Ask HN: Should I teach my kids to type with QWERTY or Dvorak? - <AUTHOR> While I'm not training my children to become programmers, it's a virtual certainty that any job/profession will require the use of a computer, and that means the ability to type.  I keep reading that those who can type using the Dvorak layout are faster but have always thought "I'm too old to switch keyboard layouts at this point" -- but what about my kids who haven't even learned to type yet?<p>Are there downsides of learning something other than QWERTY and, if so, do the benefits outweigh the negatives? <comment><USER4> I don't think there is anything to gain speed wise from using Dvorak, and you'll only more compatibility issues from having to work in a QWERTY focused world.

[https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/17/18223384/dvorak-qwerty- ke...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/17/18223384/dvorak-qwerty-keyboard- layout-10-years-speed-ergonomics)

Above is a good article on the topic.

<comment><USER5> It's not really about speed, it's about comfort. I can type with both layouts very quickly, but can maintain my speed for longer on Dvorak. Moreover, Qwerty makes my hands hurt very very quickly, while I can keep typing with Dvorak all day long.

<comment><USER6> I don't know why mruts is being downvoted. The only reason to use Dvorak, imho, is the better ergonomics. I switched to it over a decade ago because my hands were showing early signs of repetitive stress. The pain went away right after switching and has not come back. The other benefit is that nobody can use my computers because nothing but gibberish comes out when they type.

That said, if you can type comfortably in Qwerty, I suggest using it. Being able to type on any keyboard without having to hunt around for the keyboard layout switcher is nice.

<comment><USER7> As someone who learned to type in QWERTY, Dvorak, and Colemak (in that order) my belief is that most people attribute ergonomics and improved typing ability to the new alternative layout they learned instead of the fact that they finally learned how to type properly, seeing as very few people I know seem to have learned how to properly type - even ones who can type much faster-than- the-average (80-120wpm where average is well under 60wpm)

I found Dvorak to be significantly worse than QWERTY in both speed and comfort, seeing as Dvorak is more heavily biased towards the right hand and I am left hand dominant (although _mostly_ ambidextrous). I then gave Colemak a try and found it to be a bit more comfortable and eventually trained to reach my previous QWERTY speed of 165-170wpm. I use QWERTY at work but Colemak at home.

Note: by "mostly ambidextrous" I mean that most tasks I can use either arm/hand. I write with my right but throw and punch with my left.

<comment><USER6> > my belief is that most people attribute ergonomics and improved typing > ability to the new alternative layout they learned instead of the fact that > they finally learned how to type properly

Not in my case. I first learned to type properly on Qwerty.

> I found Dvorak to be significantly worse than QWERTY in both speed and > comfort, seeing as Dvorak is more heavily biased towards the right hand and > I am left hand dominant

I'm going to need to see some proof for that assertion. Just going off the top of my head, I'd say I type far more with my left hand than my right using Dvorak.

<comment><USER7> _> Not in my case. I first learned to type properly on Qwerty._

I'll take you at your word, but most people I see claim this have extremely poor typing habits. Similar to a self-taught musician who ingrained poor habits because they never had anyone around to correct them.

 _> I'm going to need to see some proof for that assertion. Just going off the top of my head, I'd say I type far more with my left hand than my right using Dvorak._

Sure thing. Summing the frequencies in the English language and applying it to the keyboard layouts gives:

Dvorak: Left 43.2%, Right 56.8%

QWERTY: Left 58.7%, Right 41.3%

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency#Relative_freq...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency#Relative_frequencies_of_letters_in_the_English_language)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> QWERTY 100%

Living in Germany and being used to QWERTY it's really hard for me to use someone elses computer, because it will most likely be QWERTZ (German layout) and that alone annoys me to no end. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to be used to a completely different keyboard.

<comment><USER9> > it's really hard for me to use someone elses computer

How often do you type on someone else's computer? It is not comparable to the amount of time you use your own keyboard.

<comment><USER10> For the OPs context (their kids) I expect they'll have a lot of typing too do on school computers

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Think of it this way: would you teach your kids Esperanto instead of the native tongue in your country?

Perhaps without realising it, the question you're asking is, "Should I teach my kids the thing that will help them in society as it exists or should I teach them a potentially superior but less applicable alternative?"

<comment><USER12> I guess the difference between _how_ to write something compared to _what_ to write.

If people writing qwerty couldn't understand people who wrote dvorak, I would understand your argument, but languages are so much more different than a keyboard layout.

But in the end, both keyboard layouts end up being able to write exactly the same words, the only difference is the speed (as I understand, only once tried using dvorak so I don't really know)

<comment><USER11> I see what you're saying but I think you're taking my point too literally.

QWERTY is the default layout (in English speaking countries and as QWERTY was mentioned, I assume OP is in an English speaking country). QWERTY is on the computers in schools, on the computers available to buy in stores, on the computers in offices.

Teaching kids Dvorak is putting them at a disadvantage in life, just as teaching them Esperato, Inrterlingua, Lojban, or similar artificial languages instead of English might seem intellectually appealing but would set them up for a life of difficulty.

<comment><USER12> I see what you are saying too but I don't think speaking/understanding two different languages are the same as using two different keyboard layouts.

If I never seen a qwerty keyboard before and only used dvorak, I could probably type with it, it would only be a bit slower than usual. Same when I see someone with a dvorak keyboard. Although the layout is very different, I could still use it, but it slows me down a lot.

However, if someone only speaks/understands Esperanto meets someone who only speaks English, it will be way harder for them to understand each other, harder than trying to understand another keyboard layout.

<comment><USER11> I'm not suggesting that they're the same. Instead, I'm offering an example of another thing you could do in your child's education that might seem good at the time but would actually give them a disadvantage.

I get that using a Dvorak keyboard isn't a total barrier to communication but it is non-standard in our society and so possible advantages would be outweighed by the children having to adjust when they encounter the world at large.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My kids are not quite old enough to require keyboard input (doing it, not receiving it, ya dummy) but I have pondered this very question.

I have been using Dvorak almost exclusively for about 15 years now. It's not faster, that's a myth -- but it is much more easy on the fingers: depending on the nature of your prose, you'll save perhaps 30% finger movement. With Colemak, that number is less, but you gain a more comparable (to qwerty) shortcut-key layout.

