culture.

2\. Warby Parker inspired a lot of fellow graduates from Wharton ( I think ) to follow similar pursuit.

3\. In many ways Flipkart created a lot of buzz towards startup culture in India. Similarly, Zoho had a lot of hand in making Chennai, "the SaaS capital" of India.

A successful startup compounds the number of startups around the location. Many early employees start their companies after successful exits.

My 2 cents.

</comment><comment><USER7> There's a recent discussion about how the Malaysian government wants to become a venture capitalist:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21165161](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21165161)

I think the creation of a startup ecosystem requires doing many things, including most of what you've just mentioned. In the case of Malaysia, many people are naturally skeptical, since the government doesn't have a good track record, c.f. the 1MDB scandal. I hope the government(s) you have to deal with is/are better than that.

On the other hand, governments are facing what Clifton calls a "jobs war" (see JSeymourATL's recommendation: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21180883](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21180883)), and many governments have programs that gives grants to small businesses. It's seen as an effort by governments to create jobs, so if you frame the creation of a startup ecosystem that way, you're more likely to create buy-in from the government.

<comment><USER3> @morningseagulls - Hat-Tip for the mention, thanks!

<comment><USER7> You're welcome. I wish HN has a feature to notify users of mentions: I'm surprised you saw my mention.</comment></comment></comment>


A song that was constructed to reduce anxiety - <AUTHOR> https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/neuroscience-says-listening-to-this-one-song-reduces-anxiety-by-up-to-65-percent.html <comment><USER2> Here are some ambient songs by Aphex Twin which I also find very calming.

Stone In Focus - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q86g1aop6a8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q86g1aop6a8)

Rhubarb - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AWIqXzvX-U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AWIqXzvX-U)

Tha - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGC90fmf8gw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGC90fmf8gw)

Avril 14th - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6dGAZTj8xA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6dGAZTj8xA)

<comment><USER3> Wouldn't put Aphex Twin on as a playlist though, since he also has [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqayDnQ2wmw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqayDnQ2wmw). Great video and music, but anything but anxiety reducing.

<comment><USER4> Another somewhat unsettling Aphex Twin song: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p71GvWkLw9k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p71GvWkLw9k)

<comment> rv-de And the ultimate one ... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J639xIdgzQU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J639xIdgzQU)

(still remember zapping through the channels on our kitchen TV stumbling on it - about 20 years ago - it's so weird, you just don't forget that)

<comment><USER5> Surprised his Rubber Johnny video hasn't been mentioned yet. That's my nomination for ultimate anxiety inducing Aphex Twin work. It even includes an anxiety attack in the beginning.

Link: [https://youtu.be/l6_0UIknW-A](https://youtu.be/l6_0UIknW-A)

<comment> rv-de true, that's a nice one

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not affiliated, but just a fan: if you like this type of drone-type music, there are several variants on [https://generative.fm](https://generative.fm)

All the music is generated on your pc, not streamed

<comment><USER7> I was wondering what license a music generated like this would be under?

<comment><USER8> If it's generated on one's machine, maybe that person should hold copyright?

Maybe that doesn't make a lot of sense, but neither would it make sense for the programmer of the music generation software to hold copyright over a song they never heard of and which might have been generated using data from the PC owner's machine.

I'm also curious how copyright works here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some years ago I had developed an anxiety disorder.

That's why I think this article makes no sense.

I got anxious of the most stupid things. This was also triggered by some music. It doesn't matter if the music is calming. What matters is what is happening in your head.

It seems to be the trend to meditate or to listen to soothing music when you are anxious. But please: if you are really having issues with anxiety: go see the doctor.

<comment><USER10> I really have to agree with you. Anxiety is more than being anxious for a reason. Sometimes I will be sitting down perfectly content and all of a sudden my heartbeat will start racing for no reason and I start to panic and everything spirals out of control.

<comment><USER11> Try "The Anxiety and Phobia Workbook". It has some techniques for helping. I know that what helped me was just understanding that this is a physiological and psychological phenomena, a positive feedback loop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Well, that's a pretty standard ambient-ish soundscape bordering on 'chill- out', though thankfully not as cheesy as a whole lot of them.

For me, dub music (not dubstep) was the most astoundingly un-aggressive music. Back in the past, I ran Bill Laswell's compilations two times a day: on the morning subway to doze for twenty minutes, and when falling asleep at night. Not really a surprising quality, since the genre is essentially produced as ganja in musical form. Note that you won't hear half of the music if your speakers don't handle deep bass.

[https://billlaswell.bandcamp.com/album/trojan-dub-massive- vo...](https://billlaswell.bandcamp.com/album/trojan-dub-massive-volume-two)

(Ever since the name-stealing dubstep occupied the web while having nothing to do with dub, I have to exclude it every time when searching for the latter.)

Even though the genre evolved decently into the 90s–2000s, with British and French bands like Alpha & Omega, Twilight Circus, High Tone, and Laswell & Jah Wobble's productions—I still find myself returning to simpler tunes when looking to drop out of the daily race.

IMO Sun Araw later grokked quite well that dub can be more trippy than 'psychedelic' genres. And Hype Williams are excellent bearers of this torch, though not in the sub-bass range.

[https://sunaraw.bandcamp.com/track/horse- steppin-3](https://sunaraw.bandcamp.com/track/horse-steppin-3)

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=YMwsmam5X4Q](https://youtube.com/watch?v=YMwsmam5X4Q), [https://youtube.com/watch?v=rHCYKkU8jto](https://youtube.com/watch?v=rHCYKkU8jto)

Ah, and in regard to 'classical' music, I'm a big fan of Swingle Singers' renditions of Mozart, from 'A Cappella Amadeus'. They're magical for me somehow: I was able to have their songs on both alarm clock and ringtone, _for years_ , without coming to hate them. This is while being cold to both 'classical music' and acappella in general.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dLWdHh39p0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dLWdHh39p0)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e06TWt4jvg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e06TWt4jvg)

<comment><USER13> The sound effects sound like Ross' music (from Friends):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERy-99vXxnM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERy-99vXxnM)

<comment><USER12> I mean, Ross just needed to lay down some groove. He was getting the hang of it at the end.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUzcKlgy_a4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUzcKlgy_a4)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p3Rx0t0jiw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p3Rx0t0jiw)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My anxiety is triggered by things like blood, heart rate, being made conscious of automatic processes in the body.

So any sort of "this slows your heart" type of beat will actually increase my anxiety. I can't even listen to this track.

<comment><USER15> I was in this situation for more than a decade up until a few years ago. Was diagnosed with General Anxiety Disorder (GAD). I used to have panic attacks after discovering my heart wasn't beating at the resting rate according to Wikipedia, or when my skin felt a little dry and I thought I was having a heart failure. But once I started taking antidepressants, it almost completely went away (in addition to other techniques to take my mind off of myself when needed).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Clearly these guys have never heard of Sigur Ros. Go listen to Svefn-g-englar and tell me you aren't chill as a cucumber.

