0 degrees celsius + 0 degrees celsius -  - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=2VC&pwst=1&rls=Palemoon:en-US:unofficial&nfpr=1&&sa=X&ei=c_JpTP6_GoK88gaZgOmyBA&ved=0CBYQBSgA&q=0+degrees+celsius+%2B+0+degrees+celsius&spell=1 <comment><USER3> It looks like it must be using kelvin as its canonical units:

      0C + 0C = 273.15 K + 273.15 K = 546.3 K = 273.15 C

The weirdness is that conversions like that don't work for units that have different zero points. Perhaps addition of temperatures isn't really well defined? If 273.15 K + 273.15 K does _not_ equal 0 C + 0 C, despite 273.15 K = 0 C, it's not clear what addition "means" in this context.

One restricted form of addition that makes sense (which maybe is what's intended?) is to consider the 1st temperature an actual temperature, and the 2nd temperature a temperature _difference_ in units of degrees-C (or degrees-K, or degrees-F). So e.g.:

      "5 C warmer than 30 C"
      = 30 C + 5 C
      = 303.15 K + 5 K
      = 308.15 K
      = 35 C

But then addition isn't commutative. The problem is that "degrees C" is overloaded here, to mean both a position on a scale, and the size of a unit on that scale, with no conventional short way of distinguishing which one you mean (which is one reason Kelvin was invented, since things aren't ambiguous if you put absolute zero at 0 K).

<comment><USER4> Google can actually differentiate between the two meanings: degrees Celsius and _Celsius degrees_.

As you explained, the query posed by the title is meaningless, but 0 degrees Celsius + 0 _Celsius degrees_ is handled correctly: [http://www.google.com/search?&q=0+degrees+celsius+%2B+0+...](http://www.google.com/search?&q=0+degrees+celsius+%2B+0+celsius+degrees)

<comment><USER3> Ah, that's pretty interesting. It makes sense when you read the two phrasings next to each other, but it does seem like a pretty subtle wording difference. I think in practice people tend to differentiate which one is meant by context more than by "degrees Celsius" versus "Celsius degrees" being used consistently.

Should Google should convert the query somehow? It seems like adding two temperatures in degrees Celsius is something that never really makes sense (or subtracting, multiplying, or dividing them), so faithfully executing it like they currently do is rarely what's intended.

<comment><USER5> They should convert the query because that's exactly what people want to know when they type in those kinds of queries.

<comment><USER6> >> when they type in those kinds of queries

If I wanted to know 50 degrees Celsius + 35 Celsius degrees, I would probably omit the units and just ask for 50 + 35. I find it unlikely that many users actually run into this problem.

<comment><USER5> It's no big deal, sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's meaningless to add temperatures when the zero level is at +273.

It's like adding years relative to 2010 years ago - it would be meaningless to add this year - 2010 - with (say) 1666 - the year of the Great Fire of London. It's meaningful to take differences (the Great Fire happened 344 years ago), but not to add. (Unless we converted to some kind of absolute time units e.g. years since the big bang)

I'd say what it's doing - converting to an absolute scale then adding - <USER2> sense.

<comment><USER8> It's meaningless to add temperatures in any circumstance. You can average temperatures, and you can add amounts of heat energy, but it is semantic garbage to try to add temperatures.

I'd say what it's doing--converting to an absolute scale then adding--is an interesting bug.

<comment><USER9> Yes, temperature addition is garbage, but the addition of an interval to a temperature is not. Consider:

        "It was 20 °C yesterday and someone told me it's 10 °C
         hotter today. What temperature is it?"

The difficulty comes when you try to write that out using addition. This is OK

        "10°C + 20°C"

because all of the units share the same null point so there is an _implicit_ null point at 273.15 K.

This is not OK:

        "293.15 K + 10 °C"

because the null point could be either 0 K or 273.15 K.

If I were google I'd just show two answers in this case:

        "10 °C hotter than 293.15 K = 303.15 K
        "293.15 K hotter than 10 °C = 303.15 °C"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Looks right to me. Asking for 0 degrees celsius + 0 degrees celsius, or put another way, "what's twice as hot as freezing water?", is profoundly nonsensical, but 273.15 degrees celsius is the closest you can get to a sensible answer.

</comment><comment><USER11> Ever tried to add two Unix Time values together? The results may look weird, but make sense if you know what you're actually adding.

Same here.

</comment><comment><USER12> The question is meaningless but google answers it in the best possible way

<comment><USER13> Arguably it oughtn't to answer it at all.

It's a bit like asking "Where do I end up if I start at Alpha Centurai and go one light year east?".

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wolfram Alpha beats Google on this! [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0+degrees+celsius+-+0+d...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0+degrees+celsius+-+0+degrees+celsius)

<comment><USER15> No it doesn't: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0+degrees+celsius+%2B+0...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0+degrees+celsius+%2B+0+degrees+F)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It sure looks really bizzare, but here it is broken down...

        "0 degrees celsius in kelvin"
          -> 0 degrees Celsius = 273.15 kelvin
        "273.15 kelvin + 273.15 kelvin in degrees Celsius"
          -> (273.15 kelvin) + (273.15 kelvin) = 273.15 degrees Celsius

Hence:

        "0 degrees celsius + 0 degrees celsius"
          -> (0 degrees Celsius) + (0 degrees Celsius) = 273.15 degrees Celsius

</comment><comment><USER17> Moral of the story: Google is a bunch of cheeky bastards.

It took me a while to understand the reasoning behind that as points on a scale versus actual temperature values ("Celsius degrees" versus "degrees Celsius," respectively).

Googling "0 Celsius degrees + 0 Celsius degrees" returns 0 Kelvin, which would be expected given the technicality in wording.

</comment><comment><USER18> Whether "degrees Celsius" refers to a point on the Celsius scale or an interval is ambiguous and is usually determined by context. Although attempts at conventions have existed the effect of typing rather than writing was not considered when they were created and so those conventions are largely ignored. In this case there is no context so google uses "degrees celsius" and "celsius degrees" to distinguish between a scale point and an interval which is a nice natural language solution in my opinion.

To better see what is happening try:

      0 degrees celsius + 10 celsius degrees
      0 degrees celsius + 10 degrees celsius
      0 celsius degrees + 10 celsius degrees

</comment><comment><USER19> WolframAlpha gets it right

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0%20degrees%20celsius%2...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0%20degrees%20celsius%20%2B%200%20degrees%20celsius)

<comment><USER20> Not really. Google's answer is correct, in as much as it can be without mentioning the materials involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you take the absolute temperatures of 0 C in actual heat and add them together, you would have a cumulative heat of 273.15 C. Makes perfect sense.

