Hacker News Reader

Comment by reading-at-work | Hacker News Reader

"The reign of the all-powerful capitalist class has returned with a vengeance. The job conditions of working men and women, thrust backward, will not improve until they regain the militancy and rebuild the popular organizations that seized power from the capitalists."

...

"The ruling capitalists will be as vicious as they were in the past. Nothing enrages the rich more than having to part with a fraction of their obscene wealth. Consumed by greed, rendered numb to human suffering by a life of hedonism and extravagance, devoid of empathy, incapable of self-criticism or self-sacrifice, surrounded by sycophants and leeches who cater to their wishes, appetites and demands, able to use their wealth to ignore the law and destroy critics and opponents, they are among the most repugnant of the human species."

...

This article is just individual anecdotes mixed in with rants taken straight out of a socialist recruitment pamphlet. I'm open to different political opinions, but this is just ridiculous. Can anyone really take this seriously?

Additionally, I'm not convinced that regulating Uber and Lyft as heavily as we regulate taxi companies is a good idea. Taxis are a very entrenched industry buried in red tape, which is part of why they were so expensive and inconvenient. Uber and Lyft have been so successful because there was a desperate need for a ride-hailing solution that didn't suck.

View on HN

This author made the mistake of trying to overgeneralize from the New York taxi industry, but most American job growth since 2005 has been temp work/contracting, Uber/Lyft are just the most visible for one industry - this kind of explains the general unease/longing for the past we saw in a sizeable percentage of the electorate expressed in the 2016 election in both parties.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/most-jobs-created-...

Arguably full-time employment is:

* more like serfdom than having several bosses you can replace as needed

* historically more of an anomaly than juggling a few side hustles like fishing and delivering mail and giving boat tours

Besides, it seems like employment law is more to blame for the lack of full time jobs. At least more to blame than companies that hire part time workers. If, economically, we want more full time employment, it needs to be more attractive to workers and employers than lots of part time employment.

I think the tying of quality or existence of health insurance in America to one's job (and the lack of that for a long period for gig/contract economy), the ever increasing costs of healthcare outgrowing our general standard of living in America in the past two decades, and the lack of a social safety net for a large percentage of people under the age of 65 contribute to the general insecurity people feel outside of high income brackets. Disassociating healthcare from one's employment wouldn't have to change employment law, this situation possibly only exists in America among modern economies, though I would be happy to be corrected.

Perhaps tax law could penalize part-time work while rewarding full-timers?

Maybe companies have to pay into a health-care tax for part-time workers that would get covered by medicaid, plus a part-time worker fee/tax.

I wonder what the unintended ramifications of this would be. People end up working as full-timers for a contracting company that gigs out its individuals like current employment agencies? Companies try to classify everyone as a 1099 contractor? Probably not...

>Perhaps tax law could penalize part-time work while rewarding full-timers?

Translation: steal more aggressively from people choosing to work less, than we steal from full time wage slaves.

I love my gigs and the freedom of doing freelance web, software, uber driving and also small sales.

I only work 20-30 hours per week as I see fit and can choose who I report to and when I take time off.

Why should the government steal more from me for that?

Taxes are not theft. They aren't even remotely close to theft. Steal is the wrong verb here. I'd agree that income taxes aren't great ways for the government to raise revenue but calling it "stealing" is a dishonest portrayal of the relationship we have with our government.

I do agree though that a tax system that punishes people who for working less hours is essentially a regressive tax and thus a poor idea.

You are mistaken.

The history of taxation is one of tolls, robbery, piracy and skullduggery. Source: https://mises.org/library/taxation-robbery

The word I should have used is Robbery. Not theft.

Readthe founding father's of US constitution for their thoughts on this kind of income tax.

In fact, Income Tax was promised to be temporary to fund war efforts. Liars.

Any compulsory demand to give up your labor and property at the threat of being locked in a cage, or killed is straight up robbery.

Also, your comment is Statist because we do not have a relationship to the "government". We have a relationship to the men with guns that show up at your door when you do not compulsorily give up 40% of your labor and property.

What makes full-time jobs with benefits unappealing to Uber is exactly what workers want. Someone ends up losing out here.