<comment><USER17> Sigur Ros is like magic. Bon Iver almost has that same effect. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T0cHQb39GY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T0cHQb39GY)

<comment><USER16> I've seen Sigur Ros live twice. The first time was great, but the venue wasn't very good. The second time was at the Fox Theater in Atlanta a few years ago. To say it was a powerful experience is a huge understatement. Those guys somehow channel something much larger than themselves. There are really no words to describe it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Two recommendations:

Stars of the Lid - The Tired Sounds of Stars of the Lid: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaSi7Gut7xM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaSi7Gut7xM) shop link: [https://boomkat.com/artists/stars-of-the- lid](https://boomkat.com/artists/stars-of-the-lid)

Thomas Köner - Daikan: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICcK6Li5OfM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICcK6Li5OfM) shop link: [https://boomkat.com/products/daikan](https://boomkat.com/products/daikan)

(disclosure: no affiliation with boomkat or the artists, i just love the music & think it is worth supporting)

</comment><comment><USER19> A song that is designed to relax people? Isn't that like, half of all music? It probably works for most people, but it's not exactly a novel claim to say that music can calm people.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm surprised nobody mentions Brian Eno. He was a pioneer in ambient music and contributed to a lot of other genres. Look him up if you never heard of him.

<comment><USER21> Yes. His first "Ambient" release, "Music for Airports", back in 1978 was designed to induce a calming effect. It is very effective as I can testify since I've been using it for decades now to sleep.

The fact that it doesn't appear on the list by the researches cited in this article suggests a grave oversight.

Music for Airports was also the first in a series by Eno designed to take advantage of his "ambient speaker technigue" wherein you take a third speaker, in addition to the stereo pair, place it behind the listener, and connect it's two terminals to the two + (positive) terminals each channel on your amplifier.

Call it poor man's quadraphonic. It basically sends side information (or any signal not present on the other channel such as an instrument panned all the way to one side) to this third speaker.

It sounds great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Some of Bach is very soothing, especially the Mass in B Minor, like this Donna Nobis Pacem from it: [https://youtu.be/v8yOP9EUIY8](https://youtu.be/v8yOP9EUIY8)

</comment><comment><USER23> The song is here:

[https://youtu.be/j3X7vhvqi_E](https://youtu.be/j3X7vhvqi_E)

<comment><USER24> That's gonna give me a panic attack.

Sibling's Pink Floyd works. Or here's one from my stack--the louder I play it, the more peaceful I feel: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwPnvYiCVfA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwPnvYiCVfA)

<comment><USER25> I'm with you on both counts.

I like fast music without lyrics. Lyrics are distracting when I'm coding.

<comment><USER26> If they are songs I know well, lyrics don't bother me. If it is a new song I find it hard to concentrate because I'm busy listening.

<comment><USER24> Same. Even without lyrics, familiar tracks are the best for zoning, for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I note that "Canzonetta Sull'aria" is Number 9 on the list. Much more my cup of tea, especially when both it becomes a duet. The opera it comes from, The Marriage of Figaro, is one of my all time favourites. To me the secret sauce is that, even though the Opera is a "Opera Buffa" (comic opera), and indeed has all the element of sitcom: mistaken identities, life altering discoveries, disguises, people hiding under chairs, broken flower-pots, and yet some of the aria's, such as Sull'aria, are poignant and heartbreaking. Consider, for example, "Dove sono i bei momenti" (Where are all those beautiful moments), where the countess yearns for the time when she and the count fell in love. If you want to see what I mean, listen to Rene Fleming ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_7Fr8Z-rFQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_7Fr8Z-rFQ)) - the aria starts at about 1:57. Stunning.

<comment><USER28> /second the _Sull'aria_. It's possibly the most beautiful duet ever composed [1]. _Shawshank Redemption_ had a memorable tribute to it [2].

As for the overall opera _Le Nozze di Figaro_ , there's a good scene in _Amadeus_ where Salieri praises it [3].

[1]:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnlsLBMzLQo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnlsLBMzLQo)

[2]:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzuM2XTnpSA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzuM2XTnpSA)

[3]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTfiboMetpY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTfiboMetpY)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> [https://moss.garden](https://moss.garden) is an ambient radio I listen to as a backdrop.

</comment><comment><USER30> Anxiety has a couple of different meanings. There's the everyday use of the word, and I guess calming music would help with that. I like Phillip Glass (which a lot of people find surprising for calming music) or Max Richter's _Sleep_.

But if anxiety interferes with your day to day life and causes significant distress it might be an anxiety disorder. There are a few different things under the class of anxiety disorder so I'm not going to list symptoms. Luckily, often they've very treatable. Current advice is to start with psycho- education, then step up to a talking therapy (and cognitive behaviour therapy has a good evidence base, it's short and should be affordable), and if that's not working to step up to a combination of meds and a more intensive talking therapy.

Anxiety disorders cause many years of life lost to disability, and they can be really distressing for people.

</comment><comment> rv-de the absolute and ultimate soothing "song" for me is the one I found in the sleepa Android app ([https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.relaxio.sl...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.relaxio.sleepo&hl=en)). You have to open the "meditation" section and activate the sound represented by three stones on top of another.

I'm not affiliated with that app in any way.

I've been listening to this sound several orders of magnitude longer than any other sound or song. It's absolutely mesmerizing. There's something very specific about I just can't find anywhere else. It's a simple layering of very simple melodies.

If you have something similar to suggest I'm interested!

</comment><comment> tokamak-teapot If you like this kind of thing, there's a whole radio station of drone-type music with barely-there beats here: [https://somafm.com/dronezone/](https://somafm.com/dronezone/)

</comment><comment><USER31> I've listened to and enjoyed it , and i still feel dubious about the claim.

Also article is 3 years old.

</comment><comment><USER32> I remember hearing Underworld's "Please Help Me" years and years ago, and it's now my go-to song for reproducing the effects this article mentions. Another good one by Underworld is "Toobee". Happy to have another track to add to that collection.

"Please Help Me"\- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AliwSLa0ebA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AliwSLa0ebA) "Toobee"\- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjdVi20fCDI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjdVi20fCDI)

</comment><comment><USER33> Well I'm sorry it's apparently not working for other folks, but I felt substantially calmer after listening to the song. My wife on the other hand didn't like it at all. Thanks to whomever posted it.