</comment><comment><USER22> 0 degrees celsius - 0 degrees celsius [http://www.google.com/search?q=0+degrees+celsius+-+0+degrees...](http://www.google.com/search?q=0+degrees+celsius+-+0+degrees+celsius)

</comment><comment><USER23> Even more confusing:

[http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&ie=UTF-8&q=0+degre...](http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&ie=UTF-8&q=0+degrees+fahrenheit+%2B+0+degrees+fahrenheit)

</comment><comment><USER24> Seems like arthmatic with temperatures is just broken. This querey: "5 degrees c + 1 degree f in fahrenheit" yields: "501.67 degrees Fahrenheit"

</comment><comment><USER25> Yeah, "It is twice as hot today as it was yesterday."

</comment><comment><USER26> As a rant, it annoys me to no end that C is the SI unit for Coulomb, yet everyone uses C as Celcius. Someone should fix that.

<comment><USER27> Well, afaik, people use ºC and not just C.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I didn't get correct answers for any of the "temperature math" problems I gave it. Something's screwy on the back end.

</comment><comment><USER29> Well, shoot, with enough ice cubes we can reverse global warming.

</comment><comment><USER30> Temperature is an intensive quantity, not an extensive quantity.

</comment><comment><USER31> what you expect is to add 0 temperature difference to 0 temperature value. What it actually calculate - sum of two temperature values. it's matter of notation imho

</comment><comment><USER32> Nice finding, now try to tell them

</comment><comment><USER33> Is this a bug or a joke?

<comment><USER34> It looks more like a bug. That, or it's a not funny joke.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affine_space>

</comment><comment><USER36> Stunning and just a little bit sad that something like this hits #2 (almost surely #1 soon).

<comment><USER25> How about upmodding some of the competing links from the top page or, better yet, <http://news.ycombinator.com/newest> ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Digging a little deeper...

      (0 degrees Celsius) + (0 degrees Celsius) - (0 degrees Celsius) = 0 degrees Celsius

      (0 degrees Celsius) - (0 degrees Celsius) = 0 kelvin

      (0 degrees Celsius) + (0 kelvin) = 0 degrees Celsius

The last 2 of the 3 are wrong, so I'd say this is definitley a bug.

EDIT: I think I figured it out. It's converting everything after the first temperature to Kelvin, without converting the first temp to Kelvin, and then just doing the arithmetic on the numbers...

      0C + 0C => 0C + 273K => 0 + 273 = 273

      0C + 0C - 0C => 0 + 273 - 273 = 0

      0C - 0C => 0 - 273 = -273 = 0K (ok, weird this one then converts back to K)

      0C + 0K => 0 + 0 = 0

EDIT 2: While this does match the results seen by google, I think _delirium's solution is more likely the reason.

<comment><USER38> 0C - 0C => 0 - 273 = -273 = 0K (ok, weird this one then converts back to K)

Your math/logic is wrong, (A - A) => (B - A) you converted 0C to both 0 and 273.

Convert everything to Kelvin and it all makes sense. It's non-intuitive because 0C indicates a positive amount of energy rather than no energy as 0K does.

<comment><USER37> If you read my comment leading up to that, you'd see why I did it that way. But I agree with the other comment that it's more likely Google is just converting everything to Kelvin as it's canonical calculating form.</comment></comment></comment>


Elixir Confs Sessions - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWbHc_FXPo2gB7HUE-2H61HAEyszAph3H <comment><USER2> There was an Elixir Conf in Berlin? And I didn't know about it?? Arghhhh

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes it was in Berlin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Any presentations folks would particularly recommend?

<comment><USER4> Honestly, most of them were great. Probably the most captivating one was Ben Tyler's fun exercise in using Riak Core to build a stateful, distributed, fault-tolerant, real-time, impress your cat application.

Chris McCord's keynote was also really interesting, he explained how he implemented Phoenix Presence using a certain kind of CRDT.

And for some laughs I recommend watching Gary Rennie's funny story about achieving 2 million clients simultaneously connected to a single Phoenix server.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just bought my ticket to the one in Disney coming up. Can't wait.

</comment><comment><USER6> I love José's talks but I wish he would show more code along with his diagrams. It's easier to conceptualize new features that way</comment>


The Big Alien Theory - <AUTHOR> http://thebigalientheory.com/ <comment><USER3> There was also discussion yesterday:

      The Big Alien Theory (thebigalientheory.com)
      126 points by miralabs 16 hours ago | 125 comments

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11353239](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11353239)

</comment><comment><USER4> If I read this correctly, the argument is that a) intelligent life could be anywhere from 50kg (a chimp) to 500kg (a small elephant). Since humans are at the low end of that range, and assuming an even distribution across the range, then most other intelligent life is physically larger than us. (There is a tangent relating to population density in there, too).

It's a clever argument. But to be honest I don't think we understand enough about how intelligence arises (consciousness) to really put a bounds on the physical size of species. For example, there is no evidence that any dinosaur was intelligent - why not? Additionally, it seems likely to me that over time humans will virtualize and inhabit different kinds of bodies, probably smaller ones, and that this could be a typical progression for intelligent biological species that don't annihilate themselves.

But most importantly, there doesn't seem to be any real utility to the argument, even if it were sound. I mean, let's say the author is right - <USER2> what? Okay, the average intelligent alien is bigger than us. What does that have to do with anything? How does it help us contact them, visit them, understand them? The only application I can think of is as material for certain kinds of science fiction authors' in-story expositions.

<comment><USER5> Yes, this arguing is totally pointless in a logical sense.

1) We have no evidence for or against it.

2) Even if we knew - it wouldn't matter at all to us.

It's like arguing about the style of gods beard or how to get rid of undetectable demons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> TLDR;

A random individual on earth is more likely to live in a country with large population.

Likewise, a random individual in space is more likely to live on a planet with large population.

Using this type of reasoning, the author shows that the human (earth) is probably part of a bigger group of species (planets) of similar size.

Therefore, we can expect most alien individuals to be of similar size to humans and alien planets to be of similar size to earth.

<comment><USER5> But only if alien life exists (we don't know) and shows the same distribution characteristics (we have no clue).