I agree. The whole article is basically saying that it's unfair that they have competition now. Sure, cab drivers may not be making as good of a living as before, but in general everyone else has gained a lot in regards to lower fares.

Seeing as every Uber and Lyft ride was (and still is?) subsidized by investor money, Cab vs App was never a fair competition.

Replacing one problematic system with another that rearranges and changes what the problems are isn't always a net win.

Assuming that any capitalist enterprise's goals will align with and optimize for the long term general health of society is frankly ludicrous.

Investment dollars aside, there's hard data to show that Uber and Lyft reduce drunk driving in any area where they operate, for one thing. It's a tangible addition to the general consensus that the apps are much better from a user experience perspective.

Additionally, plenty of expanding companies are subsidized by investor money. You could say the same of Netflix and, until recently, Amazon. The point is that investors see potential for them to become more profitable down the road - the same is true of Uber and Lyft.

Of course, you're right that Uber and Lyft are not run by saints and they will have their own problems. But so far I see it as a net gain over the old taxi system.

"there's hard data to show that Uber and Lyft reduce drunk driving in any area where they operate"

More cabs would likely do the same.

Maybe, maybe not. What's the big difference between cabs and Uber? Price and convenience. Uber and Lyft are successful because they fill a huge need in the market that the overregulated taxi industry couldn't (or wouldn't). If there's clearly a need for more cabs, and the answer is just to add more cabs, why do you think nobody addressed that concern?

America's previous taxi monopoly is skewing your view on this and have actually got nothing to do with gig economies. Uber circumvented taxi medallions AND introduced gig economy. It was the circumvention of taxi medallions that brought down your price. In countries without those insane medallions, Uber is about the same price, even when running at a loss.

When you put that aside, it's a different beast.

In the UK, DPD, who are Amazon's outsourced delivery drivers, recently killed someone because they fine "contractors" who are ill and he worked himself to death[1]. We have employment laws that protect against this that are being circumvented by 'disruptors' to kill people for minor savings.

The worst part about this, if you follow things like what happens after minimum wages are introduced, price increase are miniscule, sales don't drop. So if you look at the inverse, the misery these 'disruptions' are causing give little to consumers and are extremely damaging to society.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/05/courier-who...

The same process repeating itself across multiple industries would seem, to me, to send us hurtling toward a two-tiered society.

This isn't so much about competition. It is about unfair competition. One side has rules and regulations they need to abide by. Many are simply there to make things fair (like meters). Some are safety (not mentioned, but requiring a different class of drivers license). Some are things that obviously should be changed (car models, for example, or the medallion system). Some things are probably a mixture of safety and ridiculousness (special car colors help folks know it isn't just some person acting like a cab, but ridiculous in the manner that there are other ways to do such things).

Not everyone gains by having lower fares if you need to get to work during a busy hour, as mentioned in the article. Surge pricing and weird pricing schemes makes it difficult to plan when money is tight.

And they do mention that Uber drivers aren't exactly better off. "not as good of a living" is one thing. Poverty and homelessness is quite another, and seems to be happening on both sides of this.

Want competition? Fine. Make sure folks are playing by the same rules and regulations.

> Not everyone gains by having lower fares if you need to get to work during a busy hour, as mentioned in the article. Surge pricing and weird pricing schemes makes it difficult to plan when money is tight.

Surge pricing makes sense. It encourages people to choose different hours to travel and drivers to drive more during those times, which in the long run can lead to a much better experience for most users as it ensures that more people can use the service.

Yes, it may hurt some people that would prefer a constant price, but overall it seems like a net benefit to me.

That's all fine and good if you have a choice in when you travel. Car broken down and you need to get to work? Good luck having a choice. Doctor's appointment? Need to go to court? You are just stuck having to pay.

You can plan on having more cabs during busy hours and fewer during less busy hours. Buses often have more busses on the routes during busy times of day. Not everywhere has these choices, though. Outside of larger cities, Uber or Lyft might be the closest you have to public transportation.

If you want choice in such things, it takes more than surge pricing. Cooperation between workplaces and so on to stagger start/end times, for example.

> That's all fine and good if you have a choice in when you travel. Car broken down and you need to get to work? Good luck having a choice. Doctor's appointment? Need to go to court? You are just stuck having to pay.