</comment><comment> michal-franc I have anxiety problems and Ligts Out Asia band was always helpful [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsXy9ATlb_o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsXy9ATlb_o)

Also Max Richter <3 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVN1B-tUpgs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVN1B-tUpgs) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmQmepDPg6I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmQmepDPg6I)

</comment><comment><USER34> Here's a song that never fails to calm me down: [https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ)

<comment><USER35> Nicely played, sir

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I couldn't dig it - but I like the article and idea. Other readers: what are some of your favorite chill background tracks? I'm on Hippie Sabotage lately.

<comment><USER37> I unironically enjoy listening to this 16-second loop on repeat for 50 minutes: [https://youtu.be/8snzt-umd0g](https://youtu.be/8snzt-umd0g)

More recently, Haircuts for Men: [https://youtu.be/XZUiPCGjej8](https://youtu.be/XZUiPCGjej8)

<comment><USER20> I enjoy this a lot and from time to time I recharge my batteries to it.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RFunvF0mDw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RFunvF0mDw)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I wonder if they measured some other music too. I'm pretty sure listening to something like this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Y_ztEW1NE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Y_ztEW1NE) will do equally good or better job in reducing anxiety.

Why not listen to sounds that are both great and calming instead of just calming.

</comment><comment><USER39> Doesn't really do it for me.

The 'Early Riser' tune on my iPhone, which I use to wake up in the morning, is the only alarm sound I have had in my entire life that doesn't strike doom into my heart. I can go back through ringtones or alarm sounds I've used for the last 10-15 years and every one more or less triggers panic even to this day but that one.

</comment><comment><USER40> I find it very interesting how either more people are anxious and scared this go disaster, or we're just talking about it more.

I don't remember there being this much discussion about reducing anxiety in past crises.

I'm also not one to get anxious by this kind of stuff, much more hyped to take on the increased stakes. So it's been a lot of DOOM OST for me.

Rip and Tear baby.

</comment><comment><USER41> I've seen this headline so often in so many forums that I think that this is a streaming scam.

</comment><comment><USER42> Is this actually a real study? Why don't they link to the paper? Mindlab International calls itself a "neuromarketing" group...this reads more like an advertisement than a report on a real scientific study.

</comment><comment><USER43> Does anyone have a copy of the research paper?

Also does anyone else find the organisation who sponsored the research (Mindlab) to be creepy?

[https://themindlab.co.uk/](https://themindlab.co.uk/)

</comment><comment><USER44> :/ I'm terrified of drones so this didn't work.

</comment><comment><USER45> what a bunch of baloney

</comment><comment><USER46> hey

</comment><comment><USER47> The song in the clickbait title is "Weightless" by Marconi Union.

<comment><USER48> I actually feel more anxious listening to this song. The low synthesizer in background sounds like something is about to happen.

<comment><USER49> I see what you're saying about the synth, but what really makes me anxious is how the bass drum fades in and out.

It's at a steady ~60 beats/minute, but at about 1 minute 30 seconds, it starts to get quiet, at points becoming inaudible, and the song goes from "this has a definite rhythm" feel to a "this doesn't have a definite rhythm" (or "I'm not sure") feeling. Then it keeps going away and coming back again.</comment></comment></comment>


2x2048 - <AUTHOR> http://instapainting.com/2x2048/index.html

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems I might have saturated my 50 connection limit or something... I'm using peerjs and it's stopped working.

EDIT: Fixed (as of 10:50 AM PST).

<comment><USER2> Can you try using Firebase? Seems like it might be a good tool for the job...

<comment><USER2> Or maybe allow us to enter our own PeerJS API key?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure. Just clone [https://github.com/chrischen/2x2048](https://github.com/chrischen/2x2048).

I'm setting up my own peerjs server now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Seriously, let's stop using various 2048 clones to get to the top of the main HN page and get back to work.

<comment><USER4> FUCK THAT

sorry - had to

<comment><USER4> I honestly believe the nerdery around 2048 to be a generally positive thing. I love games and the possibilities they hold for shared understanding of systems...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "All other sites are derivatives of this derivative, and should be used with extreme caution." Que??? I don't think all other sites are derivatives of _your_ derivative, unless you were joking? I think you accidentally double downed on the original disclaimer. But, this is really cool, already showed my friends!

</comment><comment><USER6> Appears to be down, from peerjs.com I'm getting

        {"type":"ERROR","payload":{"msg":"Server has reached its concurrent user limit"}}

</comment><comment><USER7> What are the browser requirements? I cannot get it to work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Latest versions of Chrome or Firefox.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The box after "Give this link to the other player:" is blank for me with the latest version of Firefox.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're debugging the webRTC server. There's too much load at the moment.

<comment><USER8> Okay, thank you for the explanation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can someone please test this with me. [http://instapainting.com/2x2048/index.html#a2sfouwg03aw0zfr](http://instapainting.com/2x2048/index.html#a2sfouwg03aw0zfr)

Edit: Humn, now just says "blue's turn". I can't do anything...

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry we have a bug if more than 2 people join the game. Once the third person joins it messes up the game. Fixing this right now.

You can try making sure there's only one other person connected, and whoever is the guest (the person with the hash in the url) refresh the page to reconnect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here is my game on Android: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.contraryki...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.contrarykid.twos)

<comment><USER11> Why? There is about a hundred 2048 games for Android, be more creative next time. Do you think this is an easy way to earn some money? I feel contempt for every dev who makes an ad-supported 2048 or Flappy Bird clone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> You should put the score beside the board so we don't have to scroll up to see it every time. Also a chat feature would be cool. Other than that, very fun version.

</comment><comment><USER13> [http://instapainting.com/2x2048/index.html#kht4c90huboi529](http://instapainting.com/2x2048/index.html#kht4c90huboi529)

<comment><AUTHOR> I honestly have no idea what happens if two people try to connect to the same game! Let me know.

<comment><USER13> Someone connected, we were playing and then it stopped working. It said it was my turn but it wasn't responding. Refreshing the page made me disconnect.

<comment><AUTHOR> The host can't refresh the page, but the guest player can, to reestablish connection. I think if a third person joins it freezes the game, and one of the guests would have to reconnect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Trying trivial approach of opening 2 tabs and "connecting" through that, but it doesn't seem to work.

</comment><comment><USER15> More like 2048÷2

</comment><comment><USER16> Could you connect to other players automatically ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Like matchmaking? Yes, planning that. This was literally hacked up in 2 days. Please don't look at the source haha.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Using Chrome and it's not working!</comment>


Gnomedex Rumor: Adobe in Talks to Buy Yahoo - <AUTHOR> http://truemors.nowpublic.com/?p=32102 <comment><USER2> I would take any rumor that appears on Truemors with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER3> I don't believe anything I see on the site until it's corroborated by other reliable sources.