The reasoning, while consistent in itself, is based assumptions pulled from thin air.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The silly loaded dice metaphors in this article are too much. No matter how you spin it our one data point of humans on earth is just one data point and it doesn't tell us any more than that unless you also know that life elsewhere is similar to life here. But we don't know that.</comment>


Facil.io: A micro-framework for C web applications - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/boazsegev/facil.io <comment><USER2> I like the use of keyword argument syntax to specify optional arguments. I haven't seen anything like this before in C or C++, and now I would wish for it to become standard.

It's simulated cleverly using a macro that wraps variable arguments in a struct literal: See the definition of http_set_cookie in [https://github.com/boazsegev/facil.io/blob/master/lib/facil/...](https://github.com/boazsegev/facil.io/blob/master/lib/facil/http/http.h)

<comment><USER3> That's really cool, but don't unassigned fields have undefined values? How would the function know what was set? I imagine that in practice they're almost always 0, but that's not guaranteed, right? You'd need to set the struct as {0}, to have everything be 0. Is this a feature of a new(ish) standard?

<comment><USER4> It is guaranteed per C99. It's a compound initializer.

Also if you set a struct with {1} the first field is set to 1 and the rest to 0. AFAIR it was always like that (at least since standardized C, but probably earlier).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you want to do web applications in C, you may also be interested in the kcgi[1] and ksql[2]. kcgi takes a more traditional approach by using CGI rather than embedding a static file server in the final binary.

[1] [https://kristaps.bsd.lv/kcgi/](https://kristaps.bsd.lv/kcgi/)

[2] [https://kristaps.bsd.lv/ksql/](https://kristaps.bsd.lv/ksql/)

<comment><USER6> CGI adds simplicity and interoperability but takes away control and performance. FastCGI suffers from the same fundamental issue as well but to a lesser extent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is also Ulfius: [https://github.com/babelouest/ulfius/](https://github.com/babelouest/ulfius/)

<comment><USER8> And [https://kore.io](https://kore.io)

<comment><USER9> and worth to mention libh2o in h2o [https://github.com/h2o/h2o](https://github.com/h2o/h2o)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Honset curiosity: is there a reason Golang or rust couldn't perform same or better? I get why as a programmer I would use C, but what benefit does it have for the users of the app?

<comment><USER11> Sure. Go is a garbage-collected language with an immature and unsophisticated compiler toolchain, compared to the big free C compilers like GCC or Clang. The compiler limitations are solvable but GC is a core part of the language. Interoperability with C libraries is possible but not great.

Rust is built on LLVM, much like Clang. C integration is relatively easy. I think this is more viable than Go. Unfortunately, Rust is only portable to platforms LLVM supports. While that covers the majority of commonly used hardware today, it is not comprehensive. Also, Rust compile times are pretty bad, especially for optimized builds.

At the end of the day the author gets to write code in a language of their choice to scratch their own itch. End users don't care at all what language a web framework is written in.

<comment><USER12> Rust is no more a garbage collected language than C is. Just as one can implement reference counting in C, one can do the same in Rust, but it is not forced on you just like it is not forced on you in C.

<comment><USER11> I consider the standard libraries part of the language. C stdlib does not include ref counting, nor is there any refcounting construct available without building it yourself. Rust obviously has Rc<> and Arc<>.

<comment><USER12> > Rust obviously has Rc<> and Arc<> and uses it widely in the standard > library.

No, it's not. None of the core data structures (String, Vec, HashMap, BTreeMap, VecDeque), for example, use it.

Rust is not a garbage collected language in any meaningful sense of the word. Its runtime is approximately the same size as C's, and the vast majority of all memory management in the Rust ecosystem is done with traditional malloc/free calls. The only difference between Rust and C at this level is that Rust inserts those calls for you automatically. In exchange, the space of programs accepted by the Rust compiler is smaller than what is accepted by a C compiler.

> At the moment it is a garbage-collected language but IIRC they are trying to > move away from that as a requirement.

No, we're not. Because no such requirement exists and the vast majority of Rust code doesn't use reference counting at all. If anything, there are some folks that have looked into _adding_ tracing garbage collection to Rust as a library.

<comment><USER13> > In exchange, the space of programs accepted by the Rust compiler is smaller > than what is accepted by a C compiler.

The space of _safe_ programs accepted by Rust is indeed smaller, but you can use the `unsafe` keyword if that is an issue. There are even automated transpilers from C to `unsafe` Rust.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The example has functions' string parameters and separate parameters for the string's length. Is this really necessary what happens if the declared length is more than the actual length?

<comment><USER2> Knowing nothing about this, I would guess that this is to allow sending binary data that contains embedded null bytes?

Though I guess it would be good to have nicer wrappers for the common case where you do only send text.

<comment><USER11> Probably they use length-prefixed strings internally (which is probably a requirement for taking a C web framework seriously), but allow C nul- terminated strings at the API boundary for convenience of use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Where's TLS? And http/2?

<comment><USER16> People who serve SSL out of their Java servlets by installing certificates to random Tomcat and Linux system directories are already a little crazy.

You'd have to be a real maniac to serve TLS in someone's random C framework.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Pretty cool! but it doesn't support HTTP2 which is a bit disappointing

<comment><USER11> The FreeBSD project has been dealing with HTTP2 interoperability hell over the last month. (Curl 7.62 may or may not talk to Phabricator if HTTP2 is enabled; it seems to depend on some local conditions and the phase of the moon whether it works or not. HTTP1.1 just works.) Given that experience with HTTP2, I'm quite happy to stick to HTTP1.1 for now.

<comment><USER17> HTTP1.1 is expected to just work it has been here for a very long time. It takes time to understand, support and adopt new technology. I'm not sure if the blame should be on HTTP2 in this case.

<comment><USER11> Regardless of who the blame should land on — I don't have a strongly held opinion about that — the point remains that HTTP1.1 _is_ a super old, well understood, relatively simple protocol that everyone has done correctly for years. In comparison, HTTP2 is the new, more complex thing and it's understandable there are growing pains and incompatibilities. I just don't want to debug those issues in something that worked great for me on HTTP1.1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> only thing i did not understand is port being string/char*

other than that, clever api

<comment><USER11> Probably for getaddrinfo():

[http://beej.us/guide/bgnet/html/single/bgnet.html#getaddrinf...](http://beej.us/guide/bgnet/html/single/bgnet.html#getaddrinfo)

<comment><USER19> I see you can use a name (rather than a number) for the port like "ftp" or "http".

<comment><USER11> Yep. On a unixy system, check out /etc/services.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Two Years On Stackoverflow - <AUTHOR> http://techblog.bozho.net/?p=658

<comment><USER2> I swear, every time I think about asking Stack Overflow a question, I find the answer after a few minutes of Googling. I've been a member for at least a year, and I've yet to ask a single question.