But this is exactly the problem that surge pricing solves, other people that can choose when to travel will already be traveling at other times, which means you'll have a car available instead of having 0 because everyone else is trying to travel at the same time.

Making the price constant doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to travel when you need, only that if you can get a car, you'll pay a certain price. If you want both that seems like something that is solved by both surge pricing and insurance.

> You can plan on having more cabs during busy hours and fewer during less busy hours. Buses often have more busses on the routes during busy times of day.

That means higher infrastructure costs (need more cars, more maintenance, more/bigger roads) which will lead to higher prices.

> If you want choice in such things, it takes more than surge pricing. Cooperation between workplaces and so on to stagger start/end times, for example.

Yes, but surge pricing can nudge that cooperation into existence. Maybe not by itself, but in conjunction with surge pricing in other areas as well.

Our societies have to deal with extra costs because of the man-made rush-hour: "Everyone" showers at the same time, turns on their toasters at the same time, occupies the roads/buses at the same time, etc. Turn those costs into real dollars instead of subsidizing them with higher prices on the low hours and watch businesses start to fix it by themselves.

That's not what the article is saying, it's saying that the gig economy is all about transferring all the power from Labour to capital, about making the balance even more skewed in the wrong direction. You can't operate a meritocracy if there is no opertunnity to improve, if you are just an interchangeable unit. You can't improve if the system forces you beyond what is humanly possible to be above average, and where average is pined at the upper limit of performance

I don't see anything wrong with those comments. You and I may be on the good side of capitalism but most people are not.

"Consumed by greed, rendered numb to human suffering by a life of hedonism and extravagance, devoid of empathy, incapable of self-criticism or self-sacrifice, surrounded by sycophants and leeches who cater to their wishes, appetites and demands, able to use their wealth to ignore the law and destroy critics and opponents, they are among the most repugnant of the human species."

This psychological shift toward delusional megalomania seems to happen to many if not most human beings when given incredibly high status and rendered largely immune to consequences. In authoritarian socialist systems it happens to the ruling party elite and bureaucrats.

Sure, but in the context of this article it's just embellishment to whip up the reader's anger at the supposed injustice of Uber and Lyft. It doesn't contribute to any fact-based arguments and it shows the author as incredibly biased against big business in general.

Well, which parts do you disagree with? Or, do you just disagree with the sensationalist language?

I agree that humans in general with unchecked power can become dictatorial maniacs. I disagree that the CEOs of ride-hailing companies specifically will become dictatorial maniacs. I think that kind of sensationalist language discredits the article to a large degree, and doesn't contribute to the author's argument in a concrete way. It's an appeal to emotion, not a rational and defensible argument.

Appreciate you breaking that down, and I agree that the sensationalist language is not helpful (preaching to the choir, etc.), but I think discredits goes too far. I can say something completely true in the most obnoxious way possible, and it can turn off a lot of people, but it doesn't alter the truth.

I believe that he's harping on CEOs of ride-hailing companies, because they're the obvious example that everyone is familiar with. His overall statement, as I read it, is closer to:

>humans in general with unchecked power can become dictatorial maniacs.

And, I think that's the salient point. Others have hit on it, but if a society is too Capitalistic or too Socialistic, the power-hungry people (who always have and, presumably, always will exist) will take advantage of the imbalance, and the people (general population) will suffer as a result. On a large scale, it shouldn't matter how evil/greedy any CEO or politician is, because their power should be limited. The problem, of course, is finding the right balance.

But it's an opinion piece in a left-wing publication.

You can still formulate opinions based on facts instead of on sensationalist fear-mongering.

The article offers facts and editorializing. I don't see much issue.

If that's true shouldn't we try to create an economy that doesn't actively reward those behaviors?

That's harder than just shifting the economic system. The problem is that human beings (or at least a lot of them) willingly and almost instinctively follow psychopaths and narcissists. As long as that's the case then these behaviors will be rewarded in any and all economic systems. The rules for how money moves around do not change human psychology.

You don't think the constant drive for profit encourages people to indulge their worst qualities? I'm not saying that people can't be naturally selfish and narcissistic, but people can also naturally be kind, generous, and compassionate. If there was an economic system that didn't put profit above all else I think you would see more of the latter qualities.