<comment><USER4> It would be easier, faster, and less of a waste of time to just use the more reliable sources to begin with. It is for this reason that I'm surprised that truemors still gets mentioned. TMZ is more accurate, I bet.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: I'd like to learn French without enrolling in classes - <AUTHOR>

Some background: I'm a programmer with two jobs(day job and consulting), so my time is severely limited. I already know several programming languages and have no problem picking more up in a short time(picking up as in understand and write the syntax. "Learning" a language actually takes a long time).  English is a second language to me(Arabic is the native one).<p>Now I'd like learn French to be able to converse in. Any helpful pointers? <comment><USER2> Ignore the spammy looking website and the quiff but Michel Thomas's audio language courses - <http://www.michelthomas.com> \- are brilliant. He has a very unusual but extraordinarily effective teaching style and within an amazingly short period you find yourself saying things in a foreign language that you would have thought would take years to learn. Seriously brilliant.

<comment><USER3> He is good. Or was. He is dead now. But his recordings live on.

His strategy seems to be to teach languages in how they're similar to what you already know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=656237>

The article and discussions are helpful.

<comment><AUTHOR> It certainly is. I found it via search before i posted here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> One thing I thought of doing was finding an MMORPG that is localized in the language you want to learn, as well as in English. Play it in English and then switch over to French and join a guild. A couple reasons why I though this could work:

-Because the context is limited, you should be able to intuit more meaning on your own in much the same way that people learn languages from birth.

-You can start with written words and move up to spoken language (Teamspeak, ventrillo, etc.)

-You are subverting the carefully designed rewards placed in all MMO's for your own needs. -the better you know the language, the better you can play, and the better you will be rewarded.

Possible downsides - a lot of the language will be slang, or be particular to the game itself.

</comment><comment><USER6> The "Learn French with Coffe Break French" podcast. I listen to it in my conmmutes.

</comment><comment><USER7> <http://www.livemocha.com/>

</comment><comment><USER8> Just one: The ultimate source of all knowledge on language learning.

<http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/>

<comment><USER8> I really wish people would comment with downvotes.

To clarify: Despite the name, this site applies to all language learning (and in fact all learning). Khatzumoto is a very good writer and has some very good insights. If my comments don't convince you, consider this. He learned Japanese (which I think almost anyone will agree is harder than French) in 18 months. When I say learned, I mean well enough to move to Japan and live and work there full time.

All Japanese All The Time is well-known throughout language learning communities and if you take the time to read some of what Khatzumoto has posted, I'm sure you'll be pleased. If not, I'll take a downvote on this too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Behind the Wheel French" is excellent:

[http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Wheel-French-CD- Course/dp/18935...](http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Wheel-French-CD- Course/dp/1893564789/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247252103&sr=8-6)

</comment><comment><USER10> you can't learn a language without the associated culture. to become a francophone you will have to be a francophile.

Or just move to Algeria, you will learn excellent French will still hating France :-P

Failing that, move to Quebec!</comment>


Against Sharing - <AUTHOR> https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/against-sharing/ <comment><USER3> At some point in the next 10-15 years, there's going to be some kind of reckoning over the "sourcing and allocating independent contractors" model of business. Right now, companies can insulate themselves from labor laws almost entirely by (a) not providing employees with equipment and (b) using structured customer feedback and expectations in lieu of training and supervision. There are instances where this model can be fair to all parties, but there are also obviously instances where it's abusive.

My intuition, which is probably wrong, is that the model fails most straightforwardly when there are monopsonies playing the "source and allocate" role. The trouble is that many of these companies work on a "winner take all" go-to-market plan, which almost dictates that they end up controlling the market.

There have already been low-grade rumblings over this in the past. For instance, the Microsoft "Permatemp" scandal. But we can see the model taking hold across the economy --- see: drivers, housecleaning. My guess is that the long-term resolution for this is going to be legislative, and it's not going to make companies like Uber happy.

<comment><USER4> > Right now, companies can insulate themselves from labor laws almost entirely > by (a) not providing employees with equipment and (b) using structured > customer feedback and expectations in lieu of training and supervision. > There are instances where this model can be fair to all parties, but there > are also obviously instances where it's abusive.

The problem is that the distinction is silly to begin with. If large companies have to provide various insurance and benefits but sole proprietors don't, the market is going to shift to the entity structure with lower operating costs. You either have to do it everywhere or not at all. But nobody wants to tell legitimate small business owners that they have to buy various insurance _for themselves_ the cost of which would in actual fact make them uncompetitive against larger competitors.

The fundamental cause is that this is what capitalism does in markets where the supply of labor outstrips demand. What did people expect to happen when suddenly you could make $20/hour from unskilled labor? High prices spur an increase in supply and drive down prices. Works for labor the same as it does for bushels of wheat.

This is why the unionization attempts never work. Uber doesn't have a huge barrier to entry in its market. If you can provide an app to source rides which provides lower fares, customers are going to switch. So if Uber's drivers unionized and successfully demanded higher fares, customers would immediately switch to Lyft and Uber would go out of business. If Lyft's drivers then unionized it would create a market opportunity for a new competitor to come in and drive Lyft out of business by offering lower fares with non-union labor.

The problem for these drivers is not Uber, it's that there are many other drivers willing to do the same job for less money.

<comment><USER5> You act as if the 20th century never existed.

Your description why unions don't work is in fact the explanation why unions organize workers across different employers.

Your description why cheap labor will skip out on the unions is in fact the explanations why unions make economic sense for its members. You earn more in them than out of them.

Organized labor creates a level playing field across markets, simply because they have a shared interest with the unionized companies that they thrive and provide work for its members. It is a natural part of a healthy free market.

I don't think the problem described in the article is particularly unique or interesting. We've seen it before and we know the solution. What is new is that workers are called contractors and not workers, but the markets dynamics is largely the same.

<comment><USER3> OT: He _writes_ as if the 20th century never happened. We have no idea how he acts. The distinction is important for civil debate. Among other things: we may be miscontruing, or he may be expressing his idea imprecisely.

<comment><USER5> I think it should be fairly clear from the context that it is the act of self expression that is alluded to, in this particular case the act of writing.

It is similar to the use of the word act in "you act surprised". This is something you can say, even in writing, and people will generally understand what is meant.

What is important for a civil debate is not to pick on words, but to try to understand one another. If someone you are responding to writes something that can be understood in several ways, choose the one that is more flattering to _their_ side of the argument.

<comment><USER3> Sure. The last sentence you wrote is a restatement of the principle of charity, which is something HN is supposed to embrace but manifestly does not.

<comment><USER6> > The last sentence you wrote is a restatement of the principle of charity. Do > you mean "clarity" instead of "charity"? sorry I wouldn't bother on a simple > typo if it wasn't for the word "clarity".

<comment><USER3> Charity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I spoke with my UberX driver about unionization the other day; it's honestly the only way forward for the drivers.