<comment><USER3> Same here on SO. Any question I might be able to answer tends to be flooded with good responses before I see it too.

SF and SU are another matter though. Mostly the answers I need are already there, but questions that I can give useful answers to pop up regularly and there don't seem to be quite as massive a population capable of chiming in (and willing to chime in) on each.

On all three sites it is worth having a browse of the recent and hot questions when you have a quiet moment as other people's questions and the responses, even in areas you consider yourself knowledgeable in, can be enlightening. I often stumble upon something I've wondered but not thought as far as trying/researching/asking, and occasionally I find a discussion that tells me I've been going about something-or-other a long way round.</comment></comment>


What Happens When a Restaurant Dies - <AUTHOR> http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/02/what-happens-when-a-restaurant-dies.html <comment><USER2> The theme of the article is in part how Real State can royally screw over business...

A sad, really sad thing happened in Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil.

The city center, had multiple very old business, a particular square, that had been a hotspot in imperial times when Rio was the Imperial Capital, had many business opened at those times, and that were still open... Business that survived many depressions, crisis, regime changes, world wars...

Then because of the recent real state price boom (example: in São Paulo prices on average rose 300% in 4 years), they all got outpriced in their rent... There was 250 year old shops that were still only a single location, and still renting their original location, but landowners just bumped the rent prices up by like 100% in a single year, and kicked out all those multi-hundred year shops out.

The end result looked like a sort of historic defacing, lots of shops that were there since the monarchy times, that had lots of history (for example a library where famous writers, poets and musicians used to hang out for about 200 years) were just shut down without mercy.

Some people even tried to ask the government to help... But it didn't work.

<comment><USER3> It's unfortunate for those business who were unable to afford (or decided not to pay) the new rent, but IMO it would be a greater tragedy for property rights if the owners of the buildings were exposed to all the downsides of a market where rents might fall but unable to participate in the upside if rental demand and rents turned to the upside.

"Heads I lose; tails nothing changes" isn't a stable economic system either.

<comment><USER4> It isn't quite that simple. Real estate is one of the most widely-available assets that can be as levered as it is allowed in so many nations.

This leads to perverse incentives. A property owner with a paid-up property can lever up, kick out tenants, post an out-sized rental rate, and use the credit to cover costs and missing income until a new tenant willing to pay the rental rate steps forward. Usually they step forward with the simple progression of time and inflation catching up to the new rental rate, or it's a business more heavily capitalized and banking on serving much more flush clientele (interesting discussions around the bifurcation of the economy and just how many businesses can thrive crowding into that wealthier end).

This puts lots of incentive to keep inflating real estate valuations until the credit spigot is turned off. Meanwhile, the hands on the credit spigot gets paid by the velocity of credit granted, so they get lots of incentive to keep granting credit on inflated valuations. This circle turns until it doesn't, usually with some form of falling demand exposing who wasn't wearing swimsuits as the tide goes out.

Contrast this with the asymmetric credit access available to most small businesses. They could have a longer tenure and track record than the present owners of the real estate, but still be considered a great risk because (rightfully) the credit granter will assess growth prospects to practically nil. So faced with a 200+ year old business that can definitely pay back $100K in five years, or a new property owner of the underlying real estate that might, maybe, possibly pay back $2M in 10 years if the right valuations can be signed off, which deal looks better come bonus time?

This isn't a nefarious plot or the yield of some evil; it is simple human nature played out on the canvas of time and incentive structures. There are some interesting issues to ponder here with how agency, compensation and influence are structured in the valuations process, and how that ties in with the overall cycle. As well as many other factors that don't show up on an initial cursory take of the industry. But suffice to say...it isn't quite that simple.

As for what can one individual do about it, that's a fascinating and long discussion in itself.

<comment><USER3> I think your comment is very good and agree with virtually everything you say. That said, I think the difference in access to credit is driven in large part by the collateralization and very little to do with the growth prospects (IMO).

The real estate loan is collateralized by a building and land which can be foreclosed upon in the case of default, dramatically lowering the worst-case outcome for the lender. That land and building might not be worth the face value on the loan (especially if there was a bubble pop type of event), but it's going to be worth _something_ , probably something north of 60% of the loan's face value, which was probably capped at 75% of the apparent market value of the property for a commercial cash-out loan.

In the case of a small business, especially an opex-heavy, capex-light business like a restaurant, what's the lender going to get in bankruptcy? The rights to the name of a recently failed restaurant and the picked-over remains of whatever equipment wasn't stolen or fire-sold during the last day of operation? The lender's downside asymptotically approaches 100% of the loan's face value.

If my downside as a lender is 40% in one case and secured by a hard asset and 100% in another case secured by nothing, it's no surprise that people are lined up to make the first loan relative to the second. (There's also a strong, secondary market for performing and non-performing mortgage loans that has a far weaker parallel in the small business lending arena, but that secondary market's existence is largely a consequence of the collateralization. Yes, it also suffers from or contributes to the velocity point you make.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _For the past decade, the café hasn 't had a lease with its landlord, the Edison Hotel. Its owner was another Holocaust survivor who said the café could stay as long as it wanted. Then, Strohl says, he died and his son took over. "He decided that he didn't want us here; he didn't want Café Edison and he wanted a white tablecloth restaurant, with a name chef," Strohl says._

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/12/08/369359855/dont-l...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/12/08/369359855/dont- let-the-kasha-vanish-diners-band-together-to-save-caf-edison)

 _Just two weeks after Cafe Edison was forced to shutter, Jeremiah Moss finds the legendary Times Square lunch counter barren. Booths have been torn out, signage is down, and swivel stools at the lunch counter no longer have their seats. Everything is packed up in storage, with the hope that it will make an appearance if Edison owner Jordan Strohl can find an affordable new home for the restaurant._

[http://ny.eater.com/2015/1/5/7493575/weeks-after-closing- tim...](http://ny.eater.com/2015/1/5/7493575/weeks-after-closing-times-square- classic-cafe-edison-has-already-been)

</comment><comment><USER6> Ferris Restaurant, Edinburgh. I went there in 1990s and again a few years ago. Family run Scottish Italian restaurant. It was a bit strange seeing the _same_ waiter after a 20 year gap (glamorous sharp suited younger man, plump slow ponderous but amusing older man, same as me except for the suit).