Obviously, there are all sorts of adversities facing Dvorak typists: native hardware keyboard layouts, limits to the users ability to configure software keyboard layouts (for instance, you may be able to change it on your desktop -- but not on the lock screen!), and of course having to fall back to qwerty on other's devices.

Curiously, on a non-touch-typing device such as the touch screen of a tablet or mobile phone, I'm useless on Dvorak (perhaps exactly because Dvorak was designed for hand-alteration?), so there I'm by far more proficient with one hand on qwerty.

In the end, I think I will settle for showing them both layouts in use at their home, and let them decide which to use. However, @kqr makes a number of very good points, not least the RSI one.

There's also quite a lot of knowledge tucked away in this post: [https://blog.hanschen.org/2010/01/30/dvorak-two-years- later-...](https://blog.hanschen.org/2010/01/30/dvorak-two-years-later-was-it- worth-it/)

<comment><USER14> > It's not faster, that's a myth

This is false. There a plenty of statistics showing that Dvorak is faster (albeit it's true that the main benefits is around finger movement)

> native hardware keyboard layouts

Never been a problem: you don't need (or want) to look at the keys anyways.

> limits to the users ability to configure software keyboard layouts

Also not a problem: you cannot touch-type on a phone and also you type with thumbs.

<comment><USER15> Studies often show Dvorak is faster, but when you dig you discover they are not comparing equivalent. People who learn Dvorak are more likely to be better typists. When you compare equals you discover that the speed of the mind is the limit not the speed of the fingers and so it makes no difference.

As I recall there is one exception: if you are just copying something without having to think about it dvorak is faster. This isn't a common job, but it does exist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Teach them QWERTY. I use Programmer's Dvorak and I love it. But I also have a very specialized setup and everything optimized for myself. Your kids will have to work with different setups in the next decade or two. For them it's more important to be flexible. Later when they specialized themselves and only work in an environment they control they can switch and choose whatever fits them.

<comment><USER17> To get philosophical, a parents' job is more to prepare a kid for the world as it is, rather than engrain your own preferences to the point of impracticality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'll ask one question. Is someone really needs typing speeds over 200 keys/minute? What task nowadays benefits from such speeds? Will these tasks keep being relevant in ten years?

As a programmer I do not need 200 chars/minute. I believe that developed skills to use movement keys and key sequences, like arrow keys, Ctrl-arrows, Home, End, and others. For example, I struggle every time with a laptop keyboard, because Home/End/Delete are oddly placed and I miss them half of the times.

<comment><USER19> I'll ask a different question: why should someone use QWERTY? If you're learning for the first time, you don't have anything they to compare to, so you might as well use a scientifically better option, right?

I learned Dvorak because I wanted to be part of an elite group (I mean, how many Dvorak typists are they?). I kept using it because my wrist pain went away. Perhaps that's because I relearned to type and thus fixed bad habits. I had pretty good form before learning Dvorak, so I like to think that the reduced finger travel is helping.

But how will your child feel when they're different than their friends and have to make special accommodations when using someone else's computer? That's a bit more important than any technical benefit IMO, and is why I'll teach my kids QWERTY.

<comment><USER18> Please, notice, I do not argue that someone should use QWERTY. I'm just trying to point that the strongest reason to prefer Dvorak maybe not a reason anymore. Maybe there are other reasons, I dont know. But it seems for me that people keep arguing about speed while all that discussion might be obsolete. They'd better to discuss other reasons.

 _> But how will your child feel when they're different than their friends and have to make special accommodations when using someone else's computer?_

Accidently I wrote a wall of text answering to this. I'm sorry, it is one of my favorite topics: developmental psychology. The tl;dr version of it is: I wouldn't teach my child how to type at all.

Now the long version.

If children wanted to be different, than I would say them: it is all up to you, my children, if you need my blessing, you got it.

Look, a person get a desire to be different somewhere after 15 years old typically. Maybe some manage to develop to this point earlier, but I do not know about such a cases. Mostly they get to it after 15. Before that his difference from others would be either indifferent or annoying.

If you taught your child to use Dvorak while he was in a kindergarten, it would go as you planned up to a moment when you child hits puberty (~12yo). Before it the motivation of a child is built over her desire to be a good girl (or boy, gender doesn't matter). She was not interested in being like others or being different. After that the motivation is an approvement of her friends. It means that teen becomes obsessed of being _like_ others, and her underdeveloped skills of using QWERTY might get on the way of it. What will follow? The same that follow everytime with every teen and her parent, teen will decide that her parent is crazy weird graybeard, that it is a shame to have such a parent, and the only way to deal with it is to hide parent and his weird habits from friends. It means to pretend that she prefer QWERTY, to use QWERTY always, and even to provoke parents by using QWERTY defiantly and by arguing that Dvorak is bad and causes pimples. If you allow her to provoke you, if you start argue, than you just prove her that she was right about your inability to accept new ideas.

It is not necessarily would go by this scenario, but it is completely plausible scenario. If you are going to teach your child to some uncommon habits, then you need to take into a consideration that it could end badly. May I suggest an other way to do it? Don't teach your child to use Dvorak. Don't teach your child to use QWERTY. Let him to be a bad typist for the first 15 years of his life, it would do him no harm. Teach him instead to play a piano -- it gives him meta-skills that could help to learn any keyboard layout. Teach him to play a piano and wait patiently. Watch for him, you need a moment when your child stops being a jerk who believes that his friends are smarter and more experienced than his parents. It can happen at 15 years old, or 17 years old, or even 20 years old. Personal differences are great here.

After that you a free to convince your kid to learn Dvorak. It might be not so hard as it looks. After ~15 yo teens like to work on themselves to become better and stronger. So it is completely possible to convience him to learn Dvorak even without a manipulation.

Moreover, after all that was said, I believe that it is a bad idea to teach child to type. He will not need his skill for 10+ years at least. So why to bother? It is like to teach child to read at 3 years old, to be able to brag about how bright child is. No one is interested that for a 3 year old it is very hard to learn to read, it would be much easier at 5-6 years old. No one is interested that 3 years old have other skills to develop, skills that are easier to learn at 3 years old and maybe impossible to learn at 5 years old. No one is interested that to learn how to read child needs to read, but if he was taught to read at 3 years old, than he wouldn't use his skill for 2-5 years when he would read his first book. He might lose the feeling of novelty, and the book reading would seem boring for him before he tried.