Without unionizing, the prices will continue to be cut and they will continue to lose out. Going even further, lots of people are talking about the job creation boom associated with the sharing economy. However, in the case of Uber and Lyft, that's short term. In 10-15 years, does anyone actually think people will be driving cars for Uber in San Francisco? With the way things are going, auto-driving cars will take their place.

Unions could lobby the state legislature to make for auto-driving cab or ride services illegal without a driver in the car. Right now, they could make a serious case for that as a safety thing, since the technology is unproven. In 5-10 years, that won't be the case.

So yes, from the driver perspective, they have to unionize. If they don't they're finished sooner or later.

<comment><USER8> In the long term, I would rather start thinking about whether we really _want_ to keep driver-type jobs around. I think people have to start to accept that certain types of mindless jobs will be gone sooner or later, and that (as hard as it might seem) everyone needs to educate themselves and work towards jobs that cannot be automated.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the sort of thing you generally hear from people who assume their job is not among those that can be automated.

Many of those people are going to be unpleasantly surprised.

<comment><USER9> On the contrary, I think anyone who is thinking seriously about automation acknowledges that their job is on the list, especially for a lot of software work like debugging, updating libraries, refactoring code, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. Automation means more free time to do things people actually enjoy, but only if we properly distribute the benefits. The challenge is not to prevent automation of any kind of work but rather to ensure that people are fairly compensated for that automation and all the benefits don't go to the people at the top.

<comment><USER10> This. I'm glad some people see this as a problem. We can only automate so far without providing credits, or redistributing wealth to some degree. If we decrease the number of jobs, and don't make any attempt to provide those "left out" of the economy with a reasonable income, we're going to systematically lower Aggregate Demand in our economy. There is no stimulus package that can effectively combat consistently falling Aggregate Demand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> How is Uber considered "sharing economy"? If the term is to have any meaning, then it refers to people having spare capacity in an asset and allowing others to use it.

Airbnb: Have a room in your home or can leave your home, and allow others to rent it.

Taskrabbit: Have extra time you can sell

Say what you want about the ethics of either company, but users are free to negotiate prices.

A "sharing economy" car company would monetize spare capacity in cars and allows drivers/passengers post rates.

But that would be complicated. So Uber has adopted a fixed rate model. Whatever it's virtues, it's not sharing. It's just service for hire at a fixed rate.

<comment><USER12> I agree. If you're doing Uber full-time it's not sharing at all. It's just business.

<comment><USER13> There are pleanty of people using a property fulltime for AirBnB.

<comment><USER12> Agree, but there's a difference between renting out an investment property full-time, renting out a spare room, and renting your place while away vacation. The later two are what I define as "sharing economy", while the former is more of a business transaction.

AirBnB and Uber facilitate both sharing and business type transactions, but the article seems to mixing these up to me in terms of the problem being expressed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Uber is not a monopoly and the barriers to entry are lower than people think.

Now that the idea is proven, there's nothing stopping more competitors from building local app driven services to compete with them.

If you can organize thousands of drivers, you shouldn't bother with a union. You should just have them collectively fund their own driver owned app and compete with uber instead of asking for crumbs.

<comment><USER15> >> Uber is not a monopoly and the barriers to entry are lower than people think.

That is actually a large part of the problem. Competition from Lyft will force Uber to lower fares. Competition from a driver-union-app would force them to be even lower.

At some point, lowering fares will directly hurt uber. Prior to that point, it's hurting the drivers because uber doesn't care at all about drivers costs, and drivers are either not good at taking that into account, or have been screwed by falling fares.

<comment><USER16> Presumably, if prices are driven down enough by competition, then price vs quality differentiation. Cheaper prices vs better/nicer drivers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Part of the blame needs to be on the drivers, who are likely bad at estimating the true cost of operating a vehicle. Uber could probably do better at making this clear, but it's not really in their interest. Long story short: traditional taxi pricing seems expensive but is actually pretty fair once you account for costs and a decent wage.

Airbnb has given the sharing economy an inflated reputation, because they feed off a great business model: renting a scarce asset (land) with minimal marginal cost.

<comment><USER18> > traditional taxi pricing seems expensive but is actually pretty fair once > you account for costs and a decent wage.

This isn't true in some cities, such as Boston, where weird politics have driven the cost of a medallions, required to operate a taxi, up to ridiculous levels (The Boston Globe did an excellent article series on this [http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/03/30/spotlight/9eVWW7...](http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/03/30/spotlight/9eVWW7Y6RaOIqII62n2XlI/story.html\)Anyway), there are a lot of factors that go into cab fares, and some of them genuinely are stupid and antiquated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The biggest unmentioned thing I'm noticing, is when are these car hailing apps going to start competing in how much of a cut they take? The marginal cost of their software is near %0.

When will amazon-uber come up and say to uber: "Your [20% profit] margin is my opportunity".

<comment><USER20> The vast majority of that 20% goes into overheads associated with operating the service - e.g. insurance, background checks, etc.

What's left to cover engineering & profit is probably only 2-3%.

<comment><USER21> The drivers have to pay for their own insurance, so it's not that. Hard to see how a background check requires 20% of all revenue.

<comment><USER20> Uber has their own insurance as well, in case a driver isn't insured. And the "etc." part of what I said is probably no less than 100 major things, so seems pretty silly to to make that statement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm no marxist, but this is exactly what Karl Marx railed against: exploitation of the masses by capitalists. Of course a market economist sees this as an optimization of a market. If people suffer enough what usually happens is change, sometimes violent change.

<comment><USER23> > _I 'm no marxist_

You will be when _your_ job gets automated. The challenge is to be able to think ahead of that event and not be left to react to it.

<comment><USER22> My job will be the one making the automation of my job. So thinking ahead of the event will mean doing a poor job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Uber must have a lot of drivers if "Arman, an Uber driver in LA" isn't specific enough to be identified.

It would be tragically ironic if this article resulted in his being 'deactivated'.

<comment><USER25> Elsewhere in the comments someone claims to have found his Facebook profile, and perhaps they did. But as a counterpoint, my hometown of Glendale (Northeast LA-adjacent) has the largest population of Armenians anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. Lots of Armenians == Lots of guys named Armon/Armen/Arman. We can safely assume at least two of them drive for Uber.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Not sure if that article is really about shifting risks from corporates to workers and weakening their protections.

It is more like a kind of gatekeeper discussion. Digitalization has moved the gate keeper role from media dinosaurs to agile startups and companies.

Uber can de-activate their users as well as Facebook can reduce organic visibility of fan pages or Google may kick you out of their index. The open internet that we have is still built upon the gate keeper behavior.

In the Uber case that clearly affects individuals, like taxi drivers, but in the case of Facebook, Twitter and Uber that can affect large companies, too.

So, may I read this article also as a manifest against "attention" monopolists?