Closed. Overnight. A (no doubt fine) Lebanese opened instead.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Confidential_%28book%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Confidential_%28book%29)

</comment><comment><USER7> In 2007 my mom and I opened up a deli/cafe. We had previous experience in this industry so we didn't think we would struggle. We went bankrupt two years after that. It was an awesome experience.

It is true the rent can kill a business but it also comes down to its location, parking, getting in a out of the parking (which pisses people off if its a busy street and they have to wait because of traffic), everything needs to be running smoothly.

Starting such business is also super expensive. The good thing is that we only had to purchase the equipment. I have a construction company so the reno and everything that needed to be done was done by us. I also have a web design and marketing company so all the advertising was done in-house. These probably helped us save 50k if not more.

I remember, we had snitches coming in an out who were hired by our competitors. They would also come in and look at the expiry date of every produce in hope to find something that has expired so they can make it public.

In the end, we were about 100k out.

Anyhow, it was an awesome businesses and people loved it, however, it just wasn't enough to keep it running.

<comment><USER8> > we had snitches coming in an out

How did you figure out that they were snitches?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you're in it for the long haul, then sock away money to either buy the property, or buy property elsewhere to relocate. That will go a long way towards preventing the "hey, I want a bigger cut of your action" scenario, and provide a cushion against hard times. Of course, there's also the possibility of the local government jacking up your property taxes (something that happened to a place near me).

<comment><USER10> Yeah buying space for a restaurant in new york city...doesn't happen.

<comment><USER11> It happens: [http://www.slate.com/articles/business/continuously_operatin...](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/continuously_operating/2014/10/katz_s_delicatessen_how_the_iconic_deli_stays_in_business_against_the_odds.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >> The IRS comes after you because you're behind on sales taxes.

Nitpicking here, but that would be the state revenue department, not the IRS. The IRS doesn't collect any sales taxes afaik.

</comment><comment><USER13> Was struck by how they got them out despite the lease - sure, on paper you're supposed to pay x, but we want more...

<comment><USER14> That sounded a bit odd - I can see the issue from either side, but why were they still paying a rent negotiated 15 years ago? Did the landlord actually sign a 15+ year contract? Did they fail to bump the rent over a couple of renewals?

I'd think there's gotta be a better solution before things come to that.

<comment><USER15> > I'd think there's gotta be a better solution before things come to that.

Well, for whom? If you have the contract that says the rent is a quarter of the market rate why would you agree to pay more?

<comment><USER16> Because you should think of contracts as underspecified interfaces between two parties. If I'm actually unhappy with you and want out, I can perform my side of the deal adversarially - technically and legally in line with the contract, but otherwise not exactly what you expected. So you have some incentive to keep me happy and renegotiate up the rate voluntarily, since otherwise I will act adversarially on all the things that are not explicitly specified in the contract.

This can work depending on the extent to which the contract is underspecified. You will note, for instance, that the hotel cut off room-service access to this restaurant. Clearly they didn't specify room-service availability in the contract, and so on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Maybe it's just rhetorical flourish, but the article takes a hit on the ol' credibility meter when the opening paragraph says: "The IRS comes after you because you're behind on sales taxes." IRS doesn't give a hoot about your sales taxes, except to the extent you deduct them.

<comment><USER15> The guy's not a tax expert; he's probably muddled the difference between state and federal tax authorities. That's not really the focus of the article at all.

<comment><USER18> Agree with this. People forget that if they have no sales they still have to file their quarterly sales tax forms with 0 filled in. The tax service never 'assumes' if they didn't get the form you didn't have any sales. Unwinding that can be challenging.

<comment><USER19> NY charges sales tax on food/drinks sold in restaurants.. so they wouldn't have been filing a 0 return anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It just horrible !

This type of incidents happens to me. I was thinking that our nearby restaurant was alive and open ! but one of my emergency reasons I went to eat at my nearby one, but unfortunately that was closed forever !

I becomes upset ! this is the moment I never forget !

</comment><comment><USER21> _First came an offer to buy out the lease from the restaurant. Once the restaurant dismissed that, the hotel 's strategy changed: Starve 'em out. They cut off its room service business, then started renovations on the building during the summer (tourist season), obscuring the restaurant from public view. When that failed to drive the restaurant out, mysterious complaints to the Department of Health started coming on a weekly basis; the restaurant was shut down by the DOH no fewer than three times._

OP should have outed the hotel, and given names and, if available, addresses of its owners and management. That shit may be technically legal, but it shouldn't fucking be safe.

<comment><USER16> I mean, if DoH actually shut down the restaurant, presumably the restaurant was in fact in violation of various (at least three!) health code regulations.

<comment><USER22> Having spent over a decade working as a cook in various restaurants, I can assure you that at any given time, most restaurants are in violation of far more than three health code regulations. And the cliche is true, the more expensive the restaurant, the nastier the kitchen.

<comment><USER23> When this is the case, sympathy for a shut down restaurant is gone. I don't particularly care about conspiracy to shut down a restaurant serving dirty food, regardless of the intentions of the conspirators.

<comment><USER24> Violating regulations does not necessarily equate to "dirty food". For example, in SF it's OK for a coffee shop to sell ice cream in cups, but a health code violation to do so in cones.

[http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2011/05/26/big- government...](http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2011/05/26/big-government- wants-your-ice-cream-cones/)

Also: [http://www.grubstreet.com/2014/03/per-se-health- department-i...](http://www.grubstreet.com/2014/03/per-se-health-department- inspection.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Just logged into Yelp today to discover that some of my favorite restaurants in SF have closed!

<comment><USER26> Yeah, SF is really changing face. Not sure it's a good thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The selfishness that fuels Capitalism I find sad. I know the other systems didn't pan out(yet), but the level of abject greed seems, in the long run, counterproductive? I understand making a profit; I don't understand greed. Yea--"Greed is good!" It was a movie quote. Why do I feel some people actually think it's cool now?

I'm not commenting on this particular resturant, but business--even personal financial transactions seem to have gotten too cut throat? Maybe I never noticed just how greedy some entities and people are, but it seems to have gotten worse? I can't blame it on the Internet. I saw the change in the 80's.

I'll give one example I see going on in this county. A person buys a house. They rent out a room. They become friends with the tenant. The tenant helps the landlord on a personal level--like taking them to doctor's appointments, they socially interact, they are kind of like family. But the Landlord continually raises rent to market rates. Well, eventually the tenant loses respect and moves out. Who won?

The Doctor who drags in patients for unnesarry office visits?

The Veterinarian who jacks up their prices when an "animal lover walks in". (Yea, I had a girlfriend who worked at a veterinarian hospital and they had a code they threw around the office when they thought they could "financially milk" a pet's owner.)