All major experiments in full blown socialism have turned into mafia states. The drive for profit exists regardless of political system.

I'm not advocating for turning the US into the USSR. There are lessons to be learned, good and bad, from experiments in socialism. The US is turning into an Oligarchy and we can't even get socialized healthcare because people have such a knee-jerk reaction to anything that dares challenge any free market.

For a further exploration of this topic, I recommend the film Can Dialectics Break Bricks.

I think everyone is well aware of that. In a successful socialist state neither party elites or bureaucrats should exist. In a capitalist state or authoritarian system those are designed and necessary groups.

Most people's objections to socialism are exactly what socialism is attempting to remove. Lenin, Stalin etc. did a terrible job.

But isn't it at least a little bit curious that any and everyone trying to implement it did an equally terrible job?

Exactly. Almost like it's a problem with the fundamentals of the system itself.

Interestingly, it is always assumed that problems with capitalism are systemic, but communism... they just didn't try quite right.

Back when people were trying to overthrow monarchies to introduce democracy and capitalism it didn't exactly go smoothly either. Capitalism in America might not have even been possible without the extensive use of slave labor and the genocide of an entire continent of people. There is such an ahistorical bend to anti-socialist rhetoric that is so pervasive in our society it's nearly impossible to see.

"Capitalism in America might not have even been possible without the extensive use of slave labor and the genocide of an entire continent of people"

Rolling my eyes pretty hard at that one. Can you elaborate? Do you really think the whole system would have failed without slave labor? How was the capitalist economy different back then, such that free labor was absolutely necessary for it to be sustained?

"There is such an ahistorical bend to anti-socialist rhetoric"

I would say the same about pro-socialist rhetoric. The whole "let's ignore what happened the last dozen times a country tried full socialism, and try it again" rhetoric is pretty selectively ignorant of history, wouldn't you say?

There's a difference between saying "Capitalism in America" vs the whole system of capitalism. That aside it's probably hyperbolic for me to claim that it "might not have even been possible."

My point is that people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism. I'm sure there's equally biased pro-socialist rhetoric but since we live in a capitalist society the scale is not even remotely the same.

The last thing I want to do is ignore what has happened when countries have tried socialism. I want to be clear that horrible things have happened in socialist countries, but I don't think that is sufficient reason to throw out all of the ideas and philosophy behind socialism.

I see what you're saying, and it's a fair point. I've never claimed capitalism is without its flaws. You say "people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism," but more often I hear the opposite. I see socialism promoted all the time as this utopian ideal, and capitalism detracted as a horrible injustice, at least in my circles. So I suppose I'm more conditioned to call out the flaws in socialism as a reflex.

Regardless, I do think the past failures of socialist states are very important to consider, as they present concrete evidence for different ways it can go wrong. And I would make the argument that, given all that evidence, it does speak to flaws in the philosophy itself. Because in order for full socialism to occur, it necessitates an authoritarian takeover of the economy by the state. The state is supposed to represent the people, of course, but once they seize power to start managing property and the economy, well, now they're authoritarian bureaucrats with too much power. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and all that. To me it's no wonder that dictators take control of socialist states so easily.

Then, even if the state does avoid becoming despotic, you still have to deal with the problem of a centrally planned economy being incredibly inefficient at creating wealth when compared to a capitalist market economy. The adage "you don't make the poor richer, you just make everyone poorer" in regards to full socialism seems pretty spot-on in my observation. Just look at Venezuela for a live example. In 2013 they were hailed as an economic miracle [1] and now, well, we can all see for ourselves how it went [2].

To me, the most prosperous economic model we've come up with is free market capitalism with some government protections in place, like anti-trust and consumer protection laws, and a basic social safety net. I'm open to debate, though. Are there any socialist economies you would point to as a success? What parts of socialist philosophy in particular do you see as being effective and worth pursuing?

1. https://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_mirac...

2. http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/26/colombia-s-venezuelan-mig...

I would point to Scandinavian countries as probably the best functioning economies in the world right now. They aren't socialist, but they're closer than the US is. The fear of Authoritarianism is a real threat under any system. There is a certain level of authoritarianism that we live with here in the US I would argue. I don't think that socialism has to mean "large-centralized government". I look at it more like extending democracy to include the workplace and the economy.