<comment><USER27> > Not sure if that article is really about shifting risks from corporates to > workers and weakening their protections.

Jacobin articles are rarely 'about' anything. Their primary mode of reasoning is like folk etymology on a discourse level. There's usually a fair amount of factual evidence included, but it's forced through a narrative -- that's there for the sake of appearing novel -- into a conclusion that doesn't logically follow from anything presented.

(I haven't read this one yet, but if it's anything like _Against Chairs_ [1], my criticism should apply. Admittedly I'm doing the same thing in this comment that I'm criticizing Jacobin for doing.)

[1] [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/04/against- chairs/](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/04/against-chairs/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The problem is when one technology company that uses this model reaches critical mass stage, they create a chicken-and-egg problem for anyone that wants to attempt to disrupt their market. You can't get contractors without clients and if you don't have contractors, clients won't want to wait. The problem has been getting worse with the rise of the internet and global connectivity as these companies can more easily expand into an entire industry and quickly dominate the technology side.

This domination of the tech side of old industries makes it especially hard for tech companies that want to disrupt the "old" companies because the market often assumes there is only room for one technological provider/disruptor per market service. This is similar to the first to market principle. If you get your service out there and generating new users before your competitor, you have an innate advantage over all the competition AND a great advantage over future companies using a similar model to yours. In the process of shutting out new, small tech companies, the competition is narrowed down to the "old" companies/interests in which the tech company has a clear new, tech-inspired advantage over, else why would they be called a disrupting tech startup?

So you have situations where 1 tech company, slowly morphing into a giant, effectively shuts out both the entrenched interests who cannot adapt fast enough to stem the hemorrhage of customers and the new interests who can't compete on either price or availability without a long ramp up and generally necessary venture capital. This creates a situation in which the contractors are taken advantage of, due to the lack of competition and complete monopoly that is slowly being acquired by the tech company.

<comment><USER29> Several über drivers are also lyft drivers. Über is trying to prevent this by requiring drivers to accept a minimum percent of rides, but a company could get critical mass in a large city using 5% time from a large number of drivers. Growing from there would easily enable full time drivers.

Which means über can only maintain a monopoly with thin margins which is generally considered ok.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> When I first saw Uber it seemed obvious to me that drivers would be squeezed. In the regulated hodge-podge of companies that Uber and Lyft are replacing, drivers didn't make very much. Uber and Lyft drivers got a "raise" when they signed up, but that came from Uber and Lyft's cash-on-hand and their rally to sign up drivers.

The fact is that there is no scarcity of people who can drive, so prices will be driven down to the point where a consumer can make a choice between a college student who is part-timing with a ten year old car and a full time driver with a brand new Prius. You might pay a small premium for the latter, but the former will be dirt cheap and they'll be paid next to nothing.

AirBnb is a sharing company that won't have this squeeze because the supply of properties is more bounded than the supply of drivers.

<comment><USER31> To clarify, neither Uber nor Lyft would allow someone to drive a 10 year old car... And I would think a lot of people using those services wouldn't get into a 10 year old car.

So even if there was a service that allowed old cars, there would probably be some segmentation.

<comment><USER30> That's my point. In this model it's a race to the bottom.

If Uber or Lyft don't take advantage of the supply of drivers with 10 year old cars someone else will. So Uber and Lyft can either take that low-cost market under a different name and hope that they can maintain income at a quality point that doesn't pollute their brand, or someone else steps in and Uber/Lyft become merely services for people who would take limos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Against 'Sharing Economy'.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but does it bother anyone else that the 'Sharing Economy' is not sharing at all? Renting your assets out for use when you're not using them is entirely different than giving them to someone else to use and expecting nothing in return.

<comment><USER33> Yes.

I think that this type of employer-employee relationship described is just being rebranded as "sharing economy" and "disruptor."

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> From a recent Oxford Economics study sponsored by SAP/SuccessFactors:

"As the economy evolves to a state where nearly everything can be delivered as a service, companies are increasingly tapping external expertise and resources they need — and on an as-needed basis — to fill skills and resource gaps and to accommodate rapidly changing business and customer demands. That means more temporary staff, more consultants and contract workers, and even "crowd- sourced" projects. In fact, of those companies surveyed as part of Workforce 2020, 83 percent of executives say they will be increasing the use of contingent, intermittent or consultant employees. " (Source, Workforce 2020 study, Oxford Economics, SAP)([http://www.successfactors.com/en_us/lp/workforce-2020-insigh...](http://www.successfactors.com/en_us/lp/workforce-2020-insights.html) \- need to register to download)

I laughed when I first heard the term "contingent labor". We all know that companies like Uber, and a whole host of companies that rely on contractor drivers/deliverydrivers will be the first to buy self-driving cars. That Uber would tout their job-creating function is pretty low. They would love to cut out the drivers and run 24/7\. The sad part is, engineers could probably figure out optimizing algorithms that would make the service better if it didn't have human drivers, and maybe even cheaper.

I haven't reached the point yet where I give up on these kind of services, but its close. I feel badly that we aren't coming up with jobs as fast as we are coming up with ways to get rid of them.

</comment><comment><USER30> I just want to know who owns the cars. To me, it is beyond belief that each of the Uber and Lyft drivers I've had ponied up and bought a fresh new car to participate in "sharing."

There's more polish on an Uber vehicle than any car or cab in my neighborhood. It seems odd to use the word "sharing" for something that seems like ultra professional service - even on the low UberX end.

Is Uber offering financing?

</comment><comment><USER34> If any other company did what uber does, they would be branded as evil, and the mob would have pitchforks out, and calling for boycotts. They exploit their employees, they skirt and out right break laws, they appear to commit fraud to disrupt competitors. Yet because they perform a service that many here like, many sing the praises... And keep using the service.

</comment><comment><USER35> Economists could do some solid and useful work by researching historical as well as current cost/benefit scenarios. So much at least of general public knowledge and reporting in the realm is focused upon "prediction". How about painting some clear pictures of what _has_ happened; _why_ ; and who paid and who benefited?

And as our knowledge, e.g. of long-term health effects, continues to grow, such topics remain open for further analysis and refinement.

Perhaps Ken Burns could put together a series on the economic history of the U.S., for example. (Perhaps those spreadsheets are more interesting when subjected to a slow pan... ;-)

Seriously, though. Last year I got sucked into yet another discussion of recent politics, and I suggested putting the whole situation under a comprehensive cost accounting analysis. For the other parties in the discussion, it -- a bit surprisingly, to me -- seemed to be something of a "lightbulb moment".

</comment><comment><USER36> The original Jacobins were mostly libertarians and would presumably like Uber's model. The idea that they were anti-capitalists is wrong. In the US, "Jacobin" was used as a pejorative to describe Jefferson.