I mortgage broker who knows the deal is horrid, but smiles right through the bankruptcy.

I'm not a religious person, but I was brought to a Lutheran Church as a kid for years. I sat there thinking how can I incorporate this selflessness that guy up there is talking about into the real world. I never found a fool proof plan, but I was never greedy. I will die knowing I tried to do the right thing, and it was not about the money. The problem is I might die Homeless, and I know that's no way to live a life.

I just wish the people who call the shots--would show a little bit of compassion. A little bit? Enough so when you do die--the people at your funeral are there because they truly loved, and respected you.

I'm not preaching. I just don't think maximizing profits in every situation is copacetic! And just because it's legal, doesn't make it right, at least in my little world. I'm feeling nauseous. It's this post I'm writing, or something is wrong with my liver? If there is a God please give me a few more years, or take me out without the pain my father went through.</comment>


Feedburner is Google's biggest screw-up to date - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/feedburner-is-googles-biggest-f-up-2009-9

<comment><USER2> I think Google Checkout is far and away a bigger screw up...

Incidentally I signed up one of my blogs for FB yesterday. It was a mess of a signup and very confusing once complete how to actually use FB.

</comment><comment><USER3> Does anyone else feel like lately Google is looking more like Microsoft?</comment>


Hide your kids, hide your wife, hide your developers  - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/10/founders-beware-500friends-will-catch-your-developers-with-seed-capital-bait/

<comment><USER2> I love this idea.</comment>


The Computer Will See You Now  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/opinion/06coben.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Most of his gripes seem to be coming from the software UI. All these problems seem readily addressable, there are numerous EMR systems out there with vastly different UIs, some more intuitive than others. It's a shame that his article seems to suggest that ALL EMRs suffer and will always suffer from these problems.

It's amazing how many don't see software as something that's malleable and can be suited to their needs. Hopefully an EMR manufacturer will publicly respond to these concerns, else this can become the general view of EMRs if for no other reason than a quick Google search on EMRs will likely result in this article, thus giving any opposer the necessary ammunition for an argument.

<comment><USER2> her gripes :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Uncomfortable using computers in the examination room to enter patient data in realtime?

How about simply entering in the notes that you write on paper during the exam into your records database when you are done and alone. You can even scan images that you draw; however, I would take a high resolution digital photograph instead ( that would save even more time ).

And you might as well scan the whole page of notes into the system as well.

<comment><USER3> > How about simply entering in the notes that you write on paper during the > exam into your records database when you are done and alone.

Given the training she has received, and the salary she receives, I would prefer her not to be spending time transcribing her notes from one system to another. It will put further pressure on the number of patients she can see. You could employ someone else to transcribe her notes at a salary more reasonable for the work but it is still, or at least should be, an unnecessary overhead.

Digital photos are a good idea although frequently details are sometimes difficult to pick out so I would say it's vital that any system makes it trivial to annotate the images.

<comment><USER2> > I would prefer her not to be spending time transcribing her notes from one > system to another.

Ok. But data needs to be entered in the system somehow and patients need care and attention; and it makes sense to me to focus on one thing at a time, especially with a mission critical field such as health care.

> You could employ someone else to transcribe her notes at a salary more > reasonable for the work but it is still, or at least should be, an > unnecessary overhead.

People differ philosophically concerning what is important in health care. Some want quality and some want cheap ( most probably want both ). I don't work in the health care industry but I am curious how doctors would want to have their jobs structured at HMOs; do doctors want less patients and more time spent with them or do they want less time and the ability to see more patients?</comment></comment></comment>


BlackBerry to cut 4,500 jobs, predicts 2nd quarter loss of $950M - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/blackberry-to-cut-4-500-jobs-1.1862420 <comment><USER4> The timeless story of Ozymandias -- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias) \-- (if you don't know the 1818 sonnet by Shelley, read it before downvoting. It's relevant and timeless)

I met a traveller from an antique land

Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,

Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown

And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.

And on the pedestal these words appear:

`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:

Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,

The lone and level sands stretch far away".

EDIT: Thanks for the link to the excellent Breaking Bad video. For what it's worth, I haven't seen an episode since season 3 so didn't realize the coincidence. My pop culture connection would have been to Watchmen.

<comment><USER5> There's something particularly ironic about calling _Ozymandias_ timeless.

<comment><USER6> The poem is itself ironic... it's about Ramses III who rule c. 1000 BC and yet was famous enough that poetry would be inspired by him 3000 years later.

<comment><USER7> I agree. When I was younger, I only got the obvious message about the transience of material accomplishment. The poem is more multifaceted than that.

One starting place is to think about the layers of interpretation (Ramses -> sculptor -> traveler -> narrator). Everyone concerned is still talking, in different ways, about the memory of Ramses.

As long as we're on the topic, here's one of my favorite expressions of parallels between us and people in the past:

[https://plus.google.com/+Cornell/posts/MSaUEUpVB8q](https://plus.google.com/+Cornell/posts/MSaUEUpVB8q)

This bench sits behind the library at Cornell University.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've been thinking about RIM lately and I think they basically had chances to turn themselves around, but took neither.

The first was in '08/'09 - shortly after the iPhone. Some companies (Google, Samsung) saw where the industry was going, made the appropriate decisions and are now profiting handsomely. In hindsight, that was the right time for RIM to acquire QNX and start on BB10, which might have done very well had it come out in 2011. With decent hardware, a solid OS, their own style and riding on BBM (big at that time), they might have staked a sustainable 10-15% chunk of the market.

The second chance was '10/'11, around the time of Nokia's Burning Platform Memo. This is when RIM started on BB10, but as we see now, it was already too late. Had they bet heavily on Android and on their strengths (security, gov & enterprise sales), they might be doing pretty-well today.

I hope the Waterloo area survives this well.

<comment><USER9> These are always more easily seen looking from the future into the past, than they are in the past looking to the future.

Few companies, with the market share RIM had, see threats as 'near term'. Fewer still have a deep appreciation for the entirety of the technology stack and the time it takes to move things. This is especially true of young executives but can happen to anyone.

RIM's technology stack matured over many years, from idea to business juggernaut. What that tells you is that moving the stack is also going to take years, so if you're experienced you start looking 5 - 6 years out not 1 - <USER2> years out.

When the iPhone hit, and Google was close behind, that was a huge signal. But Ballmer and Microsoft dismissing it, was a huge counter-signal. If you're an enterprise IT company, and the biggest company in Enterprise IT in the market place is dismissing the iPhone as a 'fad', you might be inclined to believe them rather than your own people who are saying "this is a threat".