People obsessed with early development but do not bother to learn basics of developmental psychology and to develop their children for a sake of children, not for a sake of parents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Bear in mind there's no point switching to a Dvorak keyboard unless you also teach them to touch type. A touch typist on a regular keyboard is still going to be a lot faster than a non-touch typist on a Dvorak.

<comment><USER21> I'm confused--according to a quick search, "touch typing" is being able to type without looking at the keyboard?

Can you even say you know how to type if you have to look at the keys to do it?

<comment><USER22> Yes. Have a look at some professionals you interact with that you'd expect to type a lot. Real estate agents, doctors, bankers, etc. You don't have to look far to find someone who pecks with index fingers whole looking at the keyboard. They sure know how to type (they produce the text they intend to) and do a lot of it every day.

<comment><USER23> Seeing people hunt for keys with one or two index fingers - not when writing something profound, requiring of thought, but simply filling out forms - <USER2> _incredibly frustrating_. I'm going to argue they can't type when they're still using the keyboard as if it's the first day they saw one.

A day or two spent learning to type would pay itself back with dividends.

I put in the ground work for touch typing at school on the good old typewriters; it was certainly the best extra curriculum subject I've ever done.

<comment><USER24> > I'm going to argue they can't type

They push the buttons and letters appear on screen. That's typing - <USER3> else is optimisation :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> When I was in school the only computers I had access to were in the schools computer halls which were shared with every other class in school. Settings like keyboard changes could not be persisted, and even so I got a different computer every time.

I love Dvorak and using it has been a huge boon for me, but I'm also able to control my environment and always use the same computer.

So I say go with QWERTY.

<comment><USER17> Even if the kid has a laptop like many do now, how easily will they learn Dvorak when qwerty comes stock?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't use Dvorak, but I've been intrigued by alternative layouts for years. I taught my daughter QWERTY years ago. My reasoning was that the speed difference between QWERTY and other layouts isn't great, technology may change input methods before she was typing enough to worry about repetitive use injuries, and primarily because QWERTY keyboards are everywhere. At school the ubiquitous keyboards are all QWERTY and at work likewise.

As an EMACS user I bind my keyboard's caps lock to ctrl. That makes me realize just how often I'm typing on someone else's keyboard (my fingers automatically hit caplock-B instead of back arrow for example). If I used Dvorak I think it would be much more frustrating trying to use a random keyboard.

It didn't take very long to teach my daughter touch typing. I would place my fingers on top of hers at first and touch her fingers during simple typing lessons to show her which finger to use. This seemed to allow her to connect a letter to the correct finger very quickly.

Xah Lee has studied typing and keyboards for years. Take a look at his web site; it's full of information [1]. He's a Dvorak user.

[1] [http://xahlee.info/kbd/keyboard_dvorak_layout.html](http://xahlee.info/kbd/keyboard_dvorak_layout.html)

</comment><comment><USER27> You can be bilingual in layouts.

I first learned QWERTY without any training, I needed to type for school and I wasn't gonna hunt and peck. Then I decided to try out Dvorak for comfort and never looked back. (Though the experience was painful to switch over after years of QWERTY)

I can still type QWERTY, in fact that's what I use on my tablet with my thumbs, it's a great layout for thumb typing, rarely do I find my fingers reaching over one another and I can type without looking at my screen.

That said, for physical tacticile button pressing, I much prefer Dvorak, even without labels (typing on a MacBook keyboard for example, I ignore the QWERTY printed layout) I don't have difficulty. It's all about the physical sensation and which mode or language or whatever gets invoked in my head.

I cannot type QWERTY effectively on MacBook keyboards or on most mechanical ones now, because of how they feel and what I use that feel for. But if it's a cheapo Logitech or dell keyboard that you find at public locations and at work, there is barely a moment of conflict.

</comment><comment> brutally-honest I switched from QWERTY to my language's equivalent of Dvorak and a few years later back.

I think most important than the layout itself, is to learn how to touch type. Keeping your fingers on the home row. Using opposing control characters instead of using one hand to reach multiple keys, etc etc.

</comment><comment><USER22> Why not both? If you're teaching kids, as long as you keep them interested, they'll learn anything. Knowing both, they'll be able to both use shared systems and choose the preferred layout for private situations.

</comment><comment><USER28> I looked at learning an alternative layout last year and opted against Dvorak, as to me it just seemed illogical (personal opinion). I ended up teaching myself the Workman layout instead ([https://workmanlayout.org/](https://workmanlayout.org/)) which is actually really nice. I was using a split keyboard and I found it very comfortable when typing prose, but I found punctuation frustrating due to the board I was using it on. I'm currently back on Qwerty as I've swapped to a different board.

Ultimately I discovered that my typing style with Qwerty was actually not stressful on the hands (I float over the keyboard a lot and definitely don't sit on the "home" keys) and my RSI at the time was instead caused by position and lack of exercise. I now type on a Japanese layout keyboard which has some interesting differences to the standard UK ISO layout. At some point I might give Workman a go on this board too, but currently I'm actually completely happy with Qwerty again. I think a lot of these alternative layouts suffer problems if you aren't a home-row typist, and I don't actually think it's unergonomic or incorrect to type in a more floating, active way. But I play a bunch of key-based instruments too so maybe that affects my preference :)

It took me about 1 month to be close to my normal typing speed when using Workman btw.

</comment><comment><USER14> Dvorak. I know 5 people, including myself, that switched to Dvorak and none of us regretted it or switched back.

It's not about speed, at least for me, but reducing stress on fingers and prevent inflammation and RSI.

Touch-typing comes easier with Dvorak. Even better if you use a Dvorak layout on a querty keyboard: there's no point in looking at the keys and this is also good for back/neck posture.

Please ignore all the people who insist on using qwerty without having had at least a year of Dvorak use experience.

</comment><comment><USER29> I've heard Dvorak users complain the regular shortcuts are geared up for QWERTY. I've also heard that Dvorak isn't any faster. All anecdotal of course.

<comment><USER17> The most common shortcuts do tend to be on the left side of a Qwerty, but in a Windows environment at least, almost every letter key is bound to a common shortcut. As an avid shortcut user, the only letters for which I can't remember a hotkey is Y, and M if you don't use Win+M.

Programs like AutoHotkey can solve that issue when available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Others answered the question, I'm just about this "I'm too old to switch" bullshit.

Whatever age you are, it will be hard. It will be very uncomfortable at first. But that's kind of great. You get to teach your brain something new. Keep pushing that neuroplasticity.

