Can any composer equal Bach? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20140917-can-any-composer-equal-bach <comment><USER2> A careful analysis of Beethoven's later works shows him to be a worthy contender.

In particular, the Große Fugue [0] and the Op. 106 Hammerklavier sonata [1] (ironically so nicknamed, because at Op. 101, Beethoven directed that all sonatas from that time on be named Große Sonate für das Hammerklavier, and the nickname only stuck to this) show a profoundly advanced sense of counterpoint and structure. In addition to applying all of the classical transformations to motifs (including augmentation, diminution, cancrizans, canons and sequences), he even performs note for note reversals in time. (A temporal cancrizan, if you will.) [Edit: it would be a crime to fail to mention the late string quartets, which show prescience of modernism and are considered to be the pinnacle of chamber music. Many of you will at least be familiar with the Op. 131 c# minor quartet, which Wagner called the "saddest music ever penned" and whose 6th movement was used in the Band of Brothers episode "Why We Fight".]

Similarly, Brahms' masterful applications of form and counterpoint put most other composers to shame. Rather than be as enormously prolific as Bach, the quality of his output is more consistently excellent. (No doubt partially due to his penchant for burning the manuscripts which he felt were subpar.)

I think it's a little unfair to put Bach on this pedestal. There's plenty of music by any composer mentioned to relax to or feel stimulated by. Additionally, Bach's musical temperaments are somewhat limited by his media and styles. He is the master of his craft, but his craft has limited scope.

Yes, Bach has his own, unique, immovable place. But Beethoven, Brahms, and many other composers have immutable, unchallenged championships in their own arenas.

[P.S. Please mark this with a [2014] tag to denote when it was published.]

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fe_Fuge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fe_Fuge)

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No._29_(Beethoven...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No._29_\(Beethoven\))

<comment><USER3> I think Bach's scope is much, much larger than most listeners are aware. For instance, most are completely unaware of the Bach cantata repertoire, the guitar/lute repertoire, etc. I don't mean you personally, because I of course do not know what you're familiar with.

(personal bias: I sing professionally, and a fairly large part of what I sing is Bach.)

<comment><USER4> The lute suites are crazy. He didn't play the lute, modern guitars didn't exist when he wrote them, the pieces aren't playable on a guitar without some changes, they sound amazing, and they are brutal to even approximate. He wrote many-voiced ("polyphonic") music for an instrument played by beating two hands on six strings. Not content with that, he wrote _fugues_ for the same instrument, which are polyphonic music that obeys a lot of rules.

Take the time to learn the rules of fugues, then try to understand one of Bach's.

<comment><USER5> Incidentally one of his lute suites is the same as the c minor cello suite. Except I think on lute it's in either a or e minor, I forget now. I don't know whether the cello suite came first or the lute suite though.

But as a violist I found this interesting. I like to play his violin sonatas and partitas but on viola but people have discouraged me from this because it means changing the key and everyone insists that Bach is _very_ deliberate in his choice of key and it's almost blasphemy to think about playing his music in a different key. But the lute/cello suite is a direct contradiction to this.

<comment><USER4> G minor, I believe. I personally think it works better on the guitar, and can't imagine trying to do justice to polyphonic music on an instrument where it seems hard to play more than one string at a time. Sort of like the Paganini caprices -- I first heard them played by Eliot Fisk on the guitar, and even if he is sloppy sometimes, it sounds better than any violin recording I've heard.

<comment><USER5> I found the one I'm talking about on Apple Music, John Williams playing them on guitar. It's BWV 995 for lute, and it is in a minor.

fwiw on cello it's BWV 1011.

<comment><USER4> I'll check it out, since Williams is a great guitarist. I have a couple of recordings of BWV 995 at hand, and they both claim to be in G minor.

<comment><USER5> Oh, interesting! Perhaps Bach wrote it for lute in g minor and Williams plays it in a minor on guitar? I didn't think of that.

Wikipedia seems to agree with you on the key: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_in_G_minor,_BWV_995](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_in_G_minor,_BWV_995)

<comment><USER4> It's not uncommon to retune a guitar for some pieces, often making the lowest string D instead of E. I don't think that was true for this piece, but I don't have the sheet music, and it has been awhile. It's worth remembering that the guitar is a relatively young instrument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Douglas Adams once said "Beethoven tells you what it's like to be Beethoven and Mozart tells you what it's like to be human. Bach tells you what it's like to be the universe."

As a musician, I understand this. It's our goal as musicians to channel and convey emotion. Bach channels something much greater than himself or myself or ourselves. It's really incredible. His music sounds vast.

<comment><USER7> Adams also wrote: "The familiarity of the Brandenburgs should not blind us to their magnitude. I'm convinced that Bach is the greater genius who ever walked among us, and the Brandenburgs are what he wrote when he was happy."

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Since we're on this topic: Is Western classical music (typified by Bach) really the zenith in our human understanding of the 'universal' language of music?

Certainly, the complex and subtle tunes and harmonies of classical, in particular, give us goosebumps, provoke intense emotional responses. Do the same phenomena occur in other musical cultures? Traditional Japanese, Chinese, Javanese, Indian - their musical expression is markedly different. Try out some ancient Greek scales, from the dawn of our Western civilization: unfamiliar, yet still 'tingly'.

So are there equivalents to Bach that we're just not 'in tune' with? Alternative musical structures that are just as valid, yet wildly unfamiliar?

Akira - Kaneda's Theme: [https://youtu.be/hpDvtIt6Lsc](https://youtu.be/hpDvtIt6Lsc)

Indonesian Gamelan orchestra: [https://youtu.be/sZZTfu4jWcI](https://youtu.be/sZZTfu4jWcI)

What Ancient Greek Music Sounded Like: [https://soundcloud.com/archaeologymag/what-ancient-greek- mus...](https://soundcloud.com/archaeologymag/what-ancient-greek-music)

Ancient Krell Music (Forbidden Planet, 1956): [https://youtu.be/oNKhju6Pryg](https://youtu.be/oNKhju6Pryg)

<comment><USER9> Indian Classical Music is perhaps the most versatile of all kinds of music I have come across. A traditional western scale has 12 notes, in the Indian system (carnatic) there are four further divisions, making it a 48 note octave. Instead of scales, there are raags and they signify different moods.

Indian Flute Meditation Music: [https://youtu.be/mr8GBzTsWqM](https://youtu.be/mr8GBzTsWqM)

<comment><USER10> >48 note octave

That's somewhat of an exaggeration. There are embellishments of notes that border half and quarter-notes, but they are usually centered around a point on the 12 note octave.

Also, there is a price to be paid for the melodic complexity: there is essentially no place for harmony in the Indian tradition. On the other hand, there is a lot more room for improvisation, making it more akin to Jazz than to any Western classical form.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I first should admit that I'm a 100% self taught appreciator of classical music. I don't have any formal musical education. Nor any formal history of music education. I'm the only person of my family and friends that seeks out and listens to classical music. So, my knowledge is very uneven and I'm a total pedestrian in this realm. Over the years, I've found music by references from fiction, films and criticism. I've run down many a list of "great composers". Usually, some little reference throws me down a rabbit hole of all kind of new compositions I like but every time I get to Bach, I stop short. I just can't stand the music. I've spent hours picking different recordings of the Brandenburg's, the Toccatas and Fantasias to no avail. I understand the music is important historically and that it has a technical beauty but it just doesn't move me in any way. Maybe some day it will click but until then I'm just going to have to take the critic's word for it.

<comment><USER12> Those pieces you mention aren't exactly the things I would categorize as "moving", though.

What about the pieces for solo cello (BWV 1007-1008)? The Goldberg Variations? The solo violin sonatas (BWV 1001-1006)? His motets (e.g. BWV 227) and cantatas (too many to mention)? Or the Matthäus Passion (BWV 244)? Most people would also mention the Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D major (BWV 1068, more famously known as "Air on the G string"). Then, for sheer awesomeness, his Mass in B Minor (BWV 232) is hard to beat.

That said, aside from some of the above pieces, Bach is often too dense, complex and (heh) baroque to be truly _moving_. The beauty of many of his pieces are in their construction, not in their ability to give you goosebumps.

<comment><USER13> I still remember where I was when I first time I saw the piano partitas (BWV 825-830) performed. Gould playing the one in C minor moves me about as much as any music, along with some of the others you mentioned.

Bach's compositions are unquestionably beautiful and technically brilliant, but not all of his music was written to stir an audience. He composed in a different time and for different reasons than the classical composers that came after him.

<comment><USER14> "The purpose of art is not the release of a momentary ejection of adrenaline but rather the gradual, lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity."

― Glenn Gould

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > It's inconceivable that another composer could take Bach's place in that > slot. Even Mozart or Beethoven wouldn't cut it.

I'd pick Mozart.

When listeners hear Bach enumerate what seems like every significant variation technique for a given theme, they can quickly attribute mastery upon hearing that one piece.

But someone with Bach's abilities could just as easily have only _imagined_ all those variations as _potential_ music, then chosen only a few excerpts for a lighter, shorter setting.

Now, imagine this alternative-timeline Bach wrote in a late 18th century operatic form. For each aria he a) picks a fitting style (or mashes up fitting/effective styles), b) imagines the set of possible music based on the character of the text, and c) chooses what he thinks is the most fitting from all those possibilities. (Also, throw in a bunch of hidden musical jokes along the way.)

That alternative-timeline Bach would be superior to the real Bach. Because he came _after_ the real Bach his output includes real Bach's mastery of counterpoint (Jupiter Symphony, Intro to Requiem). Also alternative-timeline Bach can imitate real Bach's style at will (two-part invention at the end of Rondo in A minor).