At some point you get behind the power curve. In airplanes once you are behind the curve there is literally nothing you can do which will prevent you from eventually crashing. The same it true in companies. RIM apparently decided early on that Microsoft was a more credible indicator of the future than Apple/Google _for their marketplace_. And they have paid the ultimate price for that.

<comment><USER10> nit, but Ballmer did not dismiss the iPhone, he dismissed the $500 on contract iPhone. And he even said "it may sell very well". Here's the actual video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U)

I know it's become fun to pretend like Ballmer dismissed the iPhone but I have a hard time watching that video and seeing anything like that.

<comment><USER9> That is a fair point. Microsoft's behavior however, with regard to "supporting" the iPhone as a new way to do business, was tepid at best.

<comment><USER11> Why would Microsoft have to "support" the iPhone way back then? I'm pretty sure they would have supported it if they had ready iPhone competitor back in the days, but given that they didn't have it, the only logical thing to do about it is to ignore it and silently working on catch up, which is exactly what they did.

<comment><USER9> At the time Microsoft was the single largest supplier of IT software to enterprises. Part of the appeal of Blackberry phones was they integrated well with the systems used in the enterprise.

In that environment, if Microsoft starts supporting iPhone like they support Blackberry (Exchange integration, a sharepoint app, what have you) then it is a strong signal that Microsoft has looked at the iPhone, and what it represents, and has decided its going to be a 'big deal' in the Enterprise space going forward.

It's an imperfect signal to be sure, but often treated like an 'outside opinion.' Using an example from my own history, I was trying to get NetApp to build a filer on the Opteron hardware and the lead marketing guy wouldn't believe the AMD64 stuff was "real" until Dell started shipping a server using it. That was a tool he was using to validate (or invalidate) my argument that AMD64 was the future of the x86 architecture.

So RIM, seeing Microsoft's response, might use that to "confirm" an internal opinion that the iPhone (and perhaps smart phones in general) wasn't a serious threat.

I of course have no way of knowing one way or the other, but I've seen it happen that way, and the hypothesis fits the actions as we know them today. I presume they could have started/done the BB10 "anytime" but only started once they had collectively internalized the threat to their market. So by that reasoning I speculate they didn't believe it to be a threat until much later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> started developping apps for mobile in 2009. at that time, i aimed for ios development and blackberry. it took me 2 months to get my first app on ios, and i thought "ok, now let's start learning about blackberry".

So, i downloaded their doc. iirc, they had three ways to develop apps. one was using web technology, and you couldn't do much. then they had two different sets of java apis : an old, discontinued one, with which you seemed to be able to have things work, and a new one, soon to be released, and undocumented.

so i installed their sdk, on my mac, and tried to run a "hello world". but their sdk required windows, because the simulator didn't exist on mac. i had just bought and dual-boot installed a windows 7. but the sdk was just for xp, so i had to run an XP vm inside my windows. then i launched eclipse, to launch the simulator, to launch the Java program that was supposed to run my hello world.

i never was patient enough for that hello world to show.

then i said " well...let's get back to that once a customer ask for a blackberry development".

and guess what, that customer never came.

<comment><USER13> I had almost this exact same scenario happen to me. As a developer, I was excited to see what new fun things at the time (2009) were coming out of RIM. To my dismay, like yours, I couldn't even get a hello world to run after much tinkering and configuring. After I learned that they didn't even use the SDK they released into the wild in their own development, I knew it was a lost company. Dogfood and all that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's unfortunate, as someone who just purchased a Q10 (switched from Android), I think they've finally got their act together and released something excellent.

The Q10's battery life is great, the hardware keyboard is solid and travels well. The Paratek antenna gets the best reception and data connection of any device I've ever used. The BB10 software isn't great, but it's decent. (It's certainly far better than where WebOS / iOS / Android was when they launched. Even today, BB10.2 is significantly better / more powerful than Windows Phone 8, even if the UI is less well defined).

Their story, to me, seems almost down to timing. They're executing pretty well right now, it's just two to three years too late.

It will be sad to watch all that hardware die. In a year or two, there probably won't be _any_ devices available that have a large battery, solid hardware keyboard, and decent cellular data reception.

<comment><USER15> This is frustrating - I agree that they've finally gotten their act together, particularly with 10.2. The writing has been on the wall for a while - <USER3> stopped building apps for them earlier this year.

I've tried Android and iPhone and don't particularly want to return to either one. The former because of too many apps that want all the permissions under the sun while the OS offers a complete lack of fine-grained controls of them[1], and a subpar UI experience (subjective, I know). The latter due to lack of control without rooting it. My windows 8 desktop experience has spoiled that OS for me on a phone, fairly or otherwise.

But it begins to look like I will have no choice very soon. I hope they manage to pull out of this - they're still releasing a new flagship, and have other irons in the fire - but it's not looking good.

[1] as in 'yes, let the app get to GPS, but no do not let it get to my personal data or phone info'. Something BBOS legacy offered, and BB10 only slightly less - when you make an app you were expected to plan for the user to deny functionality and degrade nicely.

<comment><USER14> I completely agree, especially around the permissions.

I'm also worried that this is the end. Every previous company thats built decent 'prosumer' or 'power-user' phones appears to be dead or dying.

I loved my Palm Pre (WebOS), it was my first smartphone. They're dead now.

I upgraded to an HTC Arrive (Windows Phone 7), but HTC's slowly dying off, and no one makes (or Microsoft blocks?) hardware keyboards for that platform now. Windows Phone also didn't support any notifications or push notifications at the time (and 'live tiles' aren't solid enough to replace them).

I upgraded to a Motorola Photon Q. Software's ok, and there's no terrible skin. But the battery life and reception are both terrible (and the battery is sealed in, so every day it gets worse...). I knew the sealed battery was a mistake, I tried it anyway and got burned. Won't be making that mistake again.

The Q10 was my last refuge. When BlackBerry goes away, I suspect there will be _literally nothing left_ for me to turn to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Was digging up some numbers. In 2010, BlackBerry still sold more phones than Apple.

How the mighty have fallen.

<comment><USER16> What were the real problems then that led to their fall? Lack of technology innovation? badly run company and operations? lost touch with the consumer? All of the above?

<comment><USER17> I'd put it under both "lack of technology innovation" and "lost touch with the consumer".