As for what that means exactly, I don't have a good answer for you. I'm trying to find answers myself. Maybe every business needs to be a worker-owned co-op. Maybe we should have a "National fund" that replaces private banks and investments in which every member of society would have equal ownership of. Maybe we should all live in communes in the woods.

I guess I should explain why I think this is even necessary. If the only issue was poverty, we could probably just make do with the social-democratic, Scandinavian style economy. However, to really challenge climate change and automation I think we might need more radical solutions.

As far as the Scandinavian countries, I'd agree that they're operating well. However, like you said, they aren't socialist. They're strong market economies with social safety nets layered on top. They're also very homogeneous, and smaller population-wise than the US, making those social programs easier to implement, fund, and maintain.

"I don't think that socialism has to mean large-centralized government. I look at it more like extending democracy to include the workplace and the economy."

And therein lies the problem. It seems nobody can agree on what socialism actually means these days. I think it does necessitate state control of the economy by definition, like the USSR back in the day or Venezuela more recently. That's more in line with what Marx originally advocated for and how a lot of countries have tried to implement it.

However, if we scrap that definition, then it's anybody's guess. I have no problem with socialism on a small scale - by all means, start a co-op or go live in a commune. As long as it's your choice to do so. My problem with large-scale socialism is that it's "an idea so good, it's mandatory." There's no "opt-out" when the government seizes control of the economy under the guise of promoting equality. So that's what I worry about when people promote socialism. Like you said, there's a fear of authoritarianism in any system, but I can't help but notice socialist countries are historically much more likely to become despotic dictatorships than capitalist countries are.

In terms of combating climate change and automation, that's a much broader issue for sure. But I'm optimistic that modifying our current system can help rather than overhauling it completely with an ideology that has proven so difficult to successfully implement.

"My point is that people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism."

I think that's because people tend to blame the uglyof capitalism on particular businesses, like Triangle Shirtwaist, or individuals like the golden age robber barons, without considering them as components of a whole flawed system.

On the other hand, socialist systems get treated as flaws in the entire system. Yes, the governments have more control, but the ugly parts of capitalist systems also come about due to government action or inaction.

Counterfactuals are difficult, but surely you'd agree that the Triangle Trade was important to the economies that actually ended up leading the Industrial Revolution.

Although I have not read it, I think Eric Williams's Capitalism and Slavery is an influential work well known for forcefully arguing for a link between the eponymous phenomena (of course not everyone agrees with its claims).

Of course it was important, but I disagree that the system depended on it to maintain its very existence. If slavery didn't happen, the market still would have evolved around that fact. Capitalism would still exist, just with higher labor costs. Maybe cotton prices would have been a little higher as a result, and maybe the industrial revolution wouldn't have happened as quickly. Still would've happened though. I don't see much evidence to suggest otherwise, but I'll have to check out that book and see if the arguments are any good.

Capitalism flourished in the parts of the US that did _not_ rely on slave labor and it won out.

Even in the North and even in the late antebellum period, the two economies were intertwined and, for instance, Northern insurers were insuring Southern slaves, and Northern textile mills were spinning slave-picked Southern cotton.

Isn't this a rather classic "whataboutism"? I don't think anybody here (not me, certainly) is arguing that capitalism is perfect and without a single flaw. But nevertheless any real-world implementations of socialism always ended up being far worse than of capitalism. And communists never were particularly shy about using slave labor or genociding people either.

There is a reason why that anti-socialist rhetoric exists.

I'm not a fan of the argument that since the Soviet Union and its derivative states (including China) failed that there is no way to accomplish that Marxist utopic vision or that any variation on socialism has to fail.

Russia was the only real attempt. The 1917 revolution was about it, and then the coup by Stalin to overthrow Lenin and Trotsky threw out any shred of attempt to reach any kind of utopia and just turned the country into a dictatorship with a globalist coat of paint.