When you are old(er) it's really hard to learn something truly new. Learning most things is just connecting a few existing patterns. You'll get some dopamine and you will be really proud that you've done that.

You can also rationalize that it will pay off on the long run, but let's be real, if you are an advanced programmer you likely spend more time thinking than typing. It can be a more pleasurable experience to type though.

Take the challenge and teach yourself Dvorak (or Colemak, doesn't matter). Even if you are a proficient typer it's also a chance to do some refactoring of the skill.

</comment><comment><USER31> I use Dvorak, I'm faster in Dvorak, and have less RSI issues. As an adult that works from hardware I control I almost never have to type QWERTY anymore.

In the past things like computer labs, and locked down school computers would have pushed me to recommend QWERTY. Nowadays everyone has their own iPad, or laptop, so this is much less of an issue.

The only time I have issues is during computerized testing, or using someone else's computer. I have a USB dongle that I can put between the keyboard and computer that'll swap the characters I type Dvorak, and the dongle swaps the QWERTY input to the correct ones as I go.

For testing I can request they change the layout, but it rarely gets approved. For random people, they usually let me add another layout without issue.

I'm recommending Dvorak, but there will still be a few pain points.

</comment><comment><USER32> If you're willing to put in the effort of teaching them touch typing on a real keyboard (by blanking out the keycaps or whatnot), go ahead and teach them on Colemak or Dvorak or whatnot.

I don't care much for the arguments of the ubiquity of Qwerty for multiple reasons:

1\. They will be exposed to Qwerty on devices where touch-typing is meaningless, such as smartphones and tablets.

2\. They will learn Qwerty eventually anyway, and they'll be proficient in both. Why set them off on the worse of the two options from the start?

3\. I'm sure schools and other parts of society are moving away from shared workstations onto personal laptops, where they get to control keyboard settings.

4\. If I had to choose between being doomed to RSI or encountering keyboard incompatibilities every now and then, I would not pick RSI lightly.

Learning Colemak was painful for a while, but worth it many, many times over in retrospect.

<comment><USER33> > 1\. They will be exposed to Qwerty on devices where touch-typing is > meaningless, such as smartphones and tablets.

I'm not sure having a keyboard layout completely interalized is ever really meaningless. For example, I typed this entire reply on my phone without looking at the keyboard once, based solely on knowledge of the positions of the different keys in relation to one another. Furthermore, even if I had been looking at the keyboard, having memorized the locations of everything in some part of my mind would definitely make it faster to type than if I had no idea where anything was. Besides, if someone were most familiar with a non-Qwerty layout, why wouldn't they just set their phone to that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I taught myself Dvorak my first year in undergrad. It definitely felt easier to type, but as soon as I went to physics lab I realized I couldn't use the lab computer! I have stuck to Qwerty since then.

When your children go to school, do you think using Dvorak will make it easier or harder to use school computers?

</comment><comment><USER35> Perhaps people should also consider ergonomics. QWERTY tends to require a lot more finger movement.

[http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout- analyzer/#/main](http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout-analyzer/#/main)

Over a lifetime this might lead to RSI.

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't think there are really any downsides. I can type in both Dvorak and QWERTY at over 120wpm and don't have any trouble switching between the two. I also use QWERTY on my phone, so maybe that helps a bit.

Dvorak is definitely superior to QWERTY comfort-wise (I used to get bad RSI with QWERTY, but that doesn't happen for Dvorak), and maybe speed-wise, though my speed in both is about the same. I can keep up a high rate of speed on Dvorak longer than QWERTY, though.

An an aside, I don't think you're ever too old to try something new. I learned Dvorak as an adult and it only took me a couple weeks before I was up to my QWERTY speed. Interestingly enough, after I learned Dvorak my speed with QWERTY actually increased, for whatever reason.

</comment><comment><USER9> Choose a comfortable layout but also consider hardware and software support for it. Dvorak is a good choice. Comfortable enough and well supported. QWERTY is probably one of the worst layouts for your fingers.

I'm using Dvorak and I can still type on QWERTY keyboards with 70% of my normal speed.

I'm pretty sure the total amount of time that I'm typing on someone else's computer (QWERTY) is less than one hour per year and I don't need speed or accuracy when it happens. Not to mention, my external keyboard supports Dvorak in hardware level. So I could just connect my keyboard and type Dvorak on any computer without changing any configuration. But it happens so rarely that I don't bother to do it.

</comment><comment><USER36> I think this is almost the same as asking "should I encourage my ambidextrous child to write with his left or right hand?" You can get by just fine as a lefty, but there are daily annoyances, because the world is built for righties.

Keyboards are on computers, phones, on-screen in video games and TVs, on vending machines, and in car entertainment systems. Some of these can be converted into Dvorak if you find the right menu setting, others must be used as-is.

If someone hands you their phone or you sit down to pair program, now you have to figure out some menu setting, and then you have to remember to reverse it when you're done or the owner of the device is going to be annoyed with you. Not worth it.

</comment><comment><USER37> Teach them to use QWERTY first. It's the layout that almost everyone uses and it's one of the skills that will make them relevant in the modern workforce. The last thing an employer wants to deal with is some sap that shows up pissing and moaning that they need a new keyboard.

Teaching them DVORAK first is like raising your kids to speak Esperanto as a primary language. Sure, maybe it's an objectively better language, but at what cost?

If they actually get to the point that they're typing enough that they're interested in pursuing more efficient/ergonomic layouts, that's a choice that is best left up to them.

</comment><comment><USER38> Looks like there's already plenty here you can use to make an informed decision, but one more thing to think about:

Typing speed, beyond a basic level of competence, has pretty much nothing to do with programming skill. In fact, if your bottleneck is typing speed, you're likely better off stopping and spending some time thinking about how you might be doing things differently. (Not that we haven't all been there, but it should be a vanishingly small proportion of your overall time, hopefully.)

</comment><comment><USER39> I learnt QWERTY as a kid/teenager in Australia.

Arriving in France 13 years ago I was a bit lost tempoararily with the switch to AZERTY, almost to the point of seeking out a keyboard online to get back to a 'normal' keyboard. I stuck it out, though, and soon anything but AZERTY seemed strange and slow - visiting my parents in London and henpicking around their keyboard when I am meant to be 'the tech-y one' is always a little amusing.

Go with QWERTY, and if they want to change later they can and will.