Around 2007 with the release of the iPhone, the smartphone market shifted massively. Within a relatively short time, people wanted phones with (relatively speaking, for the time) gigantic screens, no hardware keyboards, fluid touch-based UIs, and abundant third-party apps. Apple delivered on this, and Google followed fairly closely behind.

BB was caught flat-footed and took years to catch up on the UI and form factor, by which time they were too late to catch up on the apps, which is probably what ultimately killed them. BB's success was in a time where the phone maker and the carrier were expected to provide nearly all of the useful functionality on a phone, whereas with iPhone and Android, while they're still expected to be useful out of the box, it's also expected that the user will heavily customize them with third-party apps.

<comment><USER18> Those problems might not have been insurmountable. But the app situation was at the very least an illustration of why they were doomed from the get-go. When you require someone to send in a notarized photocopy of your government ID card before you'll let them develop software for your platform, well. . . I don't even know what to say. That policy spoke for itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I was really hoping they could turn it around -- by all accounts the new phones are pretty nice and the mobile OS market could use some more serious competitors. But they have virtually no apps and no clear path to getting apps. Combine that with BYOD policies that let employees bring their own phones instead of having one issued and their whole sales model goes out the window.

<comment><USER20> They don't have some big name apps like Audible yet (there are substitutes) but the app selection is decent. There are even some gems for BlackBerry you won't find anywhere else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Speaking as an enterprise customer on long upgrade cycles, RIM/Blackberry badly judged the situation vis a vis their enterprise customer base.

The new Z10 was not compatible with their large install base of Blackberry Enterprise Server. Anyone still running BES at the time the Z10 was introduced was likely to be a shop interested in security and control of the mobile platform their end users were using.

Which is why businesses like my employer and many others kept buying BB OS7 devices (did you notice they didnt break numbers out and actually mentioned BBOS7 as a significant portion during their investor call ?)

TL;DR: They thought all their enterprise customers would upgrade fast, they guessed wrong.

</comment><comment><USER22> We're closing in on the launch of cross-platform BBM, and much of the work for that wasn't even done internally. They contracted that stuff out. Now they're cutting actual BB people. A lot of it is dead weight, and the usual bloated middle management, but I can't wait to see who else gets the axe here.

Make no mistake, the goal is to sell the company at this point. That is why BBM is suddenly the focus. They know that they aren't going to stay afloat with phone sales. They'll cut to the bone, and beef up one of their main commodities (BBM) until the sale happens.

<comment><USER23> This is incorrect. It was mostly done in-house, with some outside help.

<comment><USER22> Mostly? This may depend on perspective. The infrastructure behind the app is definitely in-house, but the UI isn't at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> NO. Teary eyed. :(

3.7 million phone sales are nothing. Only if they had copied iOS the Samsung way in time.

<comment><USER25> Why? The problem isn't with the phones. The Z10 and Q10 are fantastic and BB10 is probably the best business-centric OS ever written. The problem is that the applications are just not there, and that people associate BlackBerry with reboots, battery pulls, and outdated, clunky software, even though that's not the case.

It's an image problem, not a phone problem. They can't market like Apple used to. If they could, they would get more sales, but their marketing is just pitiful.

<comment><USER26> "best business-centric OS" and there it is.

same idiocy as MS.

it's either user-centric or it isn't. BB catered to "business", but that meant IT. the users, managers, switched privately to iPhones. then demanded them from IT. boom, headshot.

BYOD is what kills "business-centric".

BB realized that, tried to position BBM as a user centric thing. too late. and schizo, as the playbook slogan "amateur hour is over" showed.

<comment><USER27> It used to be business-centric was enough.

Now user-centric is coming fast and hard to the business market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I sympathize strongly with the people who lost their job. I don't, however, sympathize with the company that made their decision to go it alone despite overwhelming evidence that there isn't room for another platform. iOS, Android, the Web. That's it. That's all there's going to be for the foreseeable future in mobile. Even Microsoft is failing at this. How much evidence does a company need to see that their strategy was doomed?

It's classic innovators dilemma. BlackBerry could think of nothing but protecting their existing business, even with failure staring them in the face. They should have been planning more for the next phase of the company (whether that be selling enterprise servers or whatever else) and made a small, cheap, play at restoring their phone business (probably by forking Android).

<comment><USER28> "I don't, however, sympathize with the company that made their decision to go it alone despite overwhelming evidence that there isn't room for another platform."

\- I'm confused. They were THE leading mobile platform. So they didn't decide to enter a crowded market. The market got super crowded and they didn't respond well. But I don't understand the "go it alone" unless you mean innovating too late to roll out a new OS that was touch driven vs BB keyboard.

<comment><USER10> They decided to compete on operating systems well after it was obvious that a 3rd operating system wasn't going to make it. Numerous companies had failed or were failing on that strategy already.

<comment><USER29> They were ALREADY on first place, what you are saying makes no sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I have built software for large BlackBerry customers and met with RIMM people before. 3 years ago, I had suggested they should create an enterprise-oriented Android phones, such like Amazon created media-oriented tablets. 3 years ago, RIMM was still the #1 in enterprise smartphone market, and they had great chance to succeed in that area.

However, most companies are afraid to compete on fair battle background (Android). So instead of one, RIMM chose to fight 4 battles at the same time, hardware, software, ecosystem, marketing, and it lost on all of them. Now it is too late to change the fate. RIMM management was too afraid to change (really really afraid). It is said when I met RIMM people, and saw they couldn't do anything to save the sinking ship.

</comment><comment><USER31> If any new phone wants a decent market share they have to start with the developers - they are the ones who will carry it along until enough 2 year contracts expire to grow the user base. Blackberry simply failed on this front so it's no wonder they are struggling. They followed Microsoft's path of screwing developers which clearly was a bad move.

There is always room for new devices, though. If FF or Ubuntu develop the repertoire with the developers first they have a fighting chance. There are pretty much no companies left that can sell just on their history and existing fan-base alone.

<comment><USER32> >They followed Microsoft's path of screwing developers which clearly was a bad move.

Can you elaborate? From what I've seen RIM made a pretty significant effort to court developers to its platform - the users and revenue just weren't there, so it was not that tempting for developers no matter what RIM said or did.

<comment><USER14> I think the parent's mistaken BB7 with BB10. With the modern BlackBerry software, they made a hugely significant effort, way more than Microsoft did.

They included an entire Android 4.x runtime in their operating system, just so developers could take their existing Android apps and deploy them to BB10 with roughly 'one-click' worth of effort.

Short of re-writing every app on the face of the planet, I'm not sure how BlackBerry could have made it easier for developers to port or submit BB10 apps