The only difficulty is that the listener has to listen to a lot of alternative-timeline Bach before they start to get a sense of the scope of his mastery.

Well, good thing the slot we're trying to fill gives an audience plenty of time to hear a variety of music from this composer's output.

Bach++ ftw.

<comment><USER16> > It's inconceivable that another composer could take Bach's place...

I'd like to put my vote in for Lennon-McCartney.

I know we're talking about classical music here and I'm not trolling. I just think they're the toppermost of the poppermost.

<comment><USER15> There's definitely a lot of innovation with them, and not just in songwriting. For example, I can't figure why Helter Skelter has somehow managed to sound like it was recorded yesterday for five decades now. How many other recordings from 1968 sound like that?

But I can imagine a world where an alternate Lennon-McCartney arranged all their own string parts, dominated the symphonic world, wrote wildly popular church service music, performed guitar showcase music with prominent (probably improvised) cadenzas, and had multiple hits running on Broadway.

I think you could pick any single genre, burn everything else Mozart wrote, and he'd still be regarded as one of the greatest composers of his time. (That doesn't work for Beethoven because of the opera genre.)

Rich people at parties are _still_ playing the throw-away background music he probably wrote for a rich person's party. (Btw-- if you listen to the rest of his background music you won't be disappointed.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If you can name a short (<5 mins) piece of music more beautiful, moving but also all-encompassing than Bach's "Air on a G-String" please do so; I can't. Listen to this interpretation before deciding: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cVSgEdT4KI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cVSgEdT4KI) . Love, loss, despair, grievance, new hope, closure - it's all in there in this single, short, compassionate-but-not-sentimental, solemn-but-not-sad, perfectly balanced, ethereal piece.

<comment><USER18> Been loving this lately [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eGybwV3U9W8](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eGybwV3U9W8)

<comment><USER19> Thank you both those are beautiful.

<comment><USER20> Seriously! This is making my Saturday even better than I hoped it would be.

I often forget properly _listening_ , and instead end up having the same bunch of Spotify songs on repeat throughout the week. For all the suggestions in this thread I even dusted off my 'really good but uncomfortable' headphones :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Early in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, a math teacher and organist explains to Lawrence Waterhouse how organs worked.

"When Lawrence understood, it was as if the math teacher had suddenly played the good part of Bach's Fantasia and Fugue in G Minor [BWV 542] on a pipe organ the size of the Spiral Nebula in Andromeda—the part where Uncle Johann dissects the architecture of the Universe in one merciless escending ever- mutating chord, as if his foot is thrusting through skidding layers of garbage until it finally strikes bedrock. In particular, the final steps of the organist's explanation were like a falcon's dive through layer after layer of pretense and illusion, thrilling or sickening or confusing depending on what you were. The heavens were riven open. Lawrence glimpsed choirs of angels ranking off into geometrical infinity."

</comment><comment><USER22> The Chaconne [1] is the most moving piece of music I've ever heard. (hard stop)

The story behind it makes it even more so. When you grok it at full volume you'll understand what Douglas Adams was talking about.

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

<comment><USER23> Helene Grimaud's interpretation [1] of Busoni's transcription for piano is also pretty amazing.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw9DlMNnpPM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw9DlMNnpPM)

<comment><USER19> That gives me gooseflesh. Thank you for this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Ironically enough, I think the author did a fantastic job of demonstrating why "writing about music" is a fool's game. I love Bach as well, but what makes him the "ultimate", beyond reach of others like Mozart? The article paints numerous glowing tributes by Bach's fans, presents the inspiration of his life, but fails utterly in answering the ultimate question.

I've always believed that art is qualitatively different from pop entertainment. The latter is purely subjective, and aims to pleasure us. Art, in contrast, is defined by its ability to inspire its audience. Its ability to elevate the way we think, act, and look upon the world.

Which is more tasty, chocolate or oranges? That's an impossible question to answer in any objective manner. But which is more nutritious? Which is better for our health? That is something which can be quantified and discussed much more objectively. I look forward to the day we can have similar discussions about art.

<comment><USER25> > The latter is purely subjective, and aims to pleasure us.

A lot of composers of the Classical era such as Haydn would gladly say their music is made for the pleasure of all or as many people as possible ("I write my music in order that the weary and worn or the men burdened with affairs might enjoy a few minutes of solace and refreshment."). In fact, I would argue the whole point of the Classical style of the late 1700s was to move away from (in their words) "elitist" and complicated music of Bach and the opera seria, Mozart's operas being much easier to relate to as an average Joe than Monteverdi's. Yet all their works are inspiring and elevating - I think both goals can be achieved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Bach is the 'ultimate composer' in the same sense that Pleistocene Ogg is the ultimate tool-maker, Robert Goddard the ultimate rocket-maker.

Bach did many wondrous things, added a lot to the vocabulary, staked a viable claim on a couple of mother lodes. But this sort of argument (though eternally engaged in) is futile. While classical is a favorite of many (including me), music has moved far, far onward.

<comment><USER27> Onward, but not forward. Counterpoint is still depressingly underused in modern music (save for the occasional duet), and it can say so much with so little material. (Heck, the majority modern music barely even changes _chords_ , let let alone key or anything beyond.) These tools are not antiquated; they are not buried in the sediment. They are still perfectly useful and there for our taking, if only we would dust them off.

<comment><USER28> If by counterpoint you mean having melody on a different track (rather than just "beat" or added harmony) I'd say it's used way more than just in duets/canons. Most jazz (or accompaniment in general) would apply for example.

[https://youtu.be/GhCXAiNz9Jo?t=1m22s](https://youtu.be/GhCXAiNz9Jo?t=1m22s) Does this apply? (Franz Ferdinand - Take Me Out)

I think counterpoint is used more than people think.

Saying that we haven't moved "forward" from Bach is disingenuous, when Bach didn't even have straight 7th chords.

<comment><USER27> I'd say counterpoint requires the melodies to be on more-or-less equal footing, which doesn't really happen in this clip. (I'm sure it happens way more often in jazz, but I'm not an avid listener.) In any case, you definitely won't be hearing the kinds of crazy thematic transformations that Bach uses in his fugues.

I didn't mean to imply that our music is unequivocally less advanced than Bach's — we've certainly acquired musical tools over the years that Bach would never have dreamed of! — but I also don't believe that his music should be viewed as a mere archeological layer in music history. It's still alive, it still resonates with modern audiences, and it still uses techniques that are rarely seen even today. We can still profit tremendously from it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> If anyone is interested in Bach's keyboard literature, it's hard to top the interpretations of Glenn Gould, a fascinating musician in his own right. Here, for example, is a seminal performance of the D minor concerto, conducted by Leonard Bernstein: [https://youtu.be/9ZX_XCYokQo?t=5m9s](https://youtu.be/9ZX_XCYokQo?t=5m9s)

<comment><USER30> But note that it may not be to your taste if you do try them. I specialized in early music, and I _hate_ Gould's playing. There are places in the two part inventions where it feels to me like he chose his tempo to see how much he could screw up the piece.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Bach is one of my favorite composers if not my most favorite. However, as someone with a formal education in Western classical, it's always bothered me how heroic figures are worshipped in the tradition, often while ignoring other great artists. What I find much more interesting about Bach is the story of how he became famous _as a composer_ , which as far as I know had a lot to do with the reputation and advocacy if his sons after his death. During his lifetime, he was known much more as a virtuosic organist.

</comment><comment><USER32> No one equals Bach, but some come close enough to make the answer unclear. My favorite trivia about Boston's Symphony Hall is that there are dozens of empty plaques along the balconies, where composer's names were going to be engraved when the hall was built. The only name the trustees could agree on was Beethoven. Not Bach, Mozart, Haydn, etc., only Beethoven, and his name is front and center, above the stage. [0]

[0]: [https://www.bso.org/brands/symphony-hall/about- us/historyarc...](https://www.bso.org/brands/symphony-hall/about- us/historyarchives/the-history-of-symphony-hall.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER33> I care about music a lot, but I don't really listen to classical music. I don't actively dislike it, but there are other music genres I like more.

Even as a total uneducated outsider, I can tell there is something special about Bach. Especially the pieces for a small number of instruments like the harpsichord. It captures something deep about the human spirit.

</comment><comment><USER34> The music of Bach is pretty unique to listen to while coding. The parallel structure of the music lines goes very well for a developer that must coordinate multiple tasks. I discovered bach by myself, and it was a pretty downing task. For curious minds, I would recommend the Goldberg variation, the cello suite and the violin concerto in E major (BWV 1042) as a starting point. At first most of his work may seem like a wall because so much is happening ... but with time you see the light. I remember at first the well-tempered keyboard was like that, but now it just flows so nicely. It's also a delight to listen to his music on original instruments such as the harpsichord. The music is so much clearer when played on a harpsichord. From the same epoch there are so many more to discover, one of my favorite is Domenico Scarlatti and his 555 sonatas to be listened on harpsicord played by Scott Ross!

</comment><comment><USER35> "Classical music has a lighter, clearer texture than Baroque music and is less complex. It is mainly homophonic — a clear melody above a subordinate chordal accompaniment. Counterpoint was by no means forgotten, especially later in the period."[0]

People, just listen to some music, it doesn't matter, that the music is in decline since the baroque period - the music needs listeners.