</comment><comment><USER40> You are not too old to learn Dvorak. If you're interested in it, go for it. It took me about a week and it was a fun project. Then, after a few months I dropped it and went back to Qwerty. The world uses Qwerty and I was being too contrarian.

There's no need to subject your kids to this mess of a debate. You don't even use Dvorak at home. There's basically no chance they'd continue to use it later in life. Prepare them for the world that's actually out there.

</comment><comment><USER41> If you live in the United States, one thing to consider is that the GRE (Graduate Record Examination, standardized entrance examination for graduate school) requires the test-taker to type an essay on a QWERTY keyboard, with no possibility of using a different keyboard layout short of a documented disability. Further, spelling counts on this essay, so typos made due to unfamiliarity with the keyboard layout will bring down the grade.

</comment><comment><USER42> I type somewhere between 90-103 WPM on a QWERTY layout, and I'm not even using proper home row position. My uncle let me play with a computer starting from the age of 5, and so by the time they taught us "keyboarding" in high school, my self-taught method was pretty set in stone. I only use maybe 6 of my 10 fingers when typing.

Which is to say, your children will be fine. Just let them practice, and they'll get more than fast enough.

</comment><comment><USER43> The QWERTY standard has lasted since the Remington 2, and most devices are based on it. That's what you should teach your children first. If you intend to teach them languages early, QWERTZ or AZERTY might be valuable. If you're thinking of teaching them Mandarin, teach them to use a Chinese keyboard as well as QWERTY.

</comment><comment><USER44> Maybe not the best analogy, but teaching Dvorak is like forcing left-handed child to write with right hand. But maybe it's other way around. I wouldn't actively try to teach them anything, but let them learn on their own. At some point they would understand that my laptop keyboard is different from mommy's and adapt accordingly.

<comment><USER17> The reason it's not the best analogy is because keyboard layout is not biologically programmed like handedness. If anything, Dvorak being more ergonomic makes it more biologically friendly.

> I wouldn't actively try to teach them anything, but let them learn on their > own.

Not to dole out parenting advice, but not influencing your kid concerning a fundamental skill like typing is 1) a mistake, & 2) unavoidable once they start asking questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> They might find greater ease with learning both at this point in life. But unless you homeschool, the probability that your children will have to work on QWERTY computers they don't have the ability to change into Dvorak input mode at school approaches 1. They'll need it.

</comment><comment><USER46> No one has ever presented hard evidence that another layout is faster or healthier. Any job that requires typing faster than you can think would have to be mindless and, no matter what keyboard, would likely result in RSI. I wouldn't recommend anyone take that job.

</comment><comment><USER47> I also have kids and am interested in the same question, but I would raise it up a level and ask: "Should I teach my kids to type?"

Right now they mostly use voice recognition and seem to be getting along pretty well...

<comment> bjelkeman-again Learning to touch type was probably life changing for me. I write quite a lot of reports, business plans, proposals, grant applications etc. and I can type nearly as fast as I can verbalise what I am thinking, and it has made me super productive compared to when I couldn't type.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Don't worried. Let them choose what to play with. They will learn faster than you, I promise.

Off-topic: I'm kinda worried our kids might not know or use pens correctly if we keep pushing keyboard use.

</comment><comment><USER49> been there, use qwerty.

1\. every keyboard in the wild they encounter will be qwerty

2\. probably a matter of time before keyboard is fully optional/non existent.

This will give them zero "advantage" in the real world.

</comment><comment><USER50> You gonna teach them to carry a Dvorak keyboard with them everywhere they go too?</comment>


Show HN: Reakit, the Accessible UI Toolkit for React - <AUTHOR> https://reakit.io <comment><USER2> I'm glad to see someone so dedicated to publish an accessibility-first UI kit! I've reviewed the accessibility for 21 different UI libraries [1] and only one was fully accessible (according to my criteria). I'd like to add your library to my list, however, the color contrast of your button component is not sufficient (3.98 - it should be 4.5 for AA).

Another small issue I've found: the "npm install reakit" textarea is focusable but doesn't have a focus ring (your code examples all do). It's not as important, as this only affects your documentation page, but I'd either add a focus ring or disable the focus altogether (as the field is not editable).

[1] [https://darekkay.com/blog/accessible-ui- frameworks/](https://darekkay.com/blog/accessible-ui-frameworks/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi guys. A year ago I left my job to dedicate myself to this open source project. Now I'm finally releasing its v1.

This is the best project I've ever done in my 17 years of programming. I'm sure it'll help companies ship accessible web apps with ease.

Feedbacks are welcome.

</comment><comment><USER3> This looks like a really good library, well designed with really simple examples. Thank you for sharing it!

I will admit that it took me a bit to appreciate the extent of what the library supports browsing on my phone. It wasn't immediately obvious to me I could slide the tab bar on the main page, or that the component listing was in the hamburger menu after clicking the components link. So I had to go hunting a little bit. Also it is not possible to access the last item in the components list in mobile safari, the navigation bar obscures it. I'm not sure how much you'll want to prioritize the mobile experience of the site, but if you do I hope this feedback helps.</comment>


Interview with the Pragmatic Programmer, Andy Hunt - <AUTHOR> https://testandcode.com/69 <comment><AUTHOR> Andy Hunt and Dave Thomas wrote the seminal software development book, The Pragmatic Programmer. Together they founded The Pragmatic Programmers and are well known as founders of the agile movement and authors of the Agile Manifesto. They founded the Pragmatic Bookshelf publishing business in 2003.

The Pragmatic Bookshelf published it's most important book, in my opinion, in 2017 with the first pytest book available from any publisher.

Topics:

The Pragmatic Programmer, the book The Manifesto for Agile Software Development Agile methodologies and lightweight methods Some issues with "Agile" as it is now. The GROWS Method Pragmatic Bookshelf, the publishing company How Pragmatic Bookshelf is different, and what it's like to be an author with them. Reading and writing sci-fi novels, including Conglommora, Andy's novels. Playing music.</comment>


Ask HN: Can PostgreSQL standby read performance go down with writes on master? - <AUTHOR> Someone told me that their usual read queries are performing faster when no writes to Master. Is this possible and what could be the reason behind it ? <comment><USER2> My understanding is that when a standby/secondary database receives a replication/write-ahead log (WAL) entry from the master, it still needs to process it, just as if it had been committed on its own system. That means ensuring indices are in memory, paging things in and out of memory if needed, etc. And if your reads are of a very different character than your writes, you might see circumstances where the writes cause things to move out of cache - things that would otherwise be in cache due to the read workload alone.