Russia itself can absolutely be used as an example of the failings of Marxism and Communism, but I don't think any other country can, for the sole reason that once the Soviet Union was established and the Cold War underway neither side was going to let an ideological uprising happen anywhere on Earth in isolation. Every single socialist / communist state from the Eastern Bloc countries that were conquered by Russia to puppet states in the Middle East to sponsored uprisings in South America and Southeast Asia were all done with Soviet support to create Stalin style dictatorships. I don't think for a second that Mao ever thought China would become some stateless utopia where everyone owns everything in public. Mao took power to be a king, in the same way Fidel did, in the same way Kim Il Sung did. And they all did it with Soviet support financially and militarily.

The US were well documented kingmakers in that era too. It is why most of the Middle East has such deeply instilled hatred of the US that they are willing to give their lives to attack the US. The difference is that the Soviets demanded loyalty by labeling yourself a Peoples Republic and modeling your government after Stalin's - the US just wanted puppet states that did what the US said, be they democratic or totalitarian, it didn't really matter to Washington.

But that isn't something that is going to change, either. Revolutions without foreign support always degrade into dictatorships to fill power vacuums when the unorganized hoard of revolutionaries dissipates - France, Russia, and more recently Egypt all demonstrate what happens in those circumstances. The US had a successful revolution only because it was the elite casting off a foreign power with the support of another, and without Frances help or the support of the American aristocracy the US would have never been founded. Internal wars for revolution fail, revolutions without international support fail, and new governments post-revolution that are too "different" from the global status quo also fail because the world powers will cut you off if you don't play by their rules in international trade. And you can be sure almost every government on Earth today with few exceptions function and exist with the blessings of the United States. If anyone tried to overthrow those "for the people" like the Iranian people did to their Shah you can bet the US will have nothing nice to say about the pursuit of liberty if its against American economic interests.

So no, communism doesn't work, but its not because of some tautology that you can never reach this post-state utopia, but more because nobody can change their government in isolation - the influence of foreign actors will always either push you towards their favored ideology or sabotage your attempt. The world is too interconnected now for an upstart band of ideologues to depose the king and try something new.

I see what you're saying, and you're right that foreign influence is a big factor, but I'd still argue that the failure of the USSR shows a major flaw in the system, and that is that it is easily exploited by despots. I made a similar point in another comment so I'll just link it rather than copy/paste it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16689969

It's a fair point, but there were quite a few countries (starting with China) that that refused Soviet influence (often, because they considered it not sufficiently communist) and went their own way. They didn't succeed at building the workers' paradise any better than USSR did.

Communism does (well, can...) work just fine. Just not with the actual, real people that exist in this world.

Lenin, Stalin etc. did a terrible job.

I'm open to being wrong, but I don't think anyone can do a good job.

No one has yet invented a way of distributing resources more efficiently than markets. I'm not sure if socialism can be real socialism if markets are involved, but I know there's no existing solution to feed and clothe people without them. You might argue for Ptolemaic Egypt, but they had a huge advantage with the Nile, and starvation was rampant in drier years. Every 20th Century example of trying to eliminate markets either led to mass starvation or a quick return to markets once it was clear you couldn't grow an economy without them.

Sweden, Denmark, Norway and most other big government countries socialists like to point out still rely on markets to provide the economic growth needed to pay the taxes for their social programs. They also have the advantage of strong allies and needing to spend only a small fraction of their tax revenues on defense.

This is an issue with terms. None of those countries are socialist. Market socialism has been discussed at length by many theorists. A trustless AI market planner / coordinator could also be designed, especially with current tech. Project Cybersyn by the Chilean government in the 70s was an early attempt at this.[0]

Technology should be used to free humanity not further constrict it. The topic of this thread is exactly the latter: how the "gig economy" is putting most people in worse positions than ever before

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

"In a successful socialist state neither party elites or bureaucrats should exist."

So to paraphrase, there has never been a successful socialist state.

Exactly, read the essay length comment above from another user. They explained it well. The USSR was the only country that made a legitimate attempt at implementing it. Once Stalin got rid of the people interested in that idea it was all downhill.

I'd disagree that the USSR was the only "legitimate" attempt. And even accepting that premise I think it does still show a flaw in the system, which is that it was easily exploited by a despot to seize control. By allowing the state absolute control of the economy, which is necessary to transition into a truly socialist system, you give the people running the state immense power. Then you just have to hope they treat it responsibly, which as we know, didn't happen.

I made a longer argument about that here, probably better to link it than reiterate it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16689969

Reply on news.ycombinator.com