[edit] "Since there was a greater emphasis on a single melodic line, there was greater emphasis on notating that line for dynamics and phrasing. This contrasts with the Baroque era, when melodies were typically written with no dynamics, phrasing marks or ornaments, as it was assumed that the performer would improvise these elements on the spot. In the Classical era, it became more common for composers to indicate where they wanted performers to play ornaments such as trills or turns. The simplification of texture made such instrumental detail more important, _and also made the use of characteristic rhythms, such as attention-getting opening fanfares_ , the funeral march rhythm, or the minuet genre, more important in establishing and unifying the tone of a single movement."[0]

So, hello modern music, hello rap/r&b/soul and the likes. It's not worse, it's incomparable. Most people react on rhythm and catchy sounds, hearing no _music_ at all, really. Comparing music is nuts as many here pointed out, and the question was different - can we have the next Bach? For me, the answer is "yes", for sure! Can we hear him/her? - perhaps no, label's target group is different.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_period_(music)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_period_\(music\))

</comment><comment><USER36> As a pianist from the age of 5 my ranking would be Mozart, Bach, than Beethoven. Mozart was a prodigy on a level unheard of. He wrote in so many different genres and such a short time period. Mostly though, is the pure beauty and lyricism of his music. The consistency of quality. The Requiem and the Magic Flute are required listening.

</comment><comment><USER37> It's hard to compare for equality, but in terms of musical talent, overall - Keith Jarrett. For some context: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3FEBz5fby8&t=2464s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3FEBz5fby8&t=2464s)

</comment><comment><USER38> Bach is my ninth great-grandfather for what its worth.

<comment><USER39> Are you in touch with any other Bach descendants? What do you all get up to?

<comment><USER38> I only know my siblings and cousins, that have the same grandmother. We hang out when we see each other and are in the same country.

Weirdly, when I was a kid there was some sort of royalty money that someone messaged my father about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Bach's works can be strangely hypnotic in a way that's rare from other artists. It's not inherently intense or dramatic, but has a way of triggering intensity and drama through secondary means. I compare it to harmonic induction, like pushing somebody on a swing. Each push is gentle pressure, but the end result is high flying. Other artists require a catapult to take you up there, and it makes a big racket. Bach sneaks you up there without you noticing until a cloud sprays you with moisture.

</comment><comment><USER41> A key thing to remember about the baroque period: it was almost all improvised - the original jazz, if you will.

Tonal harmony was one of my favourite papers at music school, learning the rules of harmony to compose pieces like this from scratch. I wasn't great at it, but it's an amazing skill to observe in those that can do it. I once had a guitar masterclass and the tutor just stood up, jumped on the piano and improvised a fugue. Our minds were blown.

</comment><comment><USER42> Do yourself a favor and find The Canadian Brass' recording of Bach's glorious Art of Fugue. My God it's beautiful.

</comment><comment><USER43> On the BBC's _Desert Island Discs_ Douglas Adams chose pieces by Bach for no less than three of his eight permitted musical recordings.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0093qxj](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0093qxj)

</comment><comment><USER44> today in "completely subjective judgments"

</comment><comment><USER45> [https://youtu.be/9ZX_XCYokQo](https://youtu.be/9ZX_XCYokQo) Glenn Gould and Leonard Bernstein: Bach's Keyboard Concerto No 1 in D minor (BWV 1052)

</comment><comment><USER46> Damn, I was hoping this would be about a tool that would let me equal Bach.

<comment><USER47> Here you go: [https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c...](https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/45576.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are a number of great but not as well known earlier composers. William Lawes comes to mind.

</comment><comment><USER48> _Now there is music from which a man can learn something._

\- W. A. Mozart (on hearing Bach motets in Leipzig)

In the multiverse I'm supremely happy that I've ended up in one where Bach both existed and created tremendous amounts of music. You can spend a lifetime exploring his oeuvre and find entire corners of delight.

I'm reminded of this thread from 2014: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7720708](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7720708)

Despite appearances to the contrary, I find that one of the powerful things about Bach's work is how it is almost a kind of "abstract" auditory form that just happens to be performed on instruments. What I mean is that many of his pieces can be performed equally well on just about any combination of instruments or voice and still be beautiful. It's not always true, but there's a strange density of his music that seems like this.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zkPaGnKb5M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zkPaGnKb5M)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BvwM07BYvg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BvwM07BYvg)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKRj-T4l-e8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKRj-T4l-e8)

Some favorites:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLj_gMBqHX8&t=353s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLj_gMBqHX8&t=353s) (BWV 1048 III Allegro)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWlfmepsUuQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWlfmepsUuQ) (BWV 1049) - the reason why the Recorder has value as an instrument

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc4kWmxpZGs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc4kWmxpZGs) (BWV 1060) - Every note the Oboe plays is made out of magic and delight here.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CexJQ8VWJfY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CexJQ8VWJfY) (BWV 1051) - Even Violas can be beautiful, and this is one of the most incredible pieces of music in all of music.

I think the next composer to have captured my attention has been Steve Reich. And for entirely different reasons. I can take or leave his earliest highly experimental works. But when he came into full form later on he created majesty. Some of this music feel like being inside the engines of creation. You'll find his fingerprints all over modern music.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Np9yApXD94](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Np9yApXD94)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMsYuFrKUQ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMsYuFrKUQ8)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLZelvSvh3A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLZelvSvh3A)

</comment><comment><USER49> Bach is very good, but he's no Toshiki Kadomatsu.

</comment><comment><USER50> No.

</comment><comment> cup-of-tea Today I am quitting reddit completely. With some of the time that I will save every day I will listen to a piece of Bach. I've read _Gödel, Escher, Bach_ but never actually _listened_ to Bach.

<comment><USER51> Yes, as I was reading the article I thought, 'would my time be better spent listening to Bach?' Maybe I should be thinking that now ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> No, no composer can equal Bach. Done. Upvote to the top please. :P

</comment><comment><USER53> usually when this question is asked, its asked in such a way that is kind of tautological. in other words, it presupposes that the great things that bach developed and invented are the _most important_ things, then says, "hey look, heres the guy who did these things the best!"

i say this as someone who grew up worshipping bach. its not that he isnt every bit as good as everyone says he is. its just that he does not have a monopoly on "composition" or "music", and you would be well served to remember that!

</comment><comment><USER54> Def my favorite composer.

</comment><comment><USER55> DJ Khalid

</comment><comment><USER56> The Rock

</comment><comment><USER57> Prince!

</comment><comment><USER58> Damon Albarn

</comment><comment><USER59> Good candidate for Betteridge's Law.

</comment><comment><USER60> HN types think they're the smartest of the smart, yet judging from these comments and from other music-related posts I've seen here, most of you listen to popular music (including rock and rap) near exclusively. The comments seriously offering up pop stars as equals of Bach are just sad.

Go on a pop diet. Cut back on it the way you might sugar or processed foods. Try to spend a year listening to classical music only. These resources will help you get started:

[https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/music](https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/music)

[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNezhx8YiGIV8...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNezhx8YiGIV8I22ICSuzslja)

<comment><USER61> >Go on a pop diet. Cut back on it the way you might sugar or processed foods. Try to spend a year listening to classical music only.

Why would anyone do any of these things? Besides the nebulous benefits of realizing how wrong we were for enjoying rap?

<comment><USER60> Why would anyone read a serious novel, like Crime and Punishment, instead of a comic book? Mozart's Jupiter Symphony will still be performed and appreciated fifty years from now. Can the same be said for your cherished rap/pop songs?

<comment><USER62> Yes.

And I say this as someone who has been classically trained and absolutely worships the music of Bach (and Mozart for that matter).

"The Message" by Grandmaster Flash, A lot of The Beastie Boys, Some Kendrick Lamar, and many other hip-hop tracks and artists will _definitely_ still be played and enjoyed 50 years in the future.

There are people who weren't alive at the beginning of hip-hop who are massive fans of the early artists. They'll be as popular as the greats of early rock, the greats of jazz etc.

You have to remember that when Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms etc were composing there was also a lot of absolute dross being composed at the same time. History forgets the garbage and remembers the greats. The same will happen for all genres of music.

<comment><USER63> > There are people who weren't alive at the beginning of hip-hop who are > massive fans of the early artists. They'll be as popular as the greats of > early rock, the greats of jazz etc.

How many people still listen to even the greatest of Big Band music? Rock and jazz have been passed down one or two generations but it's too soon to conclude they'll live forever.

<comment><USER62> If Bach could survive without the benefit of recorded media, then rock, jazz, big band and hiphop will survive easily. Maybe not forever, but definitely for hundreds of years.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why the NSA Prism Program Could Kill U.S. Tech Companies - <AUTHOR> http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/why-the-nsa-prism-program-could-kill-us-tech-companies-15564220 <comment><USER2> The only major market only served by US companies at the moment is search and possibly videochats, in all other markets, there are already European service providers (think United Internet or even DailyMotion). But then search is also a field where it takes considerable investments to build an independent solution – nevertheless it will be interesting to see how long it takes for one to pop up.

<comment><USER3> Cloud storage is likely something that could make a dent into the US market now. Surely they've got big players in Europe that would be happy to expand to a new customer base. Give me something that has Dropbox's cross-platform functionality, and throw in a fun tag line informing me that they _don't_ hand over my data to the NSA, and yeah, I'd happily make the switch. If only to feel .01% like I 'stuck it to the man.'

<comment><USER4> Ultimately any sufficiently popular platform will attract the attention of the local security services.

The question is who do you fear most, NSA or GHCQ, DGSE etc?

<comment><USER5> The EU (and Germany in particular) have data protection laws ... so, yeah: I fear the NSA the most.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is PM run by Demand Media or medium.com now? There's no way this author knows what they're talking about.