In general, standby/secondary reads aren't a performance panacea. If writes, and their cache contention, are consuming 50% of your CPU and IO on master, they'll still consume about as much on secondaries. So don't expect to be able to use 100% of the secondary's capacity. But it's a decent "growth hack" if you can tolerate stale reads and just want a way to scale horizontally without regards to costs.</comment>


Show HN: Open-Source Stack for Testing and Analytics of Conversational AI - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/codeforequity-at/botium-core <comment><AUTHOR> Few years ago, when building a chatbot for an Austrian telecommunication provider, we noticed that none of the available test automation frameworks was really helping us in testing and training. So we started to build something from scratch, published it on Github, gave it the name "Botium" (Selenium for Websites, Appium for Apps, Botium for Bots ...), and 50k awesome developers downloaded it.

We gave it a pluggable architecture to work with all relevant Conversational AI and NLP/NLU providers out there, made it DevOps- and TestOps-friendly with a CLI and bindings to most loved test runners out there (Mocha, Jest, Jasmine, ...), and still the whole stack is Open Source on Github - thanks to our awesome community and cooperations with ISVs.

Curious to hear your thoughts on the topic - clearly, testing a Conversational AI holds some special challenges for you in regards of test coverage and test levels (API vs E2E).</comment>


Ask HN: Which site is best to check the domain authority of sites? - <AUTHOR> Hi all, As I use both Ahref and Moz for checking the domain authorities I'm confused in which site provides the correct DA for the sites. Both the sites different DA which will be having a huge difference. <comment><USER2> I use both but they are very limited unless you pay them.

As mentioned by jurgenwerk they both have their own version of "DA" pretty much only Google knows your "DA" they are just making an educated guess based on backlinks and other factors.

I found two sites that offer the same info for free. websiteseochecker.com's "Domain Authority Checker - DA checker - Check domain authority" and smallseotools.com's "DOMAIN AUTHORITY CHECKER."

</comment><comment><USER3> Both maintain their own backlink index and calculate their scores with different formulas. That means their authority metrics will rarely match, unless the website is very established. That said it makes little sense to compare the metrics across both providers.

Stick to the provider you trust more and perform domain/page authority comparisons in the scope of a single SEO metrics provider.

Personally, I think Ahrefs is more accurate. Their crawling bot is supposedly the second most active bot after Google.

</comment><comment><USER4> There is no "correct" as no one knows what Google is really doing.

</comment><comment><USER5> What are you actually trying to measure though?

</comment><comment><USER6> Ahrefs.</comment>


Show HN: Webdext – Extract listing data without coding - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/seagatesoft/webdext <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN,

I recently published Webdext to Chrome Web Store. Webdext is an intelligent web data extractor. It allows you to extract listing data (product listing, news listing, search result) from web pages without coding your own scraper.

Features:

1\. Extract list data automatically.

Just open the web page, wait until all target elements are loaded, then click "Intelligent Extract" button.

2\. Generate extraction rules.

Based on intelligent extraction result, Webdext can generate extraction rules. You can use the extraction rules to extract data from other web pages having the same layout. Data extraction using stored extraction rules will be faster than "Intelligent Extraction" because it doesn't need to find pattern on the web page. Webdext will just execute the rules and display the result.

Webdext was part of my Master thesis project two years ago. Initially, I wanted to add more features (pagination handling, data extraction from detail page, etc.) before publishing it to Chrome Web Store. However, I don't have the time (and motivation ) to implement those features. So maybe if many people are interested in using Webdext, I can get enough motivation to implement those features.

Please submit your feedback here: [https://forms.gle/uC7dXdSAP4cBCbQk7](https://forms.gle/uC7dXdSAP4cBCbQk7) Thanks!</comment>


Show HN: Screenshot Creator – Create beautiful assets for the App Store - <AUTHOR> https://screenshotcreator.com/ <comment><USER2> I think you can reduce friction by not forcing sign in. Why force users to sign up just to show them why they should sign up? You can watermark images.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advice! I think that's a really good callout, and it's something that I'll change pretty soon.</comment></comment>


The Slowness of Literature and the Shadow of Knowledge - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-slowness-of-literature-and-the-shadow-of-knowledge <comment><USER2> > Science and literature alike are readers of the world. And, sooner or later, > both lead us to the unreadable, the boundary at which the unintelligible > begins.

I wonder, would it be redundant to include history with these two and make it a trio? If the case being made is that science and literature are both reflective of society in a way that continues to fascinate the mind and inform future generations for time immemorial, is history as a subject or practice somehow precluded from individual consideration because it is a subset of literature? As the article notes, it is not only non-fiction, but fiction like prose, poetry and epics that have proven themselves to be an indelible mark of culture and the force of ideas and imagination.

History, at least in my opinion, is different enough from these kinds of works in both its value and its standards of research and veracity that it merits consideration. After all, history has proven that it often repeats itself and, in a way, history represents the results of these indefatigable undulations caused by, or recorded in science and literature. It is a series of guideposts in a sense, serving as records of massive success and massive failure and charting out exactly why and how it came to be this way.

</comment><comment><USER3> A fantastic thing about reading fiction is that it allows us to feel we are in somebody else's head. We can HEAR THEIR THOUGHTS. That is not possible in real life nor in movies.

Watching a movie does not create this illusion because we feel we are still we, looking at the scene.

<comment><USER4> Voiceovers are the typical film trope for this.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, unfortunately both internal monologue voiceovers and narration from the off seem to have declined in popularity with film directors over the decades. I really like what these devices can bring to the table when used skillfully.

<comment><USER4> There are strong opinions on several sides of this (I'm not particular for or against).

They can be an overused trope. They can be a critical (and often comic) element of films (Woodie Alan, _Annie Hall_ , etc.). And there are times where a character can speak volumes without words, with the right acting, direction, cinematography, and editing.

In text (absent illustrations / comics / graphic novels), words are very nearly all you've got.

(Again: a few exceptions, largely notable for proving the rule.)

<comment><USER3> Still I think he effect is much stronger when reading fiction.

In a movie you hear someone speaking. But when you read the thoughts of the protagonist written in a book those thoughts just enter your brain. The experience of reading them in the language used doesn't much differ from when you think your own thoughts.