It's unfortunate people associate the Jacobins and the Revolution with Robespierre, when it was much more Thomas Paine-esque.

</comment><comment><USER37> It seems like this article is about Uber, not the sharing economy as whole. We don't have enough data to say if a "sharing" economy is viable or ethical. Companies skirting around laws and exploiting their employees (or whatever they choose to call them) such as Uber don't reflect well on this, though.

</comment><comment><USER38> I have an intuitive understanding that these "socialist" publications about the danger and perils of sharing economy are absolutely useless.

Either developed countries implement some variation of basic income or the social order will go down in flames. Unskilled labour, such as taxi drivers, will be commoditized and become interchangable. If anti-Uber initiatives and quasi-unions will get more power it will only increase the incentives to getting self-controlled cars on the roads. The automation-worker conflict can't be won by humans and can't be wished away.

Socialists (an outdated term for the society to come) should choose their battles much more wisely and concentrate efforts on developing and implementing of sustainable models of creating and redistributing wealth geared towards 90% of population.

Anti-Uber sentiment and the likes aren't sustainable and will fail.

<comment><USER39> I would call myself a socialist and my biggest reason for disliking Uber is that it is filling the highways with drivers who no longer have valid insurance, and whose vehicles are not adhering to the level of maintenance checks usually required for commercial vehicles that spend all day on the road. So anti-Uber sentiment can exist for much more mundane reasons like insurance coverage.

The comoditization of labour (skilled and unskilled - don't think that you are immune) is already well underway anyway, and Uber makes little difference to the process. The number of Uber drivers is tiny compared to the number of warehouse pickers, fast food workers, cleaners, social carers, designers, labourers, mechanics etc etc who are on zero hours contracts or have been reclassified as self employed contractors.

The main reason to talk about Uber is that it's in the public consciousness at the moment, not because transport drivers are a special case. I guess it also has a lot of high profile backers. So we can talk about how Paul Graham thinks European countries lack 'entrepreneurial spirit' because they want drivers on their roads to be insured. Uber is a case where the capitalists got their order of attack slightly off. They needed to 'disrupt' the idea of insurance first, because at the moment there is a widespread understanding of the need for driver insurance and going against that just makes you look like a massive asshole. It's always helpful in a debate when your opponent keeps scoring own- goals, as Ubers cheerleaders do.

The example of Uber is appealing, because it's probably an easy victory. Maybe Uber will get insurance laws rewritten and in a few years we will all be enjoying the freedom of driving on roads without the regulative burden of mandatory insurance. That won't be an easy argument to win though, even with massive wealth of their backers and assistance from lobbyists like ALEC . So I strongly disagree with your description of anti-uber sentiment as doomed to failure.

<comment><USER38> Uber doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I don't care if you or anyone are a socialist, a capitalist or a subscriber of other garden variety ideology.

Either you act on strategy that sustainably benefits the poor and the middle class or you attack "capitalists". When a self-professed socialist regurgitates same points about the evil ways of Uber (which may be absolutely true), he or she doesn't help the poor. Or even drivers in the long-term.

Concentrate on the important issues. Even if you win against Uber, cars will be automated sooner. That's all.

Anti-Uber articles certainly increase the author pageviews though.

Oh, and I am perfectly sure that my job as an entrepreneur, programmer and marketer will be automated, too. A little bit later, but the Singularity won't spare anyone's job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Sounds a lot like another sharing economy: prostitution.

</comment><comment><USER41> According to wiki: sharing economy is socio-economic system built around the sharing of human and physical resources. For ridesharing industry, the resources are drivers and their personal resources. Uber/Lyft/... are intent to become the gateway or dispatch or distribution layer to some extent. They are competing to "own" these resources and become monopoly. But for the drivers and the customers, it will always be in their interest to keep it a more "perfect competition" situation. Some third party shall come in to facilitate the conflict of interest -- maybe government, union or others.

</comment><comment><USER42> Maybe it's just my lack of understanding of the subtleties of the situation, but I'm not quite sure why people are surprised that this is happening. Without the constraint of regulatory restrictions on the number of people who can drive, there is more supply than demand for drivers. Additionally, apart from that, when multiple companies start competing in the same market, their prices _will_ drop. Given the supply of drivers and the need for companies to compete on fares, why would anyone expect expect pricing to _not_ reach an equilibrium where margins are as low as drivers will tolerate?

</comment><comment><USER43> I would love to see a system like Uber or Lyft that used variable pricing and a bid system for drivers. Drivers could enter the minimum fare they're willing to work for and users could take it or leave it.

<comment><USER44> Sidecar basically has this, but the biggest problem with sidecar: It has too many bells and whistles. Sometimes simpler is better. Moreover, you are simply shifting the pricewar to a finer granularity.

I'm not sure what drivers are grumbling about. As a driver, I have to say, I knew what I was getting in to, and I have a plan to get out of it. I'm still ok, though, since I drive a very fuel-efficient car that seems to have had zero mechanical issues (cross fingers) in the 60,000 miles I have driven for the two services.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The subject of this article frames the argument incorrectly. Some drivers on Uber may have full-time jobs and are just driving for Uber to get a little extra in their spare time. Those people who treat Uber itself as a job, however, have little to do with the "sharing economy". IMO this is just another labor dispute, not really an issue with a sharing. On a side note, it's too bad a company so young and apparently game changing should be risking a labor dispute so early in its life.

<comment><USER24> I think the root of the problem is that the drivers are contractors not employees, so have fewer rights. And that's at the heart of the idea behind the sharing economy, that independent individuals with a resource can offer that resource to the marketplace at ad hoc times.

Whether or not the article is right is another matter, obviously.

<comment><USER12> I guess I have a different view of "sharing economy".

There are many other businesses which facilitate the connection of contractor to customer, but we don't call them part of the sharing economy. This is true even when they provide the tools (e.g. car) in addition to their services (e.g. driving). The fundamental difference for me comes down to whether they are providing this service as their primary means of livelihood (in which case it's a job), or are they simply looking to make better use of a resource (e.g. car) that they already own but do not fully utilize.

Uber seems to be used for both "job" and "share," but the problems seem to be with the former.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> The article argues pretty strongly that Uber is a horrible company, which isn't really news to anyone. I'm missing, though, the leap from that argument to the idea that (quoting the article tagline) "Sharing economy companies like Uber shift risk from corporations to workers, weaken labor protections, and drive down wages." There are numerous other examples (Lyft, TaskRabbit, JobRunners, even Amazon's Mechanical Turk) where this model seems to work pretty well.

<comment><USER46> >There are numerous other examples (Lyft, TaskRabbit, JobRunners, even Amazon's Mechanical Turk) where this model seems to work pretty well.

...by shifting risk from corporations to workers, weakening labor protections, and driving down wages.