<comment><USER7> These sites write for traffic first, topic second.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> How can we recover from a 'recession' with government making decisions that thwart the very essence of what our currency is? Trust.

</comment><comment><USER9> I do wonder if the media panic over this will result in quickly passed laws with untended consequences that will damage companys like Google that rely on having huge amounts of personal data.

<comment><USER10> Somehow, I won't feel bad if a multi-billion dollar advertising company has to deal with privacy laws that make their data-harvesting a little harder.

<comment><USER9> True but as I got voted down sounds like some one doesn't like my thesis :-) maybe by a cutlet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think the most straight forward solution for most foreign countries would be to insist that Google, Facebook etc. set up their servers within those countries and limit the amount of data they can transmit to US.

Small countries can't do it alone, but EU for example has enough muscle to make this happen and force all data to be stored within EU countries and be staffed by people who are EU citizens. There are already several Google data centers in in EU. They just need more.

<comment><USER12> There are already several Google data centers in the EU. And there's also a wide range of surveillance and legal interception in the EU.

The question for users is there not whether the can evade surveillance etc. or not but which government they prefer to directly monitor them. And there is of course data exchange too with many close US allies in the EU in particular the UK, but also Germany and countries in Eastern Europe.

<comment><USER13> "The question for users is there not whether the can evade surveillance etc. or not but which government they prefer to directly monitor them"

Except that users _can_ evade government surveillance. Encrypt your email. Use anonymous remailers. Send broadcast messages to Usenet. When you need to manage more than two people, there are things like attribute based encryption that allow you to create access policies that are enforced cryptographically. Etc., etc., etc.

The real issue is that people are far too apathetic to accept the momentary inconvenience imposed by such cryptosystems.

<comment><USER12> I am afraid that users cannot evade government surveillance.

Sure users can encrypt their mail and other content but many relevant parts of user communication will remain public. The importance of metadata for surveillance cannot be overestimated. In addition, encryption and efficient communication bite each other – there is not just momentary inconvenience, there is constant inconvenience.

Just an example: The OS X 10.8 version of GPGTools, essential if you want to use GPG not just on the command line, just became available a few weeks ago. Users who wanted to use the current version of OS X and GPGTools, had to revert to a beta version. In a productive IT environment, beta versions are not acceptable.

<comment><USER13> "The importance of metadata for surveillance cannot be overestimated"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_remailer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_remailer)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Twitter Tweet Button URL randomly resolves to a .torrent file - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/gregclermont/6669056

<comment><USER2> My guess: many CDNs allow you to exclude the querystring from the cache key, so it's possible that one person requested the URL with ?torrent in the querystring (which causes S3 to serve a .torrent response) and that the request hit a cold cache. The response with type application/x-bittorrent was then cached under the querystring-less cache key, causing it to be served to anyone else hitting that edge node with the path /widgets/tweet_button.html.

Again: this is just my guess.

<comment><USER3> I thought Twitter was all private DC, did platform previously point to S3?

<comment><USER2> platform.twitter.com is currently CNAMEd to EdgeCast CDN. It looks like the CDN is sitting in front of Amazon S3; [http://platform.twitter.com/blahblahblah](http://platform.twitter.com/blahblahblah) gives an S3-like 403 response.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> platform.twitter.com is hosted at Amazon S3 (via an additional CDN).

All S3 files by default can be distributed with torrent, if the URL is appended with ?torrent

S3 servers will act as a tracker and seeds.

<comment><USER5> Relevent FAQ from Amazon S3 FAQ page : [http://aws.amazon.com/s3/faqs/#What_is_the_BitTorrent_TM_pro...](http://aws.amazon.com/s3/faqs/#What_is_the_BitTorrent_TM_protocol_and_how_do_I_use_it_with_Amazon_S3)

<comment><USER6> Wow, that's amazing. I had no idea Amazon offered that.

I also have no idea when I'll ever use it, but still. Damn cool.

<comment><USER7> Not only can S3 serve the file as a torrent, if you provide it as a torrent link and have disabled read access to the file, S3 will still serve as the tracker as long as other peers in the swarm have a full copy of the file to serve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is what TorrentFreak had to say about it:

[http://torrentfreak.com/twitter-bug-requires-users-to- torren...](http://torrentfreak.com/twitter-bug-requires-users-to-torrent-its- tweet-button-130923/)

TL;DR is Twitter uses bittorrent internally, this is probably just an error in letting an internal configuration leak to the outside world.

</comment><comment><USER9> Just got this visiting this article page on TechCrunch => [http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/23/facetime-audio-is-apples- bi...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/23/facetime-audio-is-apples-biggest- little-feature-addition-in-ios-7/)

Chrome automatically downloaded it => [http://cl.ly/image/2u3R2m3j3j1E](http://cl.ly/image/2u3R2m3j3j1E)

<comment><USER10> Same. Chrome automatically downloaded it for me too. Twice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Now you just need browser support for downloading HTTP bodies via BitTorrent. Not actually a bad idea for sufficiently large ones :)

</comment><comment><USER12> So that's what that was. Happened to me yesterday.

</comment><comment><USER13> You can reproduce it by pretending that the IP is "220.127.116.11" by modifying your own /etc/hosts file, not funny indeed.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This visualization of the domain name resolution for platform.twitter.com might help to understand the issue. I don't know how to interpret it however. [http://dnsviz.net/d/platform.twitter.com/dnssec/](http://dnsviz.net/d/platform.twitter.com/dnssec/)

</comment><comment><USER14> I had this happen when I loaded an article from TechCrunch just a couple of minutes ago. USA here.

</comment><comment><USER15> Reproduced a couple minutes ago in Greece. Oh the bug? I didn't check it out yet.

</comment><comment><USER16> I also have this bug on BusinessInsider and other sites. Does not look good. Surprised there isn't more coverage of this.

</comment><comment><USER17> Just happened to me on Businessinsider.

<comment><USER18> Happened to me on a tech news website earlier today (forget which one exactly)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This seems like a major security issue, since some browsers (Chrome, at the very least, and probably others) can be set to automatically open a torrent client when links to .torrent files are clicked.

Is it possible someone hijacked this IP?

Edit:

1\. Seems the IP belongs to a CDN (edgecast).

<comment><USER20> In what scenario is opening a torrent client a major security issue?

<comment><USER19> It implies downloading a file onto the users machine without user consent which is, in itself, a problem. More importantly, an attacker could craft a torrent file that exploits vulnerabilities in the torrent client. If, just by visiting a site, an attacker can download an arbitrary file onto your machine and then have it automatically opened in a known program you're in big trouble.

<comment><USER20> I don't understand, if the user is prompted to download the file using an external application it's no different than a direct download.

If users have their browsers configured to automatically start the download of any .torrent files without confirmation, twitter giving bogus .torrent is no more dangerous than $malware_site linking a .torrent. So that's not a security issue on twitter's site.

And anyway, I still fail to see how downloading a file (through bittorent or otherwise) constitutes a security breach on its own. Unless of course the bittorent client auto-executes binaries when it's done downloading, but that's just silly (and still nothing to do with twitter's security policy).

<comment><USER19> The flow of a (possible) attack is something like this:

1\. User configures browser to automatically start torrent downloads when a ".torrent" link is clicked

2\. User clicks twitt button which leads to a torrent file

3\. The file is downloaded and opened in a torrent client

At this point, one could imagine a specifically crafted torrent file which exploits some vulnerability of the torrent client to gain (say) arbitrary code execution and now the user is, to use a mild term, screwed.

This attack could be used by any malicious site, really, but it's easier to get people to click a twitt button rather than some link on some site and besides, by preforming the attack this way the attacker would infect a sizable chunk of all internet sites (any site that uses the twitt button).

<comment><USER21> One could also imagine a specially crafted image file which exploits some vulnerability of the graphics library to gain arbitrary code execution. Then you just need the user to look at the twitter button.

<comment><USER19> True, though I'd think it would be easier to exploit a torrent client than a browser.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Happens to me today on Spiegel.de - one of the largest German sites (news site)

</comment><comment><USER23> Don't twitter use torrents to deploy across multiple servers?

<comment><USER24> They do (or at least used to). This came to mind for me too.

The platform they developed is called Murder: [https://blog.twitter.com/2010/murder-fast-datacenter-code- de...](https://blog.twitter.com/2010/murder-fast-datacenter-code-deploys- using-bittorrent)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> people are digging for http responses [https://gist.github.com/gregclermont/6669056](https://gist.github.com/gregclermont/6669056)

</comment><comment><USER26> Can not reproduce from Germany (manually added the hosts entry)

<comment><USER27> It works without the host file hack (from Germany).

Edit: I just browsed TC and I am getting the torrent download there too..

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> reproduced in Egypt, this thing is all over the place

</comment><comment><USER29> Reproduced from Italy just a couple of minutes ago.

</comment><comment><USER30> reproduced from France a couple times yesterday</comment>


Ajit Pai's Net Neutrality Shell Game - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/net-neutrality-fiber-optic-internet/ <comment><USER2> I don't understand the headline, but the content is good.

It's about Wilson, NC's success in running their own lit fiber network; "lit" meaning they run the retail services too.

Notably they offer a pre-paid plan ($10 min deposit) for $1.15 a day, with an automated system to cut service, and is a phone call away to setup, cancel, or switch between the $40 montly offering.

In contrast to Comcast's gov't mandated "Internst Essentials", Wilson's public ISP offers 50Mbps/50Mbps, to Comcast's 20Mbps/2Mbps. And you can't even sign up if you have had a monthly plan in the past 90 days, or have owed money within the past year!

Repealing Net Neutrality would mostly be a non-issue if competition were possible.

Linked in the article [1] is San Fransisco's plan for laying "dark fiber", which, opposed to lit fiber, is strictly infastructure to be leased to ISPs offering services. This setup should largely mitigate NN worries, as there will be ISPs that can differentiate services based on it.

There are times I'd like to have potentially-anti-competitive zero-rating services, but only in the case there is a resonable neutral service available.</comment>


Temel.cr: Extensible Markup DSL for Crystal - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/f/temel <comment><USER2> I heard about Crystal pretty early on (via HN IIRC), have been pretty excited about it since. Nice to see third party shards starting to pop up.</comment>


Some Writing Advice: Don't Take Others' Advice - mighty-fine https://lithub.com/some-writing-advice-dont-take-others-advice/ <comment><AUTHOR> I think "don't take other's advice" is just good advice in general, or at the very least "be skeptical of other's advice". I work in academic science where a lot of people of varying career stages are squished together in close proximity, and I encounter many situations where inexperienced and not that successful people are way too willing to shower even less experienced people with advice on how to live/do things. This seems to be the most common with graduate students talking to slightly newer graduate students. It's self- affirming for most people to give instructions and feel like they are being listened to, and I too often see this impulse outweighing the idea of the advice actually being useful.

For me personally, two things that determine if somebody is in a position to give me advice are:

1)Are they enjoying a level of success that I would like to achieve? 2)Is the environment in which they achieved success comparable to my own?

<comment><USER2> Other people's advice is generally useless, mostly because you aren't them. You're facing a different set of circumstances while in possession of a different set of resources.

Other people's _stories_ however are almost always useful in some way, though not always in the way they intend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> But there is a reason people seek advice: writing is hard.

I've always wanted to write, and I sought the help of some pretty good writers. They gave me great advice. But no amount of advice can be applied to a blank page.

So I wrote, pretty badly at first, you can see it on my blog.

Writing is hard. Imagine, you have an idea in your head, and you like it. You grab a keyboard and write it down, somehow you write something else, not the idea in your head. You have to force your brain to say what it means to say.

There is no problem with reading other's advice, as long as you have some writing to apply it to. However, in my case I benefit more from reading what those people write, rather then read their advice.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd add to this that most "How to write" or "style guide" books aren't useful. They can help you to turn really bad prose into serviceable prose, but they can't make you a good writer. For that you need to spend thousands of hours reading the work of expert writers.

If you read a style guide like Strunk and White, you'll come across a lot of nonsense. A particular bugbear of mine is the prohibition against passives, which is utter rubbish[0]. Don't waste your time hunting down passives and split infinitives under the illusion that it will make your writing better. It won't.

[0]: [https://youtu.be/suAASPc_s0A](https://youtu.be/suAASPc_s0A)

<comment><USER5> I think the US government's "plain language" site has examples showing that changing passive to active can definitely improve texts, like here: [https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and- after/empl...](https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and- after/employment-assistance/)

<comment><USER4> Passives are an information structuring tool that writers use to control how information is presented in a sentence. They can be used well or they can be poorly.

For example, on the page you linked to the first line of the body text reads:

> This example was created for training and is not official agency text.

The first clause of that sentence is in the passive voice — "was created" — and is a good example of how passives should be used. Nothing is gained by replacing it with:

> We created this example for training and it is not official agency text.

<comment><USER6> IMO which of those works better is a function of the overall tone of the piece.

The passive version probably fits better in a Howto or manual that is focused on just communicating information in a neutral just-the-facts way.

The active version fits better with a style that's going for something more conversational.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This seems overly reactionary. Writing is hard, and specific, and the devil is always in the details as it relates to a person, so it's almost nonsensical to give generally applicable writing advice. But, I don't think that makes it impossible to give advice as it pertains to a particular style.

I've found that if you want to be a good writer, you need interesting material to draw from. That can come from your imagination, your lived experiences, other material you've read, or most likely all of the above, but you're engaging in world building first and foremost. I particularly like this Faulkner quote:

"I would say to get the character in your mind. Once he is in your mind, and he is right, and he's true, then he does the work himself. All you need to do then is to trot along behind him and put down what he does and what he says. It's the ingestion and then the gestation. You've got to know the character. You've got to believe in him. You've got to feel that he is alive, and then, of course, you will have to do a certain amount of picking and choosing among the possibilities of his action, so that his actions fit the character which you believe in. After that, the business of putting him down on paper is mechanical. Most of the the writing has got to take place up here before you ever put the pencil to the paper. But the character's got to be true by your conception and by your experience, and that would include, as we've just said, what you've read, what you've imagined, what you've heard, all that going to giving you the gauge to measure this imaginary character by, and once he comes alive and true to you, and he's important and moving, then it's not too much trouble to put him down."

</comment><comment><USER8> The article is entirely about work patterns; when and where to write, and how to find motivation to do so. For that kind of thing, the advice "find what works for you" is better advice than "do what works for me". (Although the latter advice still often helps.)

But _writing_ advice is another thing entirely. Learning to think about your audience while writing is every bit as amenable to advice as learning to think about the processor's branch prediction while coding. Advice like "form a chain from stress position to topic position" ([https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/the-long-view/the- sci...](https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/the-long-view/the-science-of- scientific-writing)), or the "arcs of coherence" from Steven Pinker's _The Sense of Style_. Human perception processes language in understood ways. Conforming to those expectations requires learning from advice.

</comment><comment><USER9> The best advice I ever heard: Every text you read is both an advice how to write and an advice how not to.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think the only advice you need is:

\- if you are creating figures: research and be empathic to the real reasons why people act like they do. Observe life

\- be aware of the functions certain words, phrases, sentences or sections fulfill in the system of your text

\- become a good reader: if you're sensitive to language, this can be your failsafe, it will protect you from writing things you didn't intend

\- Just write and don't be afraid to throw things out.

\- don't overly rely on dramatic systems, because you will end up telling low impact predictable stories like everybody else

<comment><USER5> And practice editing, especially deleting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think that is self contradictory.</comment>


The 11 Rules of GitLab Flow - <AUTHOR> https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/27/the-11-rules-of-gitlab-flow/ <comment><USER2> The short list:

        1. Use feature branches, no direct commits on master.
        2. Test all commits, not only ones on master.
        3. Run all the tests on all commits (if your tests run longer than 5 minutes
           have them run in parallel).
        4. Perform code reviews before merges into master, not afterwards.
        5. Deployments are automatic, based on branches or tags.
        6. Tags are set by the user, not by CI.
        7. Releases are based on tags.
        8. Pushed commits are never rebased.
        9. Everyone starts from master, and targets master.
        10. Fix bugs in master first and release branches second.
        11. Commit messages reflect intent.</comment>


Preservationists, please save a dying language before it's too late: Chicagoese - <AUTHOR> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-met-chicago-language-kass-20180803-story.html?msource=9J68Z&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT0RJek5ERXhNRGhrTURaaSIsInQiOiIrOVV6MHZVdHRuVWl1aGhnazdMSjFraXY1RzlYXC93SG1lZ1pNaVFycDZNV25Wa0RjSDZuM1lzSGtqNlBBcXoyUmhubXBNWjcxR3l6MTd3bXVTUDBjTzJhOHo5WWJRSXVubFdGRHJ2UlwvVmdWRkdiZzhzdzU1OEFsaDAxb0dDaVFpIn0%3D <comment><USER2> William Labov, a prominent sociolinguist and dialectologist, doesn't think regional accents in the United States are on their way out:

> Contrary to the general expectation that mass culture would diminish > regional differences, the dialects of Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, > Birmingham, Buffalo, Philadelphia, and New York are now more different from > each other than they were a hundred years ago. Equally significant is > Labov's finding that AAVE [African American Vernacular English] does not map > with the geography and timing of changes in other dialects. The home dialect > of most African American speakers has developed a grammar that is more and > more different from that of the white mainstream dialects in the major > cities studied and yet highly homogeneous throughout the United States > ([http://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4510](http://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4510))

<comment><USER3> "...The home dialect of most African American speakers has developed a grammar that is more and more different from that of the white mainstream dialects in the major cities studied and yet highly homogeneous throughout the United States..."

Is there a difference between a "dialect" and an "accent"?

Because having been in the military, I can definitely tell you that different black people have different accents. I think anyone who's been in the military could tell you that. So I'm wondering if this guy means that blacks speak the same _language_ , which is AAVE, but the accent of a black person from Jackson, Mississippi could still be significantly different from the accent of a black person from Lincoln, Nebraska? (Because their accents _are_ , in fact, significantly different.)

<comment><USER4> I think you're interpretation is pretty accurate. There's an old joke that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy.

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

The basic premise is that there is no clear distinction between the term "dialect" and "language". Especially when you hit interesting cases like dialect continuum, which is a bit like a game of telephone. Any two neighboring dialects can generally understand each other, but the further away you get the less that is true. So if you look at the two ends, is that two different languages? Even though you could walk from one to the other and everyone will understand each other?

An accent, on the other hand, is something more intrinsic to how an individual renders sounds. That is, I can speak my native language English with my accent, and I can also speak Spanish with that same accent. For instance, I could use English "r" sound (/ɹ/) instead of the Spanish rolled or tapped "r" sounds (/r/ and /ɾ/). Or I could use English vowel "e" (/ɛ/ or maybe /eɪ/) instead of Spanish vowel "e" (/e/). And so on. "Losing your accent" is basically learning how to render those sounds in a fashion that matches expectations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article doesn't explain _why_ it should be saved. The only reason would be for historical context. But there's no reason to keep speaking it. All language changes over time. We're not all still speaking Proto-Indo-European.

h₂áu̯ei̯ h₁i̯osméi̯ h₂u̯l̥h₁náh₂ né h₁ést, só h₁éḱu̯oms derḱt. só gʷr̥hₓúm u̯óǵʰom u̯eǵʰed; só méǵh₂m̥ bʰórom; só dʰǵʰémonm̥ h₂ṓḱu bʰered. h₂óu̯is h₁ékʷoi̯bʰi̯os u̯eu̯ked: "dʰǵʰémonm̥ spéḱi̯oh₂ h₁éḱu̯oms-kʷe h₂áǵeti, ḱḗr moi̯ agʰnutor". h₁éḱu̯ōs tu u̯eu̯kond: "ḱludʰí, h₂ou̯ei̯! tód spéḱi̯omes, n̥sméi̯ agʰnutór ḱḗr: dʰǵʰémō, pótis, sē h₂áu̯i̯es h₂u̯l̥h₁náh₂ gʷʰérmom u̯éstrom u̯ept, h₂áu̯ibʰi̯os tu h₂u̯l̥h₁náh₂ né h₁esti. tód ḱeḱluu̯ṓs h₂óu̯is h₂aǵróm bʰuged.

<comment> fake-name In that case, why save anything? The internet archive is obviously pointless. Everything should be just one grey homogeneous mass.

People save stuff like this because it provides a interesting window into the human condition, not because of some assigned analytical "value".

<comment><USER6> I'm pretty sure the GP is suggesting the article doesn't provide a compelling reason why the dialect/language in the article should be preserved beyond just being a note in a book somewhere. There are tons of things which we keep a copy of, but for no more reason than just to remember it.

With regards to Chicagoese, maybe I was just listening to the wrong people, but I grew up in Milwaukee and went to Chicago basically whenever I wanted for most of my young adult life, and I never heard the term Chicagoese until reading this article. I actually thought the article was satire on first read, and I would agree with the GP that there isn't really a compelling argument for it, any more than I would suggest that we preserve the idiosyncrasies that my deep-woods Wisconsinite grandparents would come up with as I grew up, even if everyone in their region used the terms.

I really don't get the thrust of the article's argument other than being upset that Chicago was ranked the accent as unattractive in the YouGov survey.

<comment><USER7> If it didn't have a name it's probably because, much like the Italian Beef, nobody outside Chicagoland was aware of it or cared to be aware of it.

Also, though so-called Chicagoese has its own distinctive features, it's part of a larger regional dialect. (See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_Engli...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_English)). But that dialect is disappearing and Chicago, being the largest representative city, may become the location by which people remember it (e.g. in parody) in the future.

That's the heart of it: the dialects are now quickly disappearing (after a brief period where researchers were sure some of them were growing!) making them increasingly prominent as part of a larger social discourse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is it already dead? I rarely encounter this accent in Chicago proper. It has migrated to the suburbs.

Come to think of it, I only hear it in the city because it is used for pedestrian signals and pre-recorded CTA announcements.

<comment><USER9> Yep, it white-flighted out to the suburbs. My dad's two siblings kept their accent but my dad suppressed his, either when he was at Loyola or at U of C, because he didn't want to sound like a low-class south sider.

You'll still find it in certain neighborhoods, Beverly comes to mind.

<comment><USER10> agreed, probably due to amount of youth in the city. growing up in the burbs of chicago i heard my family talk like this, mainly the men. Dad, uncles, you would hear a lot of 'trow some sausage on der' type phrases. Also instead of Jewel (grocery store) you hear "the Jewels".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My wife and I took about 6 months last year to explore the US. We stayed in Airbnbs generally in poorer parts of town because that was what we could afford. We passed through 40-something states and one of the things I was most disappointed in was the lack of accents.

Pretty much no young people spoke with the accents I was expecting in a particular area, everyone sounded a lot like us (West Coast).

We did hear more Texan accents in 2 days in Dallas than in a month in Austin, which I suppose is to be expected.

New Orleans was delightful when it came to accents, as were a few other cities in the South.

In most places though, we only heard very occasional local accents and they tended to be possessed by older people.

I chalked it up to people just gradually moving toward a Hollywood type of accent. I also noticed that if we spent very long in one place, my accent would shift slightly toward whatever was local, so I'm wondering if the locals, upon discovering we were from the West Coast would do the same thing and let their accent drift closer to ours.

In any case, I was always listening for accents and even though I'd never really thought about it, it was disappointing to realize that a lot of accents are probably disappearing.

<comment><USER12> > We did hear more Texan accents in 2 days in Dallas than in a month in > Austin, which I suppose is to be expected.

That's apparently due to the large influx of Californians, though I personally run into more Easterners moving here rather than Californians.

By here, I mean Austin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Recently, idiotic stories attacking Chicagoese were in the news. These were based on a blasphemous survey from YouGov that found our Chicago accent to be the least attractive in America.

Garbage. Lies. All lies."

I went to a school where at least half the people in my dorm had a Chicago accent and I found it extremely grating.

"Chicagoese is our lyrical native tongue. But we're losing it, bit-by-bit in the great American leveling that is destroying distinctive speech across our nation. .... "Some people still speak that way, but it is no longer as widespread or as distinct as it was 70 years ago. Radio, TV, and the great mobility of modern Americans are gradually leveling all the various, colorful, local varieties of English in favor of a dull, neutral, standard American." "

I may be imagining things, but when I was growing up people in my area(don't want to give it away but it's a rural area where a local university would have lots of Chicago students) spoke more dull and neutral than they do now... now there's more of a southern/redneck tinge taken from country music.

<comment><USER2> The cure for the confused talk of accents being "dull", "grating", "neutral", "jarring", "ugly", "guttural", etc. is to observe that dialects have these associations merely because of the social statuses of the people who speak them. In other words, the linguistic qualities of the dialect itself do not play any role in determining how the dialect will be viewed by others. It's a bundle of *isms wearing a linguistic fedora.

<comment><USER14> That's ludicrous. French accents don't sound fancy to Americans purely because we think of France as fancy.

<comment><USER2> If you're so sure, could you explain which linguistic features of French make it "sound fancy"?

Even if you could isolate them and somehow attempt to make the case that it is their intrinsic qualities that give them their "fanciness", you would then need to be consistent and claim that whenever they occur in other languages they should also contribute to making the language "sound fancy", since the counter-claim is that there do exist linguistic qualities that have aesthetic values devoid of cultural context. But I think that kind of follow-up investigation would reveal that linguistic qualities with "objective" aesthetic values are elusive, if they exist at all.

(For example, you could take two French sounds which are iconically French to English speakers[1][2]. Assuming these sounds confer fancy-points upon people with French accents, do native English speakers really grant speakers of other languages fancy-points when they use these sounds in their accented English? It's not clear to me if they would. For one thing, these same two sounds also occur in many varieties of Arabic, which Westerners generally don't regard as nearly as fancy or beautiful.)

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

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> New England accents are certainly not dying out. While we do have a large number of non-regional speakers here in southern new england, we have MANY in certain towns who speak with heavy accents. The Family GUy Rhode Island accent, for instance, was on display at the local diner in Providence. Half the workers and customers were speaking with heavy RI accents. If you want RI accents, head out to Cranston and Warwick, to dive bars in Fox Point Providence, or down to Narragansett in the off-season where you'll get true Rhode Islanders and not tourists.

</comment><comment><USER16> The author is writing about an accent (or, at most, a dialect), not a language, and if an accent is dying from 'natural' causes (as opposed to, for example, from policies that penalize its use), I don't think much can be done to preserve it, other than to make a record of it.

A distinct language might be a little easier to preserve (but only if there is a sufficiently large number of people who want to put some effort into preserving it), as its distinctiveness helps make its preservation an overt act.

<comment><USER4> There is no clear distinction between a dialect and a language.

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

For instance, having taken German in school, I could generally read Yiddish as long as it was written in Latin alphabet and not Hebrew. Even though they are considered two separate langauges.

However, I could generally _not_ understand, say, Swiss German, even though that's still considered German.

EDIT: I just found this interesting blurb regarding Low German in Wikipedia:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German#A_language_or_a_mer...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German#A_language_or_a_mere_dialect)?

<comment><USER16> Nevertheless, they are not synonyms, and the existence of these two different words suggests that there is a useful distinction, even if it is not sharp, and even if it is not always applied consistently.

In the case of 'Chicagoese', whatever it is, it is clearly the English language.

<comment><USER4> The difference is social, not linguistic.

I assume you're making your judgement about "clearly English" based on mutual intelligibility. That is, you expect that someone with strong skills in "English" but not "Chicagoese" would be able to understand someone speaking "Chicagoese".

But what about dialect continua where any two neighbors are mutually intelligible, but the two ends are not? How do you classify which is in which language, if you are going to declare that there are in fact two languages based on the ends not understanding each other?

<comment><USER16> I am not concerned with doing so in the general case, and even less in corner cases that are not relevant here. My point is that preserving 'Chicagoese' will be difficult because it is essentially English in an English-speaking part of the world.

<comment><USER4> You said, "Nevertheless, they are not synonyms, and the existence of these two different words suggests that there is a useful distinction, even if it is not sharp, and even if it is not always applied consistently."

That is what I was responding to. There is a difference, but it's social and not linguistic. Which means when you say things like, "Chicagoese is clearly English", that you are making a _social_ judgement that they are the same language, whatever that means to you.

Clearly, for at least a few people quoted in the article, it has social meaning that they both speak "Chicagoese" and not "just English". So they might have a quite different opinion on the matter. And clearly the author of the article does.

<comment><USER16> Ah, I see - though I don't think the distinction being social as opposed to linguistic makes a difference here. The question "what would you recommend doing about it?" would seem to apply both to how to classify Chicagoese, and how to stem its decline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not available in EU. Mirrors:

* [https://archive.fo/bqEVs](https://archive.fo/bqEVs)

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20180808164502/http://www.chicag...](https://web.archive.org/web/20180808164502/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-met-chicago-language-kass-20180803-story.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> If you don't know what accent (not really a "language") the Chicago Tribune is writing about, you can get a hint of it from this famous parody:

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

(This is Saturday Night Live from the early 90's, so it's a bit of a New York interpretation of Chicagoese.)

</comment><comment><USER19> Typical John Kass... slow news day at da Trib?

Nevertheless after half a decade in The City, people from my hometown of Cincinnati stated I had picked up a bit of the Chicago accent. After another half decade in The (other) City, it's disappeared.

A few best friends of mine grew up in Beverly, fwiw.

</comment><comment><USER20> Not worth saving. Born in Chicago.

The Tribune, back when they mattered, used a simplified version of English spelling.[1] "Tho" for "Though" was the most noticeable change. McCormack, the publisher, was into that. It didn't catch on at all.

[1] [http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-per-flash- simplespelling-02...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-per-flash- simplespelling-0229-20120129-story.html#)

<comment><USER21> Reading early '60s Marvel comics, I'm struck (and irritated) by their house style of using 'thru' everywhere, instead of 'through'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > _Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European > countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options > that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We > continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all > readers with our award-winning journalism_

<comment><USER23> Do you imagine that this is the right place to complain about this phenomenon, which is by now well-known to people on HN?

<comment><USER22> I report a fact. The complaint is entirely your own imputation.

<comment><USER23> The fact is less interesting than the complaint. Yes we know that your regulators have broadcast ambiguous threats of ambiguous penalties around the world. It is a fact that does not require daily reminders.

<comment><USER24> We need to say it to remind our fellow EU citizens that are in favor.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Crackbook Is Causing The Rapid Decline of the Dating Industry - <AUTHOR> http://plentyoffish.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/rapid-decline-of-the-dating-industry/ <comment><USER2> The point is, the act of dating is all about getting social.Dating is a subset of getting social.Hence, dating and social networking cannot really be called two different industries.

<comment><USER3> Not different industries maybe, but certainly different niches. Social networks try and connect you with people you already know while dating sites try and match you with people you don't know. There was an article about how dating sites should focus on the flirting and social interaction and hopefully this gives them the motivation to change their direction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Bah, lack of innovation is causing the rapid decline. And have you seen how crap dating sites look in comparison to Facebook?</comment>


I just bought 1000 burgers on Kickstarter. Want one of them? - <AUTHOR> http://howwastheburger.com/i-just-bought-1000-burgers/ <comment><USER2> That's a genius use of that offering. Great instant story.

As for the offering itself (pre-paying a large sum in advance for, essentially, free-food-for-life at a new restaurant): I wonder if that's a sane method for restaurants generally. There are two in Ogaki that I'd happily spend $1k on, but I'd worry that it would change my relationship with the owners. Being a regular at the local diner is great -- the owner comes out to greet you when you come in, you always get exactly what you like exactly the way you like it, and in general they try to make you feel like a king. I'd hate to have date night in 2019 ruined by "Patrick, you're here _again_? Dude, it's a Saturday night. I could _sell_ that table. #($'#( it. Well, OK, what will it be -- the free #%(#ing burger again?"

<comment><USER3> Well a 1000 burgers are 3 years worth of lunch. Also if you are allowed to take a few at a this is great marketing for free - telling all the colleagues - a few burgers are on me in that place. Chances to convert to a regular at least one of them is high.

Probably it is how the awards will be defined. Because kickstarter is not preorder.

Also the Kickstarter community so far has shown to be remarkably supporting. So I doubt that they will abuse the privileges that will be awarded. Also basic rule for the rewards should be that you are overpaying but you like it that way. The 1000 burgers for 1000 GBP is clearly unsustainable. But looking at the KS it seems more like a marketing stunt the high tiers. So it is probably budgeted.

<comment><USER4> It's quite unlikely that someone who orders a 1000 burgers is actually going to eat them. I can't picture myself eating 1000 of the same kind of burger .. or in the same place..

I guess most people would eat 200 burgers (I'd say at the high end..) which would come out to 5GBP per burger. Not bad for the establishment.. I can't think of any average but even 100 sounds high to me.

<comment><USER5> Did you see the picture of the burger in the article? All this guy has to do is declare that remaining prepaid burgers are non-transferable upon death, and he'll only ever have to make a few hundred per buyer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually the burger in the picture is healthier than you'd think. It's very good quality beef. I have a balanced diet and exercise lots. I also subscribe to the 'fat is not the enemy' school of thought. Maybe I'll take some before and after photos to prove it!

<comment><USER6> The quality of the beef isn't the point. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/too- mu...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/too-much-protein- could-lead-to-early-death-study- says/2014/03/04/0af0603e-a3b5-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> There has been much discussion on this piece of research, and issues raised about the reporting of it. I think the response from the NHS was balanced:

[http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/high-protein- diet-...](http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/high-protein-diet-may-be- harmful-for-middle-aged.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Tangentially on topic, McDonalds used to have a special once a week where they'd sell cheeseburgers for $0.35 or hamburgers for $0.25. I would, from time to time, walk into the place with fifteen dollars in my pocket (and two co-workers, as they put a limit on how many one person could buy), and walk out with a sack o' sixty neatly wrapped hamburgers.

I'd bring them back to the office, and simply start tossing them at people in their cubicles (or in the parking lot from a moving vehicle if they were unlucky enough to be walking past when I pulled in), and basically just feed the entire building.

I don't think they intended that to happen with their little loss-leader deal to get folks in the door, but it sure was fun. It caught on too. If you haven't had a sack of 20 warm burgers dumped into your lap while you weren't paying attention, you haven't lived.

<comment><USER8> I do something similar from time to time at bottomlessburgers.com.

The way it works is simple: you pay me a fixed price, like $6 or $10, and show up at a particular restaurant at a particular time. My partner and I order hamburgers and cheeseburgers and you get to have as many as you want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> So will this guy eat 500 burgers himself? That could be at least a year and a half eating burgers for lunch. Good lord, it can't be healthy! :S

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, I think it will be healthy. I'll probably do 2-3 interviews a week, so it's not like I'll be eating burgers for every meal. Burger Bear's burgers are made with very good quality beef. I am somebody who exercises regularly, and from my work at my startup Tribesports, I'm very aware of how to balance my activity and diet. In fact, one of the things I might do on the blog is record my weight and health throughout the project.

<comment><USER9> I don't doubt you're capable of keeping in shape, but the jury is definitely out on the long term health implications of eating a lot of red meat and animal protein - I don't mean just getting fat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> fwiw these are the best burgers I've had anywhere in the world & Tom is a total dude - back him on Kickstarter while you can :)

</comment><comment><USER11> That picture had my mouth watering, too bad I'm not in London.

</comment><comment><USER12> _Speaking as a vegetarian with a sense of British humour that not all y 'mericanz get..._

A better deal for you meat-eaters - go to market and buy your own cow!!! I think that with post and packaging you could get a whole one for £200 or so depending on how lame it was. Give your cow a name, e.g. Ronald.

Next, get some meat grinder or improvise one. Pop to your local hire shop and just hire one of those chipper things tree surgeons use to turn whole trees into small bits. Give it a proper clean and now put your freshly purchased cow through it. You might want to hire a chainsaw too so you can cut things like the anus out first, or maybe the eyes or perhaps the teeth if you don't want to choke on them in your burger. You could even cut off things like Ronald's gonads for a special treat. Depends on when you hire, but you can expect to part with a good £50 - £100 for hiring such tools.

Now for freezing your 100% pure British Beef. Get a few chest freezers from the local tip or advertised on a freecycle thing. Expect to pay a few bob to a mate with a van big enough to get your chest freezers home. Maybe offer to pay in burgers.

The electricity bill for the freezers could be £100 a year, maybe even higher depending on how big your cow was. Depending on how many burgers you scoff and how quickly your 'leccy bill will vary.

How many burgers you end up making depends on how thin you make your burgers and how much connective tissue (brain, spinal cord) you put through the wood- chipper. You could make many, many thousands of them rather than a mere one thousand. Or you could make just the one cow-sized burger. Or do whatever on a day to day basis, maybe making other beef creations like shepherds pie from the basic mix. Or perhaps meatballs - just drop them in the deep-fat fryer as and when the urge arises.

One benefit of this DiY approach is that any sarky vegetarians will be impressed that you haven't left the difficult killing bit up to some distant abattoir, plus you will have connected with your inner hunter-gatherer self by getting immersed in the gore of killing an animal, as God intended. There will also be considerable benefits when the zombie apocalypse happens, as predicted by George W Bush in 2001.

<comment><USER13> Speaking as someone who apparently believes feigning incomprehension (also, immitation) is funny:

I don't get it. Why would you name the cow? It's not like it's a pet, or even a dairy cow. It's for eating.

Also why would you use a chainsaw?

Seems imprecise and messy.

I think it would be more efficient to have a specialized tool. But that tool would require a significant ammount of capital... Probably more than the cow! (or buying the burgers).

Maybe someone could have as a paid service a system where you could pay to use or rent the relevant equipment?

Is anyone doing that? Might be profitable. Note to self or others: look into that.

Although, I don't really feel like making a business out of that? It doesn't seem particularly elegant.

Also, my cooking skills aren't very good, so I don't think it would turn out as well?

Maybe I could do the initial cutting apart though?

And then pay someone else to turn the meat into burgers?

That's yet another thing to pay for though, and I don't think anyone is in the business of making burgers out of customer provided meat at the individual scale yet though.

Note to self: investigate this business idea as well.

(combined with renting out the machine???)

All in all, it seems rather time consuming though.

Maybe once every other month as a novelty?

Could be entertaining.

I wonder if the same equipment works with chickens.

... Speaking of which, I'm having trouble imagining a chicken bleed. Does it look the same as other animal blood?

Is it different because it's a bird?

I can imagine a cow bleeding fine, but that might be because the fur is short?

I also have trouble imagining a fish bleed, but I think I kind of remember that, so it's a bit easier.

I guess chicken bleeding would look normal then?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Burger bear tom has the best burger in London. 80% of the programmers at the company I work for (myself included) went in at the 1-month-of-burgers level as soon as the KS launched and then the company chipped in to buy a team lunch for everyone.

The London startup scene around Shoreditch is great fun, particularly because of these ancillary bonuses (being in a trendy part of town)

Interestingly, Burger Bear has long been a bitcoin-friendly vendor; one of the other programmers has bought all his burgers in Btc so far! Only times I've ever witnessed a real-life Btc transaction.

</comment><comment><USER15> I've accidentally run into Andrew at various points in my career, he's a very smart and capable guy, I always come away having learned a lot from him. He already knows basically everyone in the London startup scene, so I'd wager that anyone who has a burger with him will have more to gain from an hour of his time than the other way around.

</comment><comment><USER16> That is genius - I will happily buy you a beer to wash them down with just for the chance to meet and say hi. Count me in:-)

</comment><comment><USER17> I can confirm these are some of the best burgers London has to offer. In addition, I recommend the "bacon jam."

</comment><comment><USER18> Basically, this is genius. Thank you all for an interesting read... The #BB1000 is a big time KS reward for sure. To be fair, anyone who backed me on this reward can have what ever they like.... This is the start of my new world and you made it happen. #Cryptohub #BurgerHack #DiscoJoint

See you there!

</comment><comment><USER19> This is expensive $$ for the project. I assume that this burger retails for $8-10 dollars and that his location will sell 200 burgers a day. So he is giving up 1% of revenues for 1 1/2 years! Freemium doesn't work in the restaurant space.

<comment><USER20> Careful when making assumptions. Not only is 200 burgers a completely unfounded number, but you've neglected to include things like fries and drinks in your calculations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Head's up to the OP, you have a typo in your title here: [http://howwastheburger.com/i-want-a- burger/](http://howwastheburger.com/i-want-a-burger/)

Want _on_ of ...

</comment><comment><USER21> Naming your Google Apps organisation with your own name has at least one amusing side effect: "This form was created inside of Andrew McDonough". (Probably true, literally speaking...)

</comment><comment><USER22> > It was a ridiculous idea, and so I knew I had to do it.

I like this guy.

I work for an Amsterdam startup and expect to be in London later this year, is this open to foreigners?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I'd love to interview startup people visiting London, so just let me know when you're over. I'll also introduce you to other startup people and some great events, like Silicon Drinkabout, if you'd like.

<comment><USER22> Awesome thanks, I'll get in touch when I know the exact dates! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Great way to get what you love and what you want!

</comment><comment><USER24> Good luck to you and your cardiovascular system!

</comment><comment><USER25> Do you offer vegan burgers for non-meat-eaters?

<comment><USER10> There's a vegetarian burger on the new menu; I'm not sure if it's vegan though.

<comment><USER14> There was definitely cream cheese/yoghurt/mayo on it when I had it yesterday!

It's also cooked with the same griddle and spatula at the moment. A lot of vegans might find that a little bit disconcerting. I don't know how it will be when he has his diner up though!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Interesting idea. Could be a great spin on Seinfeld's Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee for the tech/startup scene.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm a huge burger lover, but 500 burgers can't be healthy for you unless you spread this out over several years.

</comment><comment><USER28> I know you already, but damn I'm putting myself down to have a burger lunch.

I'll bring my best stories, you know I have a few.

</comment><comment><USER29> You ought to team up with the pudding cup guy. You could get free flights AND burgers.

</comment><comment><USER30> Would you mind if I had a sip of your tasty beverage to wash this down?

<comment><USER18> Go right ahead....

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Mark Karpeles used all the BTC on cheeseburgers [1] #bitcoinconspiracy

[1] [http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091104170948/trailerpar...](http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091104170948/trailerpark/images/a/a0/Randy.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER32> Costing 2 pounds for a story is quite a bargain.

</comment><comment><USER33> Airfare included?

</comment><comment><USER34> I'll bite (hah) and report back.

</comment><comment><USER35> marketing ninja!

</comment><comment><USER36> I wish I lived in London

</comment><comment><USER37> Now I'm hungry.</comment>


Rising Waters Threaten China's Rising Cities - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/07/world/asia/climate-change-china.html?hp <comment><USER2> China has a huge flat coastal river delta that's heavily populated. The US has that only at New Orleans, which is a much smaller city and has high ground nearby.

The US comes out fairly well on rising sea levels. Except for Florida. Florida has so much low-lying coast that it's hopeless. The US west coast is mountainous enough that high ground isn't far inland, and only short sections of the coast at SF and LA are vulnerable. The coastal cities of the east coast have reasonably short coastlines, enough money to build sea walls, and compact river mouths.

<comment><USER3> I don't understand the relevance of nearby high ground. Assuming you can't build levees, doesn't the cost of losing a city come primarily from losing the buildings (which must be rebuilt), not the transport cost of moving items inside the building to a new location? In other words, if your house is in the path of a tornado, learning that there is a nearby patch of land guaranteed not to be hit is not useful.

<comment><USER4> The difference is that the sea level rise happens over decades, and the city will gradually move inland and upward as its (newly) beachfront property recedes. China's river delta cities can't.

<comment><USER3> It's not clear to me that this is less costly than moving across the country. You'd have to look carefully at the network effects, but from an infrastructure perspective you still end up building a whole new city.

In other words: what's the advantage of building San Diego II a few dozen miles from San Diego, even slowly, rather than just expanding Denver by moving people there.

(Note that I agree it's better than building a new city in the middle of nowhere; the question is whether the network benefits of San Diego II can be mimicked by Denver. In this sense, I agree that countries with cities that are almost all on the coast would benefit from having high ground nearby their doomed coastal cities.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well... yeah. Miami isn't going to be around for all that much longer either. Large parts of the world are going to be inundated, flooded, or actually drowned. To be fair though, the fine distinction between "frequent flooding destroys everything," "Literally underwater all of the time," and "It's a salty swamp here now," might be lost on former residents.

Some places will be able to adapt, because they have money and the right geological conditions, but plenty of others (Miami) would require... well... I can't even imagine.

<comment><USER6> Hmm, what if someone could accurately predict what the shoreline would look like and then buy a whole swatch of cheap properties that will eventually be on the waterfront? A la Superman, where Lex tries to split the San Andreas fault...

<comment><USER7> Discount rates and property taxes make it relatively infeasible to buy that land and turn a risk-adjusted profit - especially since the margin for error is so slim (a few hundred horizontal feet one way, your properties are a 100% loss, a few hundred feet the other way, you lose much of the waterfront premium). Compared to investing in a stock index at 5%+, the idea is nowhere near worthwhile; you need to find land which would at least double or triple in value just to try to profit at 10-20 years out, and even more if you are planning 20+ or taking into account the carrying costs & risk.

<comment><USER8> To be honest, I think it is fairly unpredictable what will happen with stock values if there is strong global warming. And if government breaks down having anything might not be worth much unless you have an army to defend it.

<comment><USER7> In the long run, equities have always outperformed real estate, regardless of climate or weather events: companies and peoples can move, pieces of land cannot. And 'Mad Max' scenarios are currently not projected to happen anytime remotely soon if ever.

<comment><USER5> To be fair, 'Mad Max' isn't something you project, it's an overly optimistic post-script to a total nuclear exchange. It may be that pressure from climate change and poor coping mechanisms on an international scale could lead to said nuclear exchange, although I certainly hope not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The article makes the claim ("In the Pearl River Delta, breakneck development is colliding with the effects of climate change.") that climate change is having a major impact, but all of the items they listed (outside of a sea rise) are caused by human development.

Climate change seems like an innocent bystander in this one.

</comment><comment><USER10> Isn't the solution simple here - to build levees or damming the river? I know levees are expensive but given how critical this area is to China's development, the cost is justified. I mean, entire New Orleans region is below sea level and is supported by levees.

<comment><USER11> That's what they have been doing in Netherlands for decades. Half of Netherlands is less than one meter above sea level. A significant portion is below sea level already.

<comment><USER12> I haven't yet read this article but is this really _that_ much of a threat to these cities? It really does seem like the solution to build levies/walls is obvious and straight forward. Am I missing something about the complexity of this problem?

I'd imagine the scale/length could be quite expensive for some of these areas. But it hardly seems like an unattainable infrastructure building project. Especially considering all of the talk about billions of dollars in potential damages to cities... This is exactly why we pay taxes.

<comment><USER13> The problem probably isn't the situation 364.8 days per year, but what happens that one time every few years when weather (typhoons) and maybe even the tides align to create conditions much worse than average for just a few hours. See New Orleans... the worst part is that because it's so rare most people (and media) will rant against the "waste of taxpayer money". You have to build very expensive infrastructure that's almost never needed, that goes against human nature it seems to me.</comment></comment></comment></comment>