<comment><USER4> Agreed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > I'm not thinking of how long it takes to read a book but of how long its > effects can be felt, and of the strange phenomenon that even literature > written in other times, on the basis of assumptions radically different to > our own and, occasionally, hugely alien to us, can continue to speak to > us—and, not only that, but can tell us something about who we are, something > that we would not have seen otherwise, or would have seen differently.

I think other works such as the Bible, The Epic of Gilgamesh, Bhagavad Gita, and the Koran would have made the authors point much better about how books written a long time ago and in very different circumstances still can tell us who we are.

Surely, these books have far more influence on our world than Lucretius's poems or Faust.

<comment><USER7> > Surely, these books have far more influence on our world than Lucretius's > poems or Faust.

Faust had a pretty big influence on Goethe, who used it in order to create what is "considered by many to be Goethe's magnum opus and the greatest work of German literature" (to quote Wikipedia).

I know that in the Anglo world things like German literature and the romantic movement generated by guys like Goethe didn't have that much of an effect (I think that Keats' and Lord Byron's influence was rather short-lived in practice), but here on the Continent the romantic movement's prestige was immense almost for the entire 19th century and going into the 20th (at the limit guys like Proust and Kafka can certainly be considered as romantics).

For example here's a Faust-related quote from an article talking about Lenin's high interest in European literature [1]:

> At home, Shakespeare, Goethe and Pushkin, among others, were read aloud on > Sunday afternoons (...) He devoured Goethe during his two decades in exile, > reading and rereading Faust many times.

And talking about the Soviets, let's not forget that the same legend of Faust also inspired Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" [2], one of the most interesting literary works of the 20th century.

For comparison, the Bible was not at all seen as interesting in Europe during the 19th or the 20th century, only the "réactionnaires" (as they were called in France) had any interest in it + the Pope in Rome who had almost no influence at all after Napoleon's wars.

You might accuse me of euro-centrism, and you would be right, but the fact is that almost all of the world's most influential ideas had been devised in Europe up until WW2, and only after that has US started to challenge Europe's intellectual influence.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/25/lenin-love- lit...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/25/lenin-love-literature- russian-revolution-soviet-union-goethe)

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

<comment><USER8> > but the fact is that almost all of the world's most influential ideas had > been devised in Europe up until WW2,

It is difficult to take for a fact vague statements that make sweeping generalisations without even an outline of the issues at hand. Maybe we should begin by making a list of the world's most influential ideas first?

<comment><USER7> We can look at the most influential people of the 20th century then. Leaving aside the Europeans and most of the Northern-Americans (who reguarded themselves as an European cultural colony well into the 20th century, things have started changing only with the 1950s and especially the 1960s), when you see that people like Mao-Zedong, Ho Chi Minh or Pol Pot were either European- educated or greatly influenced by European thinkers and writers (the case for Mao) then you might tone down the "unfounded generalization" accusation a little.

<comment><USER8> Any accusation of "unfounded generalization" \-- words that I did not use but that you still put in quotes as if I had -- I may have been making was towards your original point (influential ideas, not people; of all time, not just the 20th century), and not the shifted goalpost. So I don't see how your examples refute the objection in its original context.

Second, even in the restricted context, sure many very influential non- Europeans may have been European-educated (as a result of European colonisation), but that doesn't mean you can casually discard the bases of their ideologies that came from their non-European roots. Take the case of Gandhi in India. European-educated for sure, and probably the most influential Indian of the 20th century: but his most influential ideas were distinctly non-European.

Third, what about influential people who weren't European-educated or in any obvious way influenced by European thought? Take the case of Abdul Sattar Edhi, considered Pakistan's "most respected" humanitarian (quote from Wikipedia). No European influence in sight.

Outside shifting goalposts and cherry-picking, I think your original point was a bit of an overreach. You might as well add most influential in Europe, really. The world is bigger than Europe.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Spouses of Entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://meetu.ps/c/3JFsf/7mGg0/f <comment><AUTHOR> This is a group for all the spouses/partners/significant others of entrepreneurs. Doing a startup is NOT easy, being the one behind an entrepreneur is NOT easy either! We are usually the first one to hear their ideas, the first one to encourage them to purse what they believe, and the first one to cheer them up. This is a community for us to share our stories as spouses of entrepreneurs, a community to support each other and make us stronger. Let's hang out, if you are/were/will be a spouse of entrepreneur.</comment>


Show HN: Ceed Beta – a web-based, code generation platform for all languages - <AUTHOR> https://ceed.io/# <comment><AUTHOR> Here are a few additional details:

Ceed is a modern, web-based, code generation platform with support for nested templates, integrated functions, variable injection, conditions, schemas, and more. Use it to generate boilerplate code, or any other code you might need, in any programming language. Save yourself hours of time by putting an end to writing monotonous, potentially bug-filled code!

Once your scripts are ready, execute them through the browser, using our public API, or even directly in your code editor using a plugin. Ceed's flexibility allows to integrate it into your workflow however you choose. Run a script quickly with a minimal payload and be working on generated source code in seconds!</comment>


Ask HN: Can I just open source a new technology or should I write a paper? - <AUTHOR> I'm a master's student working on Bio-inspired AI. I'm making some progress on a new, online architecture that can do some cool things.
Is it advisable to write a paper before open sourcing it? Why can't I just share my code, and if people care to they can tear it apart or support it?
Why would this be any less effective than spending that time writing a paper to submit to a conference? <comment><USER2> Open source generally builds slowly. It takes time for communities to coalesce around new tech in ways that are meaningful. It is worth the effort and time it takes to keep the software updated.

For faster feedback on the core ideas, a paper would serve very well. You'll have the attention of your peers and the faculty to gather initial impressions.

There isn't any reason why you couldn't do both. Open sourcing new ideas doesn't mean you cannot write a paper on the subject. The code is still your idea at the core. Refinement of the code doesn't change that fact.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great points, I think I may be overestimating the speed of Open Source development in my mind, leading to the mistaken assumption that all my time should be used rapidly building better tech. If that isn't the case, and there's bound to be a slow uptake on the OS side, it certainly seems prudent to shift my attention over to communicating and disseminating my work, perhaps through a paper.

<comment><USER3> What I have seen lately is, writing a paper + open sourcing code, would be more beneficial than doing one thing. At the end, you will be talking to two communities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Open sourcing your code is a way of "writing a paper" \-- it's a way to get it out there.