This article isn't about how to maximize profit, it's about how profit is being maximized.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> A simple Google search and I was able to find the Facebook profile of the guy whose last name was not included "out of fear of retribution".

</comment><comment><USER48> > Uber is just capitalism, in its most naked form.

Considering that the workers own the means of production, this is a curious thing to say.

<comment><USER49> Owning a car and being available to drive doesn't "produce" a fare, though. Only Uber's app can do that.

<comment><USER42> The service being purchased is transportation; the driver is the one who owns the means of production of that service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> It seems to me that Uber and Lift are working hard to poach eachother's partner drivers. Perhaps one of them will actually make the leap to make a partner driver union with a seat on the board and a say in policy and pricing changes? Wouldn't that help them poach the other companies employees?

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here...

</comment><comment><USER51> Labor organizers ought to use the same tactics to reach Uber drivers as Uber used to reach Lyft drivers.

</comment><comment><USER52> Doesn't seem like a very fair or intelligent article. It basically says Uber is doing nothing good and just exploiting workers, but if I wrote an Uber clone app, no one would download it, or even hear about it. Then if someone did download it there would be only one or two drivers. Then if they traveled to another city and opened the app there would be no drivers at all.

We developers can often write an app that is technically competent, but then it never pulls in the users. In the case of Uber, they not just have a successful app and brand that people know and download, but the app also needs to have a large network of drivers in it to provide good service. The vast majority of drivers I've ever had gave me their personal business card, but I never use them since I'd have to call and negotiate a time and a price - <USER2> the price they start at is often more than just booking them through Uber or SuperShuttle or whatever. So these guys aren't getting the fares on their own, Uber is clearly providing some benefit.

<comment><USER53> It's not clear, though, that this benefit is positive. The article seems pretty clear on the fact that Uber has pulled a bait-and-switch, offering drivers a living wage only to drop their rates (and thus their wage payout) substantially once they had garnered the network effects you describe.

It is precisely these network effects which are both benefiting Uber and working against the drivers. By training users to go to Uber for their ride- sharing needs, the drivers now have to also use Uber if they want to get passengers. Sure, you have a bunch of individual drivers' business cards, but you're probably _less_ likely to get a ride from any of those drivers than if Uber had never wrangled them in the first place. Meanwhile, the drivers have invested a good deal of money and effort into an industry in which they may not have chosen to participate if Uber hadn't recruited them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Speaking of the sharing economy, why isn't AirBnB setting price and using surge pricing?

</comment><comment><USER54> this sounds like a criticism of Uber's practices not sharing in general.</comment>


Lancet editorial blasts Trump's 'inconsistent and incoherent' Covid-19 response - <AUTHOR> https://www.theage.com.au/world/europe/lancet-editorial-blasts-trumps-inconsistent-and-incoherent-coronavirus-response-20200516-p54tj4.html <comment><USER2> My in-laws are Trump supporters.

They live in a small town in Oklahoma that literally has two stoplights. There's no job opportunity unless you drive out a couple hours. Even then the job prospects aren't amazing (for tech anyway) but fine for the cost of living.

The roads are full of potholes and even the highway that runs through the town isn't in great shape. When you enter the town, there are a series of speed limit signs just after going over a hill, all in in proximity to one another. They're used as speed traps.

The high school my husband attended didn't offer math higher than Algebra 2, but they do have a basketball gym and football stadium. The high school sports are about as much the town has going on–seriously, the last time we visited them, our in-laws insisted we go with them to watch the football game. They were _extremely_ excited to watch the half-time show. The high school band had maybe a couple dozen kids?

Trump's gotten through to folks like my in-laws. They honestly believe that Trump is perfect, that nothing he's ever been accused of has happened, and if it did happen, he was setup by George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, and that all three of them are allied with the Mexicans and Muslims. Also, Mexicans and Muslims are evil. I'm literally repeating a conversation from the dinner table.

They insist I watch Sean Hannity and read the Bible.

I guess the point of this long post is that Trump's response to Covid-19, however well or horrible it is/was, is completely irrelevant to this group of voter. As horrible as it may sound, I honestly wish my in-laws didn't have the right to vote. The notion that they have a say in shaping the world that my child will grow up in is a bit terrifying.

<comment><USER3> Just say it, you think you are smarter than them, and therefore you want to make decisions for them by taking away their freedom to vote. It's textbook history.

<comment><USER2> I don't think I'm smarter than them, but I don't want their vote in a sparse populated rural area to count more than mine. You're resorting to a personal attack. Hopefully mods can sort you out.

I won't engage with you any further. Good luck!

<comment><USER3> "I honestly wish my in-laws didn't have the right to vote."

<comment><USER2> Textbook history is black people, women, and other minorities in this country faced persecution, oppression, or straight out didn't have the right to vote. White men have been running the show, and they're still more or less running the show in red states.

<comment><USER3> A wise person said "Stripping the disenfranchised of their voting rights is talk from the 1950s, and should be done away with just like slavery." but you wouldnt read it.

I am not suprised you brought up skin color.

"didn't have the right to vote" and yet here you are, "I honestly wish my in- laws didn't have the right to vote."

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I wish my in laws didn't have the right to vote. Keep writing more and more about how you're on some moral pedestal comparing my 95 year old in-laws right to vote with entire segments of the population being denied the right to vote based on skin color or gender. It seems to be therapy for you. :)

<comment><USER4> Didn't you say "I won't engage with you any further. Good luck!" a few post above? Was it some kind of bluff against jakeogh?

<comment><USER2> I changed my mind. Did that physically cause you pain?

You must be in the political camp That insists on ingesting Chlorine to fight COVID19. Good luck!

<comment><USER4> > You must be in the political camp That insists on ingesting Chlorine to > fight COVID19.

You think wrong. I simply dislike this kind of behaviour. It kind of the reminds me of the whole "haha, you are wrong, BLOCKED" form twitter.

Good luck to you too.

<comment><USER2> Some unsolicited advice — focus your energy on things you can actually control and don't worry about others.

You're going to be fairly miserable if you engage with every person on the internet who you disagree with.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Jeremy Lin's Success and The System - <AUTHOR> http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7576223/nba-jeremy-lin-success-system

<comment><AUTHOR> One thing I love about Lin's story is that it's making people realize that today's "industry experts" still don't perfectly place talent where it needs to be, even in an industry as heavily scouted and recruited as pro sports.</comment>


Brian Kernighan: What would Orwell do? - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/11/24/22217/

<comment><USER2> The worst part is the technology is out there but it's hard to sell since most people are deluded by the establishment.

P2P/DHT, zero-knowledge, plausible deniability, ubiquitous wifi, and IP telephony. It makes it even more disheartening. Instead the fads are cloud computing, no encryption, and default settings anti-privacy. So sad.</comment>