Self-Taught Mathematician; an Impossibility? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@artagnon/self-taught-mathematician-an-impossibility-67d9b6893710 <comment><USER2> Not a very interesting article imo, but the topic of self teaching mathematics is a pretty interesting one. There's a few challenges with self teaching math. First, math is inherently about communication. If you cannot communicate your proof, you're not doing math–you're doing mysticism. For instance, the supposed proof of the ABC conjecture by Mochizuki is not verifiable because other mathematicians have not been able to read and vouch for it in its entirety. More mundanely, if you have a proof for the first Sylow theorem in your head with hand waves and loose intuition based arguments, that's extremely different from a proof with tight logic, well defined lemmas and carefully detailed phrasing. Basically if you're self teaching, you have to do problems and have their solutions verified by another mathematician with a degree of rigor.

Second, it's quite easy to convince yourself that you understand a topic. I don't know what it is about math, but there's so many people, myself included, who fall into the trap of thinking they understand a topic, when in fact they don't at all. For instance, there's a multitude of people who can recite verbatim the quadratic formula, or the power rule for differentiation. But ask them to explain _why_ this is true, or give them variants on the power rule (what if we redefine derivatives to be based on multiplication? How does the power rule change?), and they won't be able to give you satisfactory answers. This goes back to my first point; the only way to truly understand math is to do problems and have them checked.

<comment><USER3> I agree that it's necessary to do exercises in order to understand the subject, but I disagree that you need to have them checked by someone else -- in many cases, you should be check it for yourself, honestly.

Beyond the junior undergraduate level, computation-style problems go away, and you're just left with exercises that ask you to prove a certain something. It takes a long time to build up a sufficient degree of rigor, but it happens eventually -- I did go get some of my proofs checked by serious Mathematicians at some point, and it turned out that my intuition wasn't far behind.

<comment><USER2> The main reason you'd want proofs to be checked by someone else, at least initially, is to get a feel for writing clear, rigorous and tight proofs. Much as a novice programmer should have their code reviewed, a novice mathematician needs to have their math reviewed for common mistakes and pitfalls.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> An impossibility indeed.

When learning anything you need feedback. In many cases you don't need feedback from humans, and then self-teaching is possible: if you learn chess, you can see if you win more games and if your ELO goes up; if you learn to draw, you can appreciate quite objectively if the apple you drew today looks more realistic than the one you drew one month ago. If you learn programming, you can see if your web page renders or not, or if your sql query returns duplicate records. In machine learning, you can see your AUROC score, is it improving? Is your kaggle ranking breaking the top 100, or you are stuck to 5000 ?

In math, what you deliver is proofs. It's very difficult to "debug" your own proofs, as logical lapses that you might have had when you put together the proof are very easy to persist when you do the self-verification. Sure, mathematicians have developed all sorts of heuristics to flesh out bugs in proofs, but these heuristics come with experience, so for an aspiring self- thought mathematician, this is Catch-22 situation.

What about Ramanujan, or maybe Gauss, or some other historical figures? I don't have a very good explanation, I'm inclined to say they are the exceptions that prove the rule. What I can say for today's day and age is that if someone says they know a self thought mathematician, my reaction would be "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

<comment><USER3> I will concede that I have some friends who are Mathematicians who could provide me _some_ feedback. Besides, I did end up contacting a few serious Mathematicians at various points to get feedback on my exercises -- it was just at extraordinarily low levels, compared to coding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> So many weird jarring points in this article. Self taught, but masters in physics? Takes 10 years to produce original research? Lots of PhDs graduating without publication? I'd say it might take 10 years to develop a taste for interesting research problems but it isn't at all unheard of for undergrads to get a paper for some research project they did in final year. I think it would be really rare for someone to get a PhD without a publication these days.

<comment><USER6> Most undergrads who get a paper published are not publishing _math_ papers.

This stackexchange answer is relevant

[https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/48399/how- many-...](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/48399/how-many-papers- should-a-phd-student-in-math-try-to-publish-before-graduating)

Also this quote from a math professor, linked to in that SE link: "Many people get a PhD in mathematics before having a single accepted paper (I did), and if they have an eminent advisor who goes to bat for them, having no papers need not be much of a strike against them in the postdoctoral market."

<comment><USER5> "Most undergrads who get a paper published are not publishing math papers."

Err, I am not sure how to respond here. I said "it wasn't unheard of", which means when I went through I heard of a few bright undergrads getting publications in maths. It definitely happens. My personal experience says it would be extremely rare to get a phd now without a publication (again, in maths). It was different in the past. Hard numbers would be better than anecdata I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I enjoy the pure logical aspect of maths, but really dislike the notation/abstraction aspect.

I think that if we could rewind time and humanity had to reinvent math from scratch, it would probably end up very different from what we have today; most of the underlying logic and ideas would be the same, but the abstractions, notations and representations of those ideas would be completely different (and possibly better/simpler and more logical).

When it comes to code; whenever something is kept a certain way because of historical reasons, that's called technical debt and it's a bad thing.

In maths, basically all of the abstractions and notations are the way they are because of complex historical reasons. Math never gets refactored.

<comment><USER3> Actually, the view that Mathematics was "discovered" and not "invented" is quite popular among Mathematicians. There is an area of research called the Foundations of Mathematics, which investigates this question.

It's untrue that Mathematics does not undergo any refactoring -- in fact, it does: even in a field as new as Algebraic Geometry, the "classical" textbooks which build up the subject using ideals and varieties are very different from the modern ones which start from Scheme Theory.

Moreover, Category Theory shows that there is a beautiful underlying structure in all fields that can be extracted out into a new field. For example, the concept of adjunctions existed much before Category Theory was invented -- CT came along and showed that similar structures exist in Algebraic Topology, Algebraic Geometry, Differential Geometry, and other fields.

<comment><USER8> Definitions and notations are not discovered, they're invented. I think that's what OP was talking about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article brings to mind the movie "Good Will Hunting", specifically the mention of Srinivasa Ramanujan ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan)). I disagree that it's difficult to teach yourself mathemitcs. As with all things, success in self-directed teaching depends on the aptitude of the learner combined with their desire to learn.

<comment><USER10> Can you offer any empirical evidence that it is not difficult? The vast majority of people I've encountered who are entirely self-taught beyond typical high school (or college freshman) material have been quite bad. They repeatedly make fundamental errors of the sort I would expect to be swiftly corrected in undergrad coursework, even in topics they (claim to) have studied for years.

I don't think I've met anyone who learned to write a good proof without significant human instruction. That is probably something to be expected because much of what makes a "good" proof is social expectations, but I see a lot more cases of unjustifiable leaps of logic than excessive, obvious detail.

<comment><USER11> What does it mean to 'learn math'? I feel like there's a value to learning enough math that you understand the general concepts and vocabulary and having an intelligent conversation with a mathematician about, for example, how group theory might apply to some problem you're working on, without having an actual working knowledge of group theory yourself.

I feel like it's relatively easy to learn a lot _about_ math, as a self learner, without knowing a lot about how to _do_ math.

I'm mostly set taught, and I know the notation, I know the vocabulary, and I can follow along with a lot of math papers without too much of looking up terminology and I've adapted things I've read in math papers into working code, but I'm also well aware of my limitations —- I don't know how to evaluate whether any of these papers are valid, I don't have any sort of working knowledge of the tools of proofs to be able to do anything outside of fairly elementary calculus, etc. I know about higher math, but I wouldn't say I know higher math. But even without that working knowledge, I wouldn't say that what I know is valueless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A recent HN discussion got into some of the difficulty of self-taught mathematics, with emphasis on the Good Will Hunting level: "P = NP Proofs: Advice to claimers (rjlipton.wordpress.com)" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19716303](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19716303)

</comment><comment><USER13> Let's start with Boolean algebra and throw in same basic set theory. Surely that is not too hard to handle for someone able to program. Indeed it is not hard to imagine that our programmer could write some program that can systematically spit out Boolean formulas of set relationships that are tautologies, a.k.a. math theorems. In theory her program could conceivably produce all possible theorems. The problem is that only vanishingly small portion of the produced theorems are of any interest to another person. So the hardest part is actually to know/find what is interesting and relevant.

<comment><USER14> > _Let 's start with Boolean algebra and throw in same basic set theory._

I know where you are coming from, but yawn. Learning something that has practical applications is much more enlightening and fun (besides being useful). Linear algebra is one example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> If self taught mathematics was impossible mathematics itself could not exist. Any new mathematics is by definition self taught.

<comment><USER16> Self-taught mathematician, not mathematics.

Those who come up with new results tend to have had a lot of previous instructed study.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think it's incredibly disingenuous to call yourself a self-taught mathematician when you already have a masters in physics.

<comment><USER14> Undergraduate physics gets by with surprisingly little, if any, advanced math, so it is only natural when one realizes how inadequate one's knowledge of math actually is.

<comment><USER17> Have to disagree with this. I'm a math undergrad but a good chunk of my algebra class this semester was physics students. Additionally, the author said they have a graduate degree. As far as I know (which is not very far) modern physics makes considerable use of algebraic constructions such as tensors and lie algebras, so I'd imagine the author would be familiar with these concepts, which puts them lightyears ahead of any self-taught mathematician.

<comment><USER3> Let's just say that there was very little emphasis on Math in my Physics Masters, which in itself was very poorly taught, and leave it at that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Spoiler alert: As with almost all headlines of this form, the answer to the question is "no". The author seems to be telling us that something they did is hard, but they did it anyway... Because.... Humble genius?

I've found math to be one of the easiest subjects to self learn (though I'm not saying that I've learned it or anything else to any noteworthy degree). The body of inexpensive literature is vast, and education in the field requires less practical support than, say, chemistry, physics, or engineering. I haven't gotten around to laser-induced plasma metal crystal deposition in my garage, but I _do_ have bookcases of read and pending math books in the living room.

<comment><USER19> Math is the purest form of art humans can produce.I'd say one can learn a fair bit of it on his own and be relatively knowledgeable,but..There are many many things in math that are not just mind boggling,but also so difficult that unless you can singlehandedly crack problems that haven't been solved for centuries, you'd need a support from someone more senior. Those more seniors most likely will be found at good universities teaching and researching the subject.

<comment><USER20> "Math is the purest form of art humans can produce."

Curious, what makes you say this? Not that I strictly disagree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> All mathematicians who get very far after formal schooling, especially in research, are essentially necessarily "self-taught".

At least at one time the math department at Princeton stated that graduate courses were introductions to research by experts in their fields, that no courses were given for preparation for the qualifying exams, and students were expected to prepare for the qualifying exams on their own.

A standard remark is -- "Learning mathematics is not a spectator sport.".

For learning math, teachers, courses, recommended text books, in high school and in good math departments in colleges and universities are necessary at least for a good start; else students will too often drift off into nonsense. So, such guidance, direction, motivation, feedback, environment, explanations, seminars, etc. are from helpful, ..., to crucial.

Still, in the end, especially after formal classes, mathematicians are essentially always "self-taught".

In K-8, the teachers were all females, really liked how the girls worked and behaved, and treated me like dirt. I learned enough anyway -- Dad really good at education monitored my progress and was satisfied.

But I was not a usual _good student_. Ninth grade was algebra, and it was a dream for me. Still in most ways I was still not a usual good student, but I learned the material, mostly on my own, well and got sent to a math tournament. The 10th grade with plane geometry was a big turning point: The teacher was the most offensive person I ever knew, and the subject was a total dream for me. So, no way did I want the teacher to have any credit for my learning and just ignored her, slept in class, refused to admit doing any homework, etc. In fact, I was likely the best math student she ever had: I solved a few of the hardest problems in the main part of the book then turned to the more difficult supplementary problems in the back and solved them ALL, never once missing one. I started college at a cheap place I could walk to. The math class they had me in was beneath what I'd done in high school, so a girl told me when the tests were and I showed up for those. The prof said I was the best math student he'd ever had. But starting in my sophomore year I was going to a good college with a quite good math department and didn't want to fall behind. So, I got a calculus book, taught myself, and started on sophomore calculus at in the good department. So, I've studied freshman calculus, taught it, applied it, learned much more in advanced calculus, ..., and published research, but never really took freshman calculus!

So, from the ninth grade on, I've heavily taught myself. For my Ph.D. dissertation, I identified the problem in industry, was chatting with a math prof about something else, mentioned my problem, got three words of advice, and when my plane landed I had an intuitive start on my dissertation. In my first year I took a terrific course in pure math, and independently in the following summer turned my intuitive solution into a solid one. I got essentially no direction on the dissertation research -- was "self-taught".

So, being "self-taught" is important. Still, it is crucial to have the guidance, feedback, etc. of a good college math department for at least some of the time.

And if want to have a good career in academic math research, then likely it is really important to learn from some of the best research profs, listen carefully for hints of good directions at research seminars, etc.

<comment><USER8> If you went through a math undergrad and some grad courses, you are not self- taught.....</comment></comment>


Idiomatic Python Stream Processing in Wallaroo - <AUTHOR> https://blog.wallaroolabs.com/2018/02/idiomatic-python-stream-processing-in-wallaroo/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all,

I'm Sean. Vp of Engineering at Wallaroo Labs. My colleague Andrew Turley wrote this post but is out and about this morning. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread and will answer questions in his place until he is able to join.

Personally,

I want to thank everyone from Hacker News who jumped on calls with us, and corresponded by email to give us feedback on the first version of our Python API. You gave us a number of good ideas and helped us validate some that we already had. Y'all were awesome!</comment>


Blockbuster to close as many as 960 stores - <AUTHOR> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32861720/ns/business-local_business/

<comment><USER2> This has been a long time coming - actually the majority of blockbuster stores in my area have been closed for a couple of years - but Redbox keeps popping up. I think blockbuster will struggle with the kiosks since Redbox is already entrenched just as they've struggled competing with Netflix. I recently read an article (might have found it on HN) where the CEO of Redbox thinks the market for rental kiosks is limited to the next few years. He see's competition from the Internet and on-demand devices eventually taking over. But he said he was making a killing in the mean time.

<comment><USER3> I don't know how quickly they will die. A lot of folks will justify $1.00 for a RedBox rental and not the $40 or more/month for broadband internet.

<comment><USER4> Well, I know that I consider internet to be a necessity (granted, it's part of my job) and so I have to be spending that $40 no matter what. The $1 RedBox I don't have to be spending. Now, I'm sure there are people for whom broadband isn't a given expense, but I know that most of my friends wouldn't cut it out because they need it for everything from communication (skype, IM, email) to information (Wikipedia, news) to fun (hulu, youtube). And so the broadband connection becomes a given for things other than entertainment.

<comment><USER5> mdasen, I want your opinion on something. Can you drop me a line?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Oh they will eventually cut much more than that.

<comment><USER7> I agree. What stands out most to me is they're closing 960 stores IN A RECESSION. Recessions are when movie rental places shine. Everyone stops buying and starts renting.

If you can't succeed even when the scales are tipped in your favor then you probably can't succeed at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This will hurt them more than one might think at first. One of the selling points of their Blockbuster Total Access plan (the Netflix competitor) is that you can return movies to a store and pick up new ones. Unless their new kiosks will let you do this, it's another reason for many people not to pay for Total Access.

</comment><comment><USER9> Standard natural evolution and an example of a business unwilling to transform or reinvent itself remain competitive and to out-innovate new entrants (i.e. Netflix and Redbox).

It's sad, on one hand, since I personally remember enjoying my adventures as a kid perusing the many aisles of Blockbuster's New Releases (and the oldies, too) but I've moved on to more innovative things as a consumer (having been a customer of Netflix and having rented movies from Redbox kiosks).

Blockbuster's example is no different than what we are starting to see happen to Microsoft (though that process is still early stage, there are the typical warning signs).

</comment><comment><USER10> Is it an option to just shut a company down and give the money back to your investors _before_ the courts force you to? Is there anyone left who doesn't see the handwriting on the wall for Blockbuster? I hate watching companies blow through billions over a decade or more and eventually end up disappearing with nothing to show for it. Seems like they'd be better off facing reality and folding on their own.

<comment><USER9> I see your point but technically that also means going down without a fight. As I commented above, even though we don't see any business model and product innovation from Blockbuster (aside from trying to copy/steal from Netflix's model), it's still possible that perhaps with the right minds/leadership/people/talent, Blockbuster _could_ change and become a leader again (look at what happened to Apple, Inc.).

<comment><USER10> But at some point, when your liabilities far outweigh your assets and your brand is horribly tarnished, why not just start a new company?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Last night as I was about to drive past a Blockbuster near my office that I hadn't looked at in a while, I wondered if they would still be open. They were. I'm guessing this one will be one of the 960.</comment>


Penn State scientists build quantum version of Maxwell's demon - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/penn-state-scientists-build-quantum-version-of-maxwells-demon/ <comment><USER2> For those who don't know, the term "daemon" as used in computing is a reference to Maxwell's demon, since it's doing its work in the background.

</comment><comment><USER3> To be clear: No one is violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics here, nor is anyone trying. The scientists have a mechanism which reduces entropy at one part of a system at the expense of creating more entropy somewhere else. That mechanism could be useful in quantum computing.

<comment><USER4> Does this essentially make an equivalent of a refrigerator at a quantum scale?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My reading of this (and another article about it the other day), is that they haven't constructed anything, just come up with a new experimental design that should theoretically be able to do it. Am I wrong?

<comment><USER6> > "His team used three pairs of laser beams to trap and cool neutral > (uncharged) cesium atoms to ultra-cold temperatures (a few degrees above > absolute zero) in a 3D lattice with 125 positions (a 5×5×5 cube). They > filled half the positions with atoms in random positions and then moved the > atoms around by changing the polarization of the laser traps—the equivalent > function of Maxwell's demon, except using position to sort them rather than > speed. By this means, they were able to create ordered 5×5×2 or 4×4×3 > subsets within the originally disordered lattice, thereby reducing the > system's entropy."

Quoting directly from the article, note I only skimmed it.</comment></comment>


Marc Andreessen on Ex-Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich's Contributions - <AUTHOR> http://vozag.com/marc-andreessen-pmarca-tweets-1/

<comment><USER2> A lot more details in this article about the history of Javascript and Brendan Eich's role in it:

[http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascript/2001/04/06/js_his...](http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascript/2001/04/06/js_history.html)

This was the press release put out by Netscape at the time:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20070916144913/http://wp.netscape...](http://web.archive.org/web/20070916144913/http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease67.html)

Press coverage of the 1995 release of Javascript:

[http://articles.latimes.com/1995-12-05/business/fi-10557_1_p...](http://articles.latimes.com/1995-12-05/business/fi-10557_1_programming- language)

</comment><comment><USER3> Too bad he's made an unwise decision. Still, he is a best engineer.</comment>


Mozilla details how old plugins will be blocked in Firefox 17 - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/10/12/mozilla-details-how-old-adobe-reader-flash-and-silverlight-plugins-will-be-blocked-in-firefox-17/

<comment><USER2> Not a bad way to go about it: show warnings understandable by normal people but let people do stupid things quite easily if they want to.

Now if only they did that with the self-signed cert warning page.</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone Founded a Startup being on H1b? - <AUTHOR>

1. What were the main problems you had to go through?
2. Did it affect how hard it was to get funded?
3. Was it succesfull? <comment><USER2> I don't think you can.

In H1b, you can only work for your current employer and for the position they have done the visa for. I think you can form a LLC or do a side project without any serious legal issue, but you can't make a living out of it nor hold a real position inside it. So, it can be challenging in a lot of ways indeed to raise money or just make money. You can do an E-2 visa though if you got some money to invest inside your company. It might mean to go out the U.S and apply in your home country however.

Tell me more about your story, what's your background?

</comment><comment><USER3> I had posted this thread, might help: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6841113](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6841113)</comment>


Uh, the only reform of domestic surveillance is dismantling it - <AUTHOR> http://blog.erratasec.com/2015/06/uh-only-reform-of-domestic-surveillance.html <comment><USER2> > The FREEDOM act now opens up searches of metadata to all the other law > enforcement agencies. Instead of skulking in secret occasionally searching > metadata, the FBI, DEA, and ATF can now do so publicly, with the blessing of > the law behind them.

Wait what? Is that true?</comment>


Show HN: Need feedback for my Python library to query dicts - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/cyberlis/dictquery <comment><AUTHOR> Recently I was interested in parsing. Real parsing with grammars BNF LL LR.. :)

As exercise I implemented a library to query dicts.

This is my first python library and I'm looking for feedback and criticism

Especially, I need advice about public API

[https://github.com/cyberlis/dictquery](https://github.com/cyberlis/dictquery)

You can install it with:

pip install dictquery

To write it I read:

Python Cookbook third edition. 2.18 Tokenizing Text, 2.19 Writing a Simple Recursive Descent Parser

All parsing related articles from [https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2010/01/02/top-down- operator-p...](https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2010/01/02/top-down-operator- precedence-parsing)

[https://docs.python.org/3/library/re.html#writing-a- tokenize...](https://docs.python.org/3/library/re.html#writing-a-tokenizer)

<comment><USER2> I really don't like the stringly API.

It'll defeat anything my editor can predict, making typos easier. It also makes it harder to reason about types, as I have to trust the library to make the right assumption. [0]

Instead of:

        dq.match(data, "`friends.age` <= 26")

Why not:

        import operator # from the standard library

        dq.match(data, "friends.age", operator.le, 26)

It'll simplify your parsing, works with my editor, and makes it easier to reason about types. You'll still need to parse, as you're basically handling a variadic function, but the user can hand you an AST.

\---

[0] For example, what type would occur if:

        dq.match(data, "`friends.age` <= 26.")

Does 26 become a float? Or an integer? Or raise a ParseError?

I have to consider that with a string, less so with Python's own objects.

<comment><AUTHOR> if you need a nested key value, you can use function:

        def get_dict_value(query_dict, dict_key, use_nested_keys=True,
                           key_separator='.', raise_keyerror=False):

theoretically i can make alternative syntax.

The plus of "stringly API" is that you can save your queries in database, or get it through web interface

<comment><USER2> > The plus of "stringly API" is that you can save your queries in database, or > get it through web interface

You can do the same with a function call, there's no difference, apart from already having a list of arguments to pass around. (And of course, the type uncertainty you get with a value stored in a string.)

> if you need a nested key value, you can use function:

Not sure why you're telling me that. What part of my comment are you responding to?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> In your README.md you have:

        >>> import dictquery as dq
        >>> dq.match(data, "`friends.age` <= 26")
        True

But this is meaningless because you haven't defined data. What is it: A dict? A list of dicts? Something else?

I suggest you use a full example.

<comment><USER4> The data is given at the bottom of the page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Also it would be nice to know how it compares to things like [https://github.com/adriank/ObjectPath](https://github.com/adriank/ObjectPath) which seem similar.

<comment><AUTHOR> You need to learn `ObjectPath` query language.

In `dictquery` I use simple and easy to understand language.

BUT My project is exercise and it is obviously not a competitor to mature, community supported libs.

That is why i do not want to compare `dictquery` to other libs

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think I would prefer a dot prefix instead of backticks for keys.

</comment><comment><USER7> The back ticks to quote the keys are off-putting.. It feels like writing arcane SQL.

I personally would try and align with jsonpath for the convention, richer query-language and expressions.

<comment><USER8> Please, developers, don't use back ticks. They're not as accessible in other keyboard layouts.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can use other symbol than back tick. But what symbol fits here better? what symbol would you use?

<comment><USER8> I'd prefer no quotes, but that would restrict the dictionary to keys without spaces. Maybe square brackets, since anyone using python already types those to access dictionary keys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Since you're using strings, I guess this same query language could be implemented in other languages also. I like this idea.

</comment><comment><USER10> Not intended as criticism, but isn't it easier to just express your query in Python using filter?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. You are right. But I wanted the way to store my queries in any major database. And I wanted natural simple queries.

If I need to check my dictionary I want to use something similar to natural language.

lambdas and filters are greate, but not obvious at a glance.

If I want to check my dict: "Username is 'john' and age is greater than 23"

I will make this query: "`username` == 'john' and `age` > 23"

This query is obvious (i hope it is) for anyone from first glance

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It would be nice to know how performant your method is, but overall looks quite neat!

</comment><comment><USER12> This seems like a really nice way to query json without dumping it into a DB

</comment><comment><USER13> small README typo?? `user.frinds.age`

<comment><AUTHOR> fixed by `mattcaldwell`

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> If it meets the guidelines, this might make a good 'Show HN'. Show HN guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

<comment><USER15> OK, we've added that.</comment></comment>


Climate science: A sensitive matter - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions <comment><USER2> I don't know that I agree with the thesis of this article whatsoever; basically some cherry-picked research estimates "we may only see 1.5 to 2 degree increases, and we haven't had any real warming in the past 10 years; Therefore, we might want to reevaluate the amount of energy and attention we spend on mitigating carbon emissions"

That seems like a pretty flimsy argument.

1\. I don't think there's strong evidence that 'global average temperatures stopped increasing.' Many of the world's largest average temperature readings have happened in the last ten years (2010, especially, but even recent reports show upward trends: <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/13>).

2\. Cherry-picking a few people whose models show a lower than average range, doesn't tell me anything other than the author of this article is suffering from wishful thinking.

3\. The heart of the article seems to be suggesting this: "If climate change isn't that bad, maybe we don't have to do anything about it, " but ignores the opposite proposition. Oddly, I'm not even sure why such an article is necessary since the world collectively isn't making any earnest attempts to curb carbon emissions. Any reductions have been economically based, not environmental.

No, I think this is a hit piece on the climate change movement couched as due- diligence and beneficial skepticism.

<comment><USER3> Interesting take on it. I didn't see it as a hit piece so much as a "Hmm, what do we make of this?" piece.

The data that the temperature for the last 10 years has remained basically flat is coming from the exact same sources that have advocated awareness of anthropogenic change, the IPCC being one of them. Unless things change a lot we're very much in danger of having the mean temperature of the planet land outside the error bars in the models.

What that means is that climate is a complicated thing (not too surprising), and that the models are missing some components.

The article wasn't about "Cherry picking" as far as I read it was more along the lines, "Well if all 21 models of the IPCC are inaccurate, what are some of the models they rejected?" That is asking the question, "If we don't have the right answer, what other answers were proposed?" Finding a model that both explains the previous temperatures with the data we have and is more accurately predicting the changes we're observing is the goal.

<comment><USER2> And the "What do we make of this" is definitely a valid question. Every model is going to be inaccurate to some degree. We should strive to improve them!

I took issue with picking a few individual researchers' models which have a lower range than the IPCC estimates (which are influenced by those lower estimates). The case could, and probably is, be made for higher ranged estimates. The point is, if you curate a subset of models to bolster your bias, you're not contributing any meaningful data to the discourse.

<comment><USER3> I read it that they were taking those studies with the lower range because the temperature as measured is about to fall out of the lowest range predicted by the IPCC models. I suspect, but can't prove, that if temperature were about to fall out of the upper range of predicted temperatures they would have selected a few models that the IPCC had rejected that showed that as an outcome.

I agree with the statement "Every model is going to be inaccurate to some degree." the problem here is that when the actual temperatures start landing outside the range of even the _uncertainty bars_ for a model it ceases to be "inaccurate" and is simply "wrong."

The political sensitivity of that possibility can not to be under estimated.

<comment><USER2> I think that if the uncertainty of the models were under threat, then this would be a bigger issue. We'd be reading about this in Nature, not The Economist.

This premise, I think, has flaws:

I didn't see any citation for the "past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat" number, but I do notice that the NASA number quoted is a five year running average (over only 10 years), which would naturally flatten any trends over that time frame.

It seems like this notion that "warming is over" is pretty cyclical. Check out: [http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling- january-2007-...](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling- january-2007-to-january-2008-basic.htm)

This image in particular is interesting: [http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500....](http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> We seldom address climate discussions from a perspective of geological timescales [1].

From this, it is clear that life has existed on earth throughout an extreme range of atmospheric conditions. However, it is quite possible that nature's response to these conditions may be severely limited due to human intervention (clear-cutting rain forests, etc.).

I hope that in the near future it will be economically advantageous to transition away from fossil fuels. Elon Musk believes this will be the case [2], and I sincerely hope he is correct. Fossil fuels are a non-sustainable energy source which are being rapidly depleted and already cost far more in externalities than we realize (pollution, war, market instability, etc.). Climate change should not be the only impetus for a transition to a sustainable energy infrastructure.

1\. <http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg>

2\. [http://www.treehugger.com/cars/elon-musk-ted- talk-2013-tesla...](http://www.treehugger.com/cars/elon-musk-ted- talk-2013-tesla-spacex-solarcity-and-more.html)

<comment><USER3> _"We seldom address climate discussions from a perspective of geological timescales"_

I used to make fun of people who talked about "The { biggest | smallest | hottest | coldest | whatever } <thing> in _recorded history_!" By drawing a bar for "History" (4.5 billion year planetary existence) and "Recorded History" nominally a 5,000 year stretch at the end there. Basically about .0001% of the length. So you draw "history" as a meter long bar on the chart and "recorded history" is a strip .1mm wide. Basically thinner than the line an ultrafine Sharpie(tm) pen draws.

Needless to say, it wasn't a really compelling way to make a point. :-)

<comment><USER5> isn't recorded history only 150 years? How long have we had accurate thermometers with reliable, consistent recordings?

<comment><USER3> Well there is 'recorded history' (generic) and 'recorded weather' (specific). The latter came a bit later, the former arguably started in ancient Egypt (my 5,000 years ago or 3000 BCE) but some will put it earlier in Sumeria. There is an argument to be made that records of crop yields or floods in the Nile river basin are legitimate indications of weather conditions at the time (certainly droughts and floods).

The other reason to pick 5,000 rather than 150 as a starting point is that folks will argue with you about written history starting at 150 years ago but are willing to concede that beyond 5,000 years there isn't a lot of information to extract. The point to be made is that geologically speaking, 5,000 years is a trifling. Even when you consider the 65M years since the dinosaurs left us, we're looking at .008% or a mark a mere 8mm wide for 1meter at 65M years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The fossils in the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles

[http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/03/27/mysteries-of-the- tar-p...](http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/03/27/mysteries-of-the-tar-pits/)

provide a rich record of a variety of mammal and bird species going through almost 30,000 years of the last glacial-interglacial cycle. What's remarkable about the fossils is the statis in the body forms of the wide variety of animals trapped in the tar pits. Significant climate change resulted in indistinguishable evolutionary change in those animals. As scientists continue to work on predicting the probable effects of future climate changes, looking back on verifiable examples like well dated fossil beds will be helpful in putting bounds on the predictions.

<comment><USER7> There is nothing remarkable about that. 30,000 years is very short evolutionarily. The best response to climate change in that time frame is migration, not adaptation.

<comment><USER8> 30,000 is an evolutionary eternity. The huge variety of bizarre dog breeds was created over a few centuries. Foxes were turned from nigh untameable wild animals into pets in a few decades.

<comment><USER9> That's not evolution, that's selective breeding by humans.

<comment><USER10> Selection is a component of evolution. Human selection is just one type of it, natural being the other.

Wolves did evolve into dogs, but not naturally by our definition of "natural".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can't help but wonder why the economist would mention something and then say "This study has not been peer-reviewed." I would assume there are plenty of peer reviewed literature to look at so why did they bother to even read it? Is this something that has revived little research, because people are still assuming it's a short term anomaly?

As to energy-balance models's they don't account for the huge difference in average temperatures between the poles and the equator, it takes far less energy to maintain a 3C increase in Alaska than Florida. As such weather patterns are really important.

<comment><USER12> "Peer-reviewed" does not mean correct, or vice versa. The study they are talking about was done by the Research Council of Norway. I am assuming the goal was to inform the public, not to get published in a scientific journal. It was not an academic exercise. I, for one, am very happy that the Economist included this study in their survey.

<comment><USER11> The primary advantage to being peer reviewed is to avoid stupid mistakes. That's not to say it's correct, but it's like saying here is my book I did not have anyone proofread it. It could be a great book, but I just had a few red flags pop up.

Now, if the goal is to inform the public you base it on some peer reviewed research and repackage that instead of releasing original research in that fashion. All I am saying is the way the economist presented it was odd. I was assuming they where looking for something to create a little controversy to keep things interesting, but it just seemed odd to use something as a reference and then make it seem less credible at the same time.

<comment><USER13> > I was assuming they where looking for something to create a little > controversy to keep things interesting, but it just seemed odd to use > something as a reference and then make it seem less credible at the same > time.

 _If_ a report like that is well written, it will provide a decent introduction to the ideas, and _also_ have an exhaustive list of references. In that sense it makes a better reference for a journalist or layman than the original papers, which can be hard to interpret! And you can still go and look at the original sources if you like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why is it so hard to believe that the Earth is a stable system that can absorb shocks like CO2 emissions? It has supported life for millions of years. Clearly it is not as brittle as the typical climate scientist would have us believe.

<comment><USER15> > Why is it so hard to believe that the Earth is a [. . .]

Because of the wealth of evidence that tells us otherwise.

> can absorb shocks like CO2 emissions? It has supported life for millions of > years.

'absorbing shocks' and 'supporting life' doesn't mean 'supporting human life comfortably'.

I don't understand the outrage about climate change, since reducing co2 emissions is mostly about being more energy efficient. How is that a terrible thing? My parents lived through 'Pea Soupers'[1] (a 4 day fog killed 4,000 people in London); we've seen the effects of gridlock and poor public transport; working on better solutions before the billions of China and India need a gas-guzzling car each doesn't feel like having any downsides.

[1] ([http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/topics/perspect/london.h...](http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/topics/perspect/london.html))

<comment><USER16> > absorbing shocks' and 'supporting life' doesn't mean 'supporting human life > comfortably'.

And why do we think of ourselves as being superior to other past species? I generally don't like metaphors, but I remember reading somewhere (there were also a couple of animated representations in support) that we're more like a virus that has infected the Earth (its ecosystem etc.).

Looking at it through those lenses we have a couple of options left open until the host (Earth's ecosystem) ends up changing in such a way that will eliminate us. We can slow down the rate of infection by lowering our numbers or at least our growth rate. This has already started happening by itself in the more "advanced" countries. It will probably also happen in the rest of world at some point.

Or we can keep our numbers and numerical growth-rate but we'll need to start inflicting lesser and lesser pain on our host. Realistically, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Or we can increase our efforts in finding a new host, or at least a "disease transmitter" (or whatever the scientific term is) that will carry and support us until we stumble upon a host similar to Earth. Let's say a space-ship or something of the sorts. I know this looks too much like science-fiction right now, but if we're serious about our long-term survival as a species we need to start looking at it that way.

<comment><USER17> _And why do we think of ourselves as being superior to other past species?_

On superiority: other species don't have a conceptual view of the world. Every other species can't read and understand your argument, let alone refute it. This has ramifications on a political level: _In order to have individual rights, you have to be capable of understanding what individual rights are._ Imagine the ridiculous spectacle of taking a bear to court for mauling another animal, or a person.

What it comes down to is this: I want to live. Not just to metabolize and take up space like other animals do, but to live a full _human_ life. That means having a huge impact on animals, no matter what I do (short of suicide). Even if I didn't eat meat, there are plenty of things that are crucial for human life (everything from agriculture to medical progress to displacing animals to make way for cities and factories). The choice is clear: either humans are first, or they don't live distinctly human lives at all.

I am a human being, and I take pride in that fact. Because I am a human being, I can create art, write software, further our knowledge of the world through science, enjoy literature, and a whole host of other things that no member of any other species (currently known) will ever do.

<comment><USER18> > _In order to have individual rights, you have to be capable of understanding > what individual rights are_

That's ridiculous. That's like saying children or people with Down syndrome have no individual rights because they don't understand them.

On the contrary, since we have a superior intellect, we are capable of making moral judgements, and since we are capable, we are morally obliged to.

> _The choice is clear: either humans are first, or they don't live distinctly > human lives at all._

You have the right to live your life as you choose, of course, but not at the cost of destroying everything else. At some point, we need to consider the aggregate consequences of there being 6.9+ billion people all demanding to live "distinctly human lives". Unfortunately, for coming generations this idea may be a luxury.

<comment><USER17> _That's ridiculous. That's like saying..._

I agree, there is a problem with that sentence.

However, I'm not sure that it helps your argument much. People with Down syndrome are still human beings - with the ability to form concepts and speak language. Although they don't understand as much about the world as you and I do, they certainly understand a great deal more than any bear would. (Also they won't maul you.)

 _since we have a superior intellect, we are capable of making moral judgements, and since we are capable, we are morally obliged to_

I have a different view: in order to survive and thrive, each individual has to make moral judgements. That which furthers a particular person's life is the good (and he ought to choose it, _if_ he wants to live), and that which harms it is the evil.

 _At some point, we need to consider the aggregate consequences of there being 6.9+ billion people all demanding to live "distinctly human lives"._

Do you realize that "aggregate consequences" include the longest lifespans in human history (in industrialized nations)? A steady decline in climate-related deaths (which have _fallen 98% in the past century_ )? The vast quantity and variety of food available at low prices at grocery stores? The ability to go across the continent in a matter of hours, safely? Need I go on?

<comment><USER18> > _Do you realize that "aggregate consequences" include the longest lifespans > in human history_

No, that is what I meant by aggregate consequences. What you describe is the cause, or at best merely the current situation.

My point is that 6.9+ billion all thinking selfishly about their own right to live full lives leads to the modern equivalent of the tragedy of the commons.

50-60 years ago, we could reasonably argue that the most important right for a human being was self-realization. At this point, unfortunately, a single modern life contributes so much to the very destruction of the world -- in fact, even owning a moderately-sized dog contributes to the destruction of the world -- in a way that did not apply to previous generations, and that self- realization can no longer include the level of material wealth and, frankly, consumerist squandering that the current generations are built upon.

For example, the "vast quantity" of food "at low prices" you describe exist at the detriment of someone else in the world. If _everyone_ on the planet had access vast quantities of food at low prices, in today's market system, then the world's resources would be depleted at an unsustainable (or rather, more unsustainable that today) rate.

Your world view seems extremely simplistic and naive. I sincerely hope it's not representative of the typical HN liberartian. Libertarianism is about liberty, true, but not liberty at a cost to society.

<comment><USER17> _squandering that the current generations are built upon._

What is your basis for determining what constitutes "squandering"? Does wearing machine-washed clothes qualify? Buying new clothes so you feel good about the way you look? How about using a dishwasher to wash dishes? What about having a pet dog? How about building new homes, spacious enough so you have room to pursue hobbies and keep rooms from being cluttered and overwhelming?

 _For example, the "vast quantity" of food "at low prices" you describe exist at the detriment of someone else in the world._

You have offered no evidence to support this. Ad hominems ("extremely simplistic and naive") won't cut it here.

<comment><USER18> > _You have offered no evidence to support this._

Because I assumed it's common knowledge. Take a look at any of the countries that supply most of the world with food, natural resources, etc. Most of them are not anywhere near the first world in terms of wealth, living standards, etc. for the local population, and yet they are the major providers.

> _What is your basis for determining what constitutes "squandering"?_

Most of human activity could be classified as squandering. We don't need most of the stuff that we have or consume. And yet it's very hard to give it up for the benefit of everyone else.

> _Ad hominems_ ...

Not an ad hominem considering I spent the preceding paragraphs pointing out _how_ your opinions were simplistic and naive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Have you noticed that no one talks about 3rd world debt these days? Remember Live 8?

There seems to be a hierarchy of problems that the public/media keeps track of. 8 Years ago we were all talking about global warming and 3rd world debt. Then the economy crashed. Now we talk about the economy all day, with climate change relegated to occasional page 4 articles when a new study is published. Nobody even mentions 3rd world debt.

And that gives you an idea of how likely anyone is to change their behaviour based off the predictions of climate scientists (or even based off _actual_ climate change, given that it happens so slowly).

<comment><USER20> I don't understand the fascination with 3rd world debt, either the countries keep paying at the detriment to domestic spending or they default and end up with higher interest rates. That is it. These are non-recourse loans, the IMF or World Bank or whoever is not going to invade to get paid back.

Debt forgiveness is still default, just more socially accepted. But just like default it will still end with less trust and higher interest.

<comment><USER19> Do existing national debt payments and potential higher interest rates for future borrowing have an equilibrium? I mean obviously the former helps keep the latter at bay, but can you really say they are in balance and that it wouldn't be better to simply default on the debt and then borrow less in future?

I suppose if more countries got serious about cancelling the debt, there would also start to be talk from charities/activists of guaranteeing future rates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm not versed in climatology or environmental science, and frankly neither are most people. The issue of global warming really confuses me to the point that I'm now on the fence. I've seen people with no knowledge on the matter become violent when it is challenged. A typical rebuttal might be "Well the glaciers are disappearing" in the same way christian fundamentalists use one liners to negate evolution. Science shouldn't be emotional, and I find that worrying.

\--- P.S I have no doubt we are screwing up our environment and need urgent change, but the psychology surrounding global warming is odd and interesting.

</comment><comment><USER22> Politicians shouldn't be allowed to manipulate the energy industry, period. Questions about the analysis of temperature signals are interesting but often beside the point.

<comment><USER23> And the energy industry shouldn't be allowed to manipulate politicians?

<comment><USER22> Of course, but that doesn't justify corruption.

<comment><USER23> Didn't say that it did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Currently enjoying a foot of snow in my yard in Spring, with this being the 4th greatest snow fall season in recorded history locally.

Yeah I'm a skeptic. Global cooling -> global warming -> global climate change. As the climate fails to heat up as predicted, the names and claims will once again shift.

<comment><USER25> Which is why the phrase 'climate change' is preferred to 'global warming'.

Mean global temperatures will rise, and a key result of this may well be higher variability, with correspondingly more extreme weather events. There is no sense in which a freak snowfall disproves climate change: quite the reverse.

<comment><USER26> Granted, but a little over a hundred years ago there were some might fine blizzards not equaled since.

I think they key here is, people lost interest when every little thing was declared global warming and then started rolling their eyes when the switch was made to "climate change". Fanaticism has a tendency to cause people to tune out, worse is when its driven to political and financial benefit of a few.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Are America's Most Innovative Companies Still Stuck in 1950s Suburbia? - <AUTHOR> http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/stuck-in-1950s-suburbia/ <comment><USER2> That living in dense, crowded urban environments promotes creativity is one of the biggest myths being pushed on us. I learned this first hand.</comment>


My Recent Experience With Square - <AUTHOR> http://jasongullickson.posterous.com/my-recent-experience-with-square <comment><USER4> I'm not sure why this guy had trouble understanding that he needed money in his account as collateral against the charge back. "Yeah, he'll probably send us the money if the charge back is upheld" is not a sustainable policy.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure why you think it is a good idea to let random outside parties dip into his business's working capital?

Ooops sorry about withdrawing $10,000 instead of $100. What's a decimal place among friends? Hope you can still make that tax payment and payroll while we futzy around on our end.

<comment><USER6> The alternative isn't "not dipping in working capital", the alternative is "freezing all received funds for a month, all the time".

Chargebacks happen; and you shouldn't expect that you will get paid for 100% of your sales. Deal with it or don't accept credit cards - the rules of the credit card game favor the cardholder a lot, that's why customers want to use their cards.

<comment><USER7> The policy is clear, and based on other comments here probably mandated by the payment networks, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect merchants to be prepared for chargebacks and have a buffer for that. It would be reasonable to have a few days' notice to pay the money, or be able to designate a different account for them to debit the amount from, or submit a credit card that Square can draw from as security.

But if you are expected to have a month's sales in the Square-linked bank account all the time, how is that different from simply "freezing all received funds for a month, all the time"?

<comment><USER8> You are not expected to keep a month sales, just some small percent that will vary by your customer's tendencies to chargeback. Since almost every merchant account will have some chargebacks, and high volume ones will usually have some persistent level of funds in chargeback limbo, having some billing process to ask for funds is expensive and unnecessary. And what would happen when Jason refuses to find his account because he didn't agree with the chargeback?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I read over this and all I can think is that OP didn't do what he should've.

Their process of pulling in funds when you have a negative balance is automated. (check)

He said he'd fund it from another source, but as far as I read (got really bored about halfway through) He didn't. So the automated process pulled in money from his linked account, as expected.

This money was crucial because square has to be able to refund the chargeback should it end in the customer's favor.

I don't understand OP's problem with Square. They handled this as best as they possibly could?

<comment><USER10> No, he told them he would fund it from elsewhere and they didn't respond to that at all. They told him that the issue could be considered closed. Then, later they tried to withdraw money again (after saying the issue was closed).

Square took days to respond, then complained to him that emailing them more would get him marked as spam.

<comment><USER9> Something that should've been incredibly clear here is that square required money be available as backup in the event that there was a disputed claim. SAYING that you'll fund it from elsewhere is not the same as doing so. And they said that the issue was "preliminarily closed."

Followed up with

Your funds are eligible for automated release on or around 30 April 2012 once additional confirmation is secured.

That in no way implies that he doesn't have to have backup. It clearly states the process is ongoing.

This is a long and painful process, and its OP's fault for not having a system in place for when this inevitably occurs. He should have had back up money for such an occurance and didn't. That's his fault.

Finishing reading, there is that troublesome bit at the end about them not releasing his money as quickly as they should've - but all in all they did a damn good job considering their industry and their opponents.

I find myself agreeing with the two comments that are now on the OP's page.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It just goes to show that even with Square, charge-backs suck. People are going to look you right in the eye and steal from you. Its a business reality.

The company that addresses this problem in the most painless way possible is going to win. We can thank payapl for demonstrating the worst way to handle it. The moral: be as least paypal like as possible.

I don't think its possible to cure the charge-back. As a merchant, you're going to lose out. That just seems to be how it works. The win will come from making the process as clear and painless as possible. Automatic systems that keep overdrafting your bank while sending you robo-responses are not they way.

<comment><USER12> Well there is Bitcoin which has no chargebacks and for a face-to-face transaction there would be little need for an addon escrow service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have to disagree (perhaps unfashionably) with the author's sentiment and the comment below "I really like Square, but I always have this feeling that this company is going to be oe (sic) more paypal and with this story it´s confirmed."

\- The customer service was pretty responsive and reasonably polite for a very fast growing company.

\- The author notes he has paid Square hundreds of dollars in transactions fees so we can guestimate he's done $13k+ of revenue through Square (based on $400 fees & 3% average fee), $180 was hardly a critical amount for him

\- What's the next best alternative, has anybody here experienced PayPal's customer service?

<comment><USER14> You seem to be giving Square far, far more credit than any business deserves. I suspect it is because Square is an HN darling, but hey, to each his own.

I take serious issue with your characterization that those Square responses were "pretty responsive" and "reasonably polite."

* They took several days to respond to a time-sensitive billing issue

* They claimed to provide support they could not and did not provide

* They refused to even acknowledge that this was frustrating for the customer

* They refused to acknowledge that their automated systems may not be doing the best thing for the customer

* Instead of owning any responsibility, they blamed the customer, several times

* __They still haven't given him his money__

All over a _measly 180 dollars_. Seriously - Square jerked this guy around for weeks over less than _two hundred bucks_.

How on Earth do you characterize those actions as responsive or polite? They weren't "responsive" to the customer's support interactions or his time- sensitive needs. They barely even "responded" at all, considering the e-mails they sent were clearly stock PR crap with some blanks filled in.

<comment><USER6> * Chargeback's can't be resolved faster; * They can't (and shouldn't) give him this money - as it's quite likely that this money will never be paid, the dispute rules favor the cardholder quite much.

<comment><USER14> So the best response is to not respond to him for a few days at a time, and when you do, assume the customer is acting in bad faith while you fill in some form letters?

<comment><USER15> They clearly stated that "no further actions are required" from his part.

<comment><USER14> That's usually the case when one summarily dismisses the customer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is simply a precautionary tale; if you don't mind being treated this way, by all means continue using Square.

I didn't, and I was unable to resolve the situation by working with Square, so I shared my experience, warts and all, with others in the hope that others can learn from my experience.

Could I have been more eloquent and professional? Certainly. But this is something I was dealing with in my "spare" time, (and for the record, as donated time and a favor to a nonprofit). If this was a business venture it would have been handled much differently, but I don't think Square is exclusively for serious business use (at least that's not what I get from their marketing).

So please feel free to criticize my actions; had I ran across a similar story myself before I found myself in this situation, it might have turned out better, so I feel it is worth taking a few shots if it helps someone else down the road.

Keep on hackin'

Jason

</comment><comment><USER17> I didn't bother finishing this because the author persistently claims the Square reps have a rude tone when quite the opposite is taking place. This email stood out for me:

 _For the record I have never received such "guilty until proven innocent" treatment from a company before and until now have sung the praises of square and happily paid the fees associated with your service. If this issue is not resolved immediately (today, 04/19/2012) I will no longer use or recommend Square and will close my account as soon as this situation has come to an end. I will also attempt to submit this request to your "support" system if I can figure out how to find a contact email address there. Your prompt response is appreciated, Jason J. Gullickson_

Nothing in the initial correspondence from Square prompted an acerbic response. It sounds like the author felt threatened even though nothing really happened. Sort of confused why you'd have a bank account with no money in it when you're actively running transactions. Chargebacks, fees, and other miscellaneous activity are par for the course. Be prepared. It's not Square's fault.

<comment><USER18> If you would have finished it, you would have found that Square's service was professional throughout. They never treat him as if he is "guilty until proven innocent". The rep just tries to explain to him why repeatedly sending emails will actually make their response take longer, and it's reasonable.