One paper rarely does anything. Likewise one repo. Certainly each can point to the other which may help someone else to understand what you were trying to accomplish, and hopefully build upon it.

Regardless of all of the above: making a public repo with an open source license is a good thing to do if the alternative is for it to be dropped. Back in the early 80s I wanted to see some code written by one of my advisor's prior students (for his PhD) back in the late 70s. I had to send him email to Sweden, where he had since gotten a faculty position, and he sent me a tape! His code was no longer on MIT backups. All this for what turned out to be me reading a few functions our of his implementation that explained something I hadn't understood in his thesis. Had I known, I could have just asked him the question. Or today, looked at the code on GitHub.

I think you may also get some satisfaction in writing up your work. You can store the paper in the repo as well, of course, in addition to submitting it to a journal or giving it at a conference.

</comment><comment><USER5> If your technology is patentable, you may want to patent it and then put the patent in the public domain to prevent it from being patented by some other person. Public disclosure does much the same thing but filing a patent is much more effective.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't see any reason you can't do both of these things. A benefit to open sourcing the code might be that it gets feedback from a wider audience beyond peer review.

</comment><comment> bra-ket create a landing page first with a "fork me" link to github repo, brief description,docs/papers and examples of usage</comment>


App Performance Café – A mobile app performance Podcast - <AUTHOR> http://performancecafe.codavel.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> A relaxed coffee always brings an insightful conversation. And when it comes to mobile app performance, coffee is always a useful tool. Join us at the App Performance Café, where Rui Costa, CEO at Codavel, brings the most knowledgable individuals for an informal conversation around the vast world of mobile app performance. Our guests will share the challenges and obstacles, strategies, and lessons learned when building top-performing mobile apps. Across multiple episodes, we'll cover the connection of mobile app performance with topics like networking, infrastructure, monitoring, UX, business metrics, app development, security, and performance culture, to name a few. \- Visit [http://performancecafe.codavel.com](http://performancecafe.codavel.com) for more information. \- Powered by Codavel: [https://www.codavel.com/](https://www.codavel.com/)</comment>


How to Write a Thank-You Note - <AUTHOR> https://themorningnews.org/article/how-to-write-a-thank-you-note <comment><USER2> There are a couple of things that make me sad about this article, and I'm on the run so I'll only make a few points.

One is the implied greed of the reader: "They [thank-you notes] improve the frequency and quality of the gifts you receive." As if expressing gratitude was intended to yield gifts! Maybe for someone, but that's far from my reasons to say thank you.

Also, the formula that is guaranteed to "never fail" makes a number of hidden assumptions, e.g., that the gift is meant to be used (point 3). What if I live far from sea and get a stone from the ocean from my friend who's just returned from there? What I'd like to say is: "Dear John, thank you for the stone. I like to think that you had thought of me as you picked it up. When I look at it, I think of you and how important part of my life you are. Thanks for being it."

There are better formulas. Ones that work for me revolve around non-violent communication: read up Marshall Rosenberg or "The Power of Gratitude" by Liv Larsson for details.

<comment><USER3> My question to you might be off topic. I am not a native speaker. Is your use of "a couple of" indicates a few or STRICTLY TWO?

<comment><USER4> A few, but it works for two or more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Writing thank-you notes fills me with such an intense dread and self-loathing that I've generally tried to avoid occasions on which others would give me gifts. One tip I recently discovered, aside from having my wife dictate the text of the note to me, is to actually make 6ish-second thank-you videos. It is a lot easier (for me at least) just press record, enthusiastically say what is in fact a short message, and send it with a speed that prohibits you from getting caught in some weird spiral of thought.

</comment><comment><USER6> Also useful but notably absent from this article – brevity.</comment>


Has Uber Made It Easier to Get a Ride in the Rain? [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://ftp.iza.org/dp9986.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Synopsis:

In New York City (NYC), it has been a common complaint that it is difficult to find a taxi in the rain. Using all Uber rides in NYC from April to September 2014 and January to June 2015, we show that the number of Uber rides is significantly correlated with whether it rained. The number of Uber rides per hour is about 25 percent higher when it is raining, suggesting that surge pricing encourages an increase in supply. During the same time period, the number of taxi rides per hour increases by only 4 percent in rainy hours. We then show that the number of taxi rides per hour decreased by approximately 8 percent after Uber entered the New York market in May 2011, confirming that Uber is depressing taxi demand. Last, we test whether the total (Uber plus taxi) number of rides in rainy hours increased since May 2011. Our estimates suggest that the total number of rides increased by approximately 9 percent since Uber entered the market and that it is relatively easier to get a ride in rainy than in non-rainy hours in post-Uber years.

</comment><comment><USER2> Yeah</comment>


Create a Crisis, Capture a Unicorn - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/business/crisis-management-ipo-unicorn.html <comment><USER2> This is funny, but I'm not sure what the actual point is.

<comment><USER3> He has a business model[1] that sounds valid, and the reason he cannot implement is because his partner is "burdened with a sense of ethics and even a conscience". Not hard to imagine that there are other people out there who are not burdened with that.

Another aspect might be that there are ways to benefit from stirring up crises without solving them (like ad-financed social media and news sites).

[1] Concocting crises in order to get paid for solving them. Like the Charlie Chaplin scene where the kid gets paid by the window repair guy to break windows.

<comment><USER4> > _Another aspect might be that there are ways to benefit from stirring up > crises without solving them (like ad-financed social media and news > sites)..._

This has become laughably transparent recently. With lots of people out saying that we need to stop the data privacy violations of social media/news sites by "breaking them up", while almost none of the people advocating breakups want to simply make it illegal to share user data for commercial purposes. It didn't occur to me until you mentioned it that, of course! You know? I mean they probably want to be able to have one of those little companies and share your data to make money.

I really should have figured that out before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is such a frustrating article because the kernel of the idea is _really_ interesting. It reads like the writer jumbled up a bunch of recent events into a column and called it a day.

There are real-life examples of this phenomenon. The best I can think of is the 'Children Overboard' scandal in Aus [0] that fabricated an 'illegal immigration crisis' that only they could solve. Thus changing the political landscape around refugees for decades

[0] Prepare to be depressed : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is not funny, but I'm not sure what the actual point is.

<comment><USER7> That was my thought as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I mean this is a valid short strategy so...</comment>