She could have used the passive voice in her explanation, "when someone [blah blah] they will naturally inhibit", which would be harder to read as hostile. But that's a pretty subtle point that I don't think can be expected for someone who is likely judged on responses/hour and messages in queue. Plus, he was being pretty hostile leading up to this, so I think her response shows poise. These reps are humans after all, and they deal with irate and unreasonable people all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Throughout the entire exchange, Square is relatively prompt and incredibly informative and professional.

This guy doesn't know how electronic payments work, and has clearly never had to deal with managing a merchant account before.

<comment><USER20> Irrespective of if the author was correct in his use of the service, how is not replying for days prompt and how is tersely worded e-mails informative and professional? The whole thing reminded me of PayPal.

<comment><USER21> What do you mean? Re-reading the post, Square always responded by the next business day. There was no "days" wait here. The only confusion was the OP tried to make it sound worse by saying "over 24 hours", but all that means is Square emailed him in the morning on one day, and on the afternoon on the next day.

This part is also weird. He received a reply dated April 20th. He then says "the next morning" he received another email about the withdrawn funds, and he replied. Except his reply is dated the 24th. I have no idea what to think about this. Deliberate misrepresentation of facts?

A bit later on we do finally see a multi-day gap in Square's responses, where he emailed them on the 25th and Square replied on the 30th. However, Jason's email didn't actually contain any questions or actionable statements, only complaints and accusations of "thinly veiled threats". So I don't see the response gap here as being significant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There are a few issues with this article

1) The author never understood that he has to keep some sort of balance to cover chargebacks. Square may need to better communicate this since they are targeting people who may have never dealt with credit card processors. The automated chargebacks themselves may be regulated by the government and if not are standard practice to prevent fraud.

2) Square needs to upgrade its customer service division. The division is obviously not able to respond in a timely manner at this moment. The first thing they should do is change their policy to reflect that it's more likely to be 24-48 hours before a response. Their response was factual and ok for a big bank. However since Square promised to be different they should be aspiring to be like Charles Schwaub's credit card service where you can get someone on the phone at any hour and have them explain what's going on and why and what you can do about it. That's the kind of service that most people who use Square expect and should get. And specifically they should be available by telephone.

</comment><comment><USER23> I would have just let them hold the money until the chargeback was settled. Who wouldn't? This customer was acting like an entitled brat for no reason.

</comment><comment><USER24> The author doesn't have a grounded view of the credit card chargeback process. Square seems to be pretty well behaved despite his whining.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm of two minds on this; I think maybe Jason could have understood how chargebacks work a little better - but at the same time, I think Square could probably streamline this process.

Most of all, this bit of one of the emails from Square kind of set off alarms in my head as bad practice:

"It is our pleasure to inform you that this inquiry has been preliminarily closed in your favor. While this is promising, it is also conditional. Your funds are eligible for automated release on or around 30 April 2012 once additional confirmation is secured."

I don't think "preliminary closure" of a chargeback even makes sense, does it? Either it's closed or it's not closed. I understand that they might have various steps in the inquiry, but letting the customer know ahead of time that everything is _probably_ going to work out well for them, apparently in order to soothe them, is setting the situation up very badly in cases where the preliminary positive resolution doesn't actually get confirmation later on. What's more, it's clear that this didn't even set the correct expectation in the event of a positive finding. They named a date, and then promptly failed to meet it.

If I were designing a system to do this, it seems like it would be best just to let the customer know you're inquiring, that it may be a few weeks, and that they must keep a certain amount of money in their account until the inquiry is over.

(Obviously I haven't designed such a system, and I know it's difficult. This approach just seems inevitably problematic to me, though.)

</comment><comment><USER26> The problem here isn't necessarily with Square, but with Jason being very quick to play the 'taking further action' card.

Being irate and confrontational gets you absolutely nowhere, and I would never say Jason's exchange was an exemplary case of dealing with an unexpected situation professionally, and with a cool head.

Having spent 7 years in customer service, I'd encounter such attitudes all the time. It achieves _nothing_ , except to piss off the person you're mouthing off to.

</comment><comment><USER27> What surprises me is Square doesn't hold a rolling percentage of transactions in reserve in case of charge backs. Seems like that would avoid this situation.

</comment><comment><USER28> Glad Square isn't wasting money (or time, or attention) on people who are misusing it so badly. Square is well-funded but that isn't what funding is for.

<comment><USER20> Don't you think this is an awesome opportunity for Square to explain to the author how charge backs work and why he should have money in his account? Perhaps if they used something other than cryptic replies they could help him understand the entire process and help make him even more of a Square advocate than he was before? That would be a HUGE differentiator from PayPal.

I would definitely say funding is for increasing customer service and trying to create as many advocates of your service as possible!

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> We all love retailers who have very low friction in order to let us buy things without hassles, one click, etc. And when you create your home business using a convenient service like Square of course you also want to offer this no- hassle payment service to your customers.

But what many people don't realize that these businesses also often are eating chargebacks - considering them a necessary part of business in order - <USER2> offer the low friction purchasing. When you're an individual and a $175 chargeback stings your checkbook (as it would for many of us) then it sucks to have to learn this lesson the hard way.

I will say at least with standard merchant accounts when a chargeback occurs the bank will often get you and the customer on the phone together to figure out the problem. It usually reverses most chargebacks. Many times it's simply a mistake because the customer didn't recognize the charge. If Square is not doing something like this then you probably are taking on a lot more risk using their service compared to a traditional merchant account.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think Square could have tried to be more understanding of this use case.

He did clearly explain that the linked account didn't keep a balance and that he was willing to pay the negative balance in his Square account with other sources.

I don't see this as shockingly poor customer service, but Square should have just disabled the automatic debiting on his account as he was a long time trust worthy customer.

<comment><USER21> Trustworthy? Jason _already_ demonstrated he is not trustworthy, since he failed to keep the necessary amount of funds in his linked account to cover any chargebacks that may occur. He screwed up, and he expected Square to pay for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> It baffles me how any financial services company can afford to have such poor customer service.

</comment><comment><USER32> Seems like both sides just needed to understand that there's a person at the other end of the email / support form. None of those emails really sounded like a person talking to another person. Imagine those notes as a transcript of an in person conversation rather than emails.

Sounds like Square can take care of their core business with decent competency, but as with many young companies, they may not have all the kinks worked out when something gets outside their normal decision tree.

</comment><comment><USER33> Sounds like Square has generic customer service reps handling the incoming queue of service requests item by item.

Would it have a better result in terms of responsiveness if each new case was handled by a single CS rep until completed so that every response to an issue does not have to pass the entire queue before being dealt with?

Or would that increase net response time?

<comment><USER34> It's a well-known fact that CS requests have a really high abandonment rate. It saves a lot of money to hold off on answering requests for as long as possible, because it weeds out the non-urgent requests, and makes people loath to create more.

If every request takes at least 24 hours, then a sizeable segment of the population will give up trying unless something really big comes up. Responding quickly sends the wrong signal that CS reps are an effective way to solve issues and your volume will probably shoot way up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I really like Square, but I always have this feeling that this company is going to be oe more paypal and with this story it´s confirmed.

Hope they solve this issue and improve their customer service .

<comment><USER36> As much as I like to hate on Paypal because they deserve it for a variety of reasons, I'm considering lately that for financial services startups like this, it's possible they CAN'T do certain things differently, though perhaps customer service could make up for it and may not have in this case.

This phrase caught my eye in the story "Per the network regulations, the debit process is automated and will continue to attempt to hold the funds associated with the dispute until it is resolved.".

Network regulations like the contracts they have with banks? Credit card processors? A relatively small startup may or may not be in a position to negotiate their own terms on such things, they're dealing with established players they have to do business with unlike a lot of other startups in other fields. Perhaps Squares own terms have been influenced or dictated to them in part by their own financial partners.

On the other hand, this persons own bank was able to reverse the automated charge and the fees associated with it, which itself should give at least some measure of comfort in the system as it exists, even if it's frustrating to watch it all happen without much direct control.

It should probably be obvious that having a buffer of funds to handle things like this is a good idea for any business, particularly if the terms of service for the payment processor note that things like this may happen.

<comment><USER5> Absolutely square could do things better. How about for starters picking up the goddamn phone and making a call to talk to the customer in person?

It really shocks me that people are willing to entrust their business's finances with a company they cannot contact immediately.

I do exactly what the OP poster did - have a account that receives the funds and is immediately swept to an entirely different institution. I would not have even funded the account when square tried to pull from it. I do not make my main business account directly accessible via visa card, or direct transfers. Two different financial institutions are involved.

I especially am troubled by the assumption that because the OP is following this very good idea that square assumes that he is not viable.

<comment><USER37> Hate to break it to you but a pissy customer whos mad over $175 bucks only _thinks_ hes a priority when it comes to square.

Seriously how much cash are they transacting ... and hes flipping out over ( as pointed out earlier ) $180 profit for square?

yeahh....

<comment><USER38> If Square only cares about the big customers, why would small customers use them?

<comment><USER37> welcome to automation. Its designed to work for the big guys. So there you go free motivation. If you want to be able to complain and stomp around like old ways of doing business you've got to get big.

Otherwise you use the service that is provided.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have to land squarely on Square's side on this one. As far as I can tell, Square has handled this matter exactly as I would expect and hope. They communicated professionally and clearly with Jason. Jason responded with empty threats and demands, and clearly does not understand or respect his responsibilities in his business relationship. Getting money quickly from a merchant account is a privilege, not a right. That privilege is afforded in exchange for honoring the chargeback process, which for good reason initially favors the consumer by provisionally reversing the transaction. When a chargeback occurs - as clearly stated in Square's initial email - "The respective financial institution notifies Square and debits the funds from Square."

Chargebacks are not fun, but they are a fact of life. When a consumer challenges are credit card charge, the consumer is entitled by law and contract to have their case heard, and in the meantime the middlemen must make sure they won't be left holding the empty moneybag.

It is entirely reasonable for the Square to make sure funds are available to pay the consumer debt should the consumer prevail - Square will be out that money regardless of whether Jason pays up.

To be frank, based on his attitude, Jason seems like the sort of guy who would refuse to pay up if the dispute had been decided against him and he disagreed with the determination. This is exactly the reason Square was and always will be justified in freezing the amount associated with any chargebacks. There is a process for handling chargebacks that you submit your self to in exchange for the convenience of getting money quickly from the credit card system. That money is only yours if the consumer does not challenge the charge - <USER3> they don't, but you are responsible to pay if they do, and you are responsible for funding your account to cover whatever level of chargebacks your business sustains.

It is entirely reasonable for: 1) Square to freeze funds associated with chargeback attempts. At this point, Square is out those funds. 2) Square to withdraw funds from a link account if the Square account is empty. It's the responsibility of the merchant to keep funds available to handle chargebacks, as I'm sure is clearly stated in their agreement. If the merchant has kept all funds out of reach of Square, by withdrawing all their money from the account and keeping the associated bank account empty, the merchant is indicating that they do not intend on fulfilling their end of the bargain on having a merchant account - namely honoring chargebacks and the determination process for chargeback disputes. If this withdraw results in NSF fees, particularly for a chargeback of such a small amount, that is the merchant's fault for not funding their account. Furthermore, NSF fees are easily avoidable by depositing funds the same day - why Jason did an electronic transfer is beyond me.

Based on Jason's ignorance of his own responsibilities, his refusal to keep money available to handle chargebacks, his empty and immature threats to "go to the press" among other things, and his general disregard for his role in the business relationship, I would expect Square probably wants to terminate his account, but will decide against that as it would be more bad PR than it's worth. They would be justified, however, holding funds for a longer period of time, since it's clear he refuses to keep funds available to handle chargebacks and to honor the largely fair chargeback process.

The only counter point I can think of is that, for a certain chargeback/total charge ratio, it does seem Square could take the risk and absorb any funds deficit. That is not traditionally how things work though, and since Square is doing their best to get merchants paid as quickly as possible, it only seems fair that merchants would do their best to ensure Square they intend to honor their end of the bargain. If Square did take on this risk for small chargeback amounts for merchants in good standing (say < 3% of total charges,) this would delay someone like Jason's understanding of the chargeback process until a real problem occurred - like a large number of customers demanding refunds. That might ultimately hurt Square more than it helps, both financially and in PR.

<comment><USER39> Sort of. But I would have expected Square Support to be a bit more sympathetic, especially if it is true that the customer had been a long time Square user with a good amount of transaction volume.

Square defenders seem to think that Square was going to automatically lose the money when the reality in a case like this where the customer has a good track record is that 1) the chargeback may have been won and 2) Square may have been able to collect from the merchant had the chargeback stuck.

<comment><USER40> Generally speaking, the acquiring bank (working on behalf of Square, unless Square is a bank proper, I would presume they are just an ISO) takes all risk on a credit transaction, and then extends that risk back to the ISO, who then extends it back to the customer of the ISO.

The author's experience strikes me as naive, (which we all are on our first chargeback) but notably, yes, it is his requirement to have enough money in the account to cover any chargebacks he may receive. Depending on his volume, most ISOs and/or acquiring banks would require a healthy reserve as well, should they come and find his bank account dry after he just charged a bunch of people money and then went running to Mexico.

The fact that they contacted him -before- taking money out of his account is striking. The normal process is to deduct the money from your account, notify you, and then give you a period of time to respond. If you respond with sufficient evidence, the chargeback protection service clears it, the money is then re-desposited back to your account. The other party then has one more opportunity to dispute and the chargeback handler may decide that you're not going to provide any more viable of a defense, and simply give up - or may push back again, effectively ending the dispute. If the dispute doesn't end in your favor, the money is taken again. If you drained your bank account in the mean-time, you may find your ability to continue to process cards through that ISO, or that Acquirer has been terminated.

The truth is, for many years people have perfected scams on both sides of the card handling process, and these responses have been developed to minimize risk for the companies in the chain.

<comment><USER39> Square is neither a bank nor an ISO bit a "Payment Service Provider" or "Master Merchant" and is in fact likely on the hook for most or all losses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Man get all wacky about $175 transaction. IF you're playing that close to the bone, my advice would be to stick to cash sales and forget about banks and online escrow services like Square.

</comment><comment><USER14> I get nauseous when I see companies with _200 some-odd employees_ respond to a distressed individual with PR-drafted form letter ad libs.

I can't wait to see what they do when they have 2,000 employees.

</comment><comment><USER10> Here's what should have happened.

Square: There's a chargeback for 180 dollars. You can dispute it.

OP: I want to dispute it. Here's the information you need.

(no more than one day later) Square: Instead of just linking to our legal agreement we'll explain why we're taking money from your account. We have to withdraw the chargeback amount from your account because of regulations and stuff. There is more information at this legal link.

OP: I keep that account empty to prevent fraud. The transaction will fail or I'll end up being charged. Can I pay it from another account or can you wait?

(no more than one day later) Square: (if possible) Yes you can pay here (link to payment site). We will automatically try your account in a few days. You will here from us when we've decided on your dispute.

OP: Ok, here is my payment (or) funds will be in my bank account shortly.

(later on, after dispute is decided) Square:We ruled in your favor, the money is being debited back to your account. It will be available for withdrawal in a few business days.

<comment><USER42> No. This screams of willing ignorance. You are dealing with money. Your customers money. You should have just a bit of respect to understand the agreements you are signing when dealing with your customers money.

Damn right you should understand the T&C BEFORE using the service like this. Doing otherwise is damn right irresponsible and shoddy. The people running into these problems have no idea what they are doing, they haven't dealt with real processing, and are blaming everything everyone but themselves.

Hell, even your comment is ignorant of the system that the customer agreed to use.

Guess what? Credit card users have certain rights, and if you want to accept credit cards, you have to play within those rules. This means chargebacks happen. This means _you_ don't get paid. There are ways to reduce it, but _you_ are still on the hook for it. Hell, even if the chargeback gets reversed, it's still held against you.

A shining example of this ignorant is right here:

> Square:We ruled in your favor,

That's not how chargebacks work. Square doesn't rule in any capacity. It's the banks. It's the client bank. Not Square. Not the merchant.

Every time a story like this pops up, we get a whole bunch of fools complaining and making reference to PayPal, and not a one of them has any clue as to the realities and reasons why.

And yes, I've done this. I've read the documents, and handled this. And it's always the same story. People whining about the company they deal with, when the reality is, the policy is in place to protect their customer.

<comment><USER10> "It is our pleasure to inform you that this inquiry has been preliminarily closed in your favor"

Sorry I used the word "rule" instead. I was just quickly summarizing.

Yes you should understand the legal stuff BEFORE, but there's no reason that square couldn't explain it when they were doing something too.

This guy was happily following all the rules. Square was breaking promises (getting back to him in less than 24 hours).</comment></comment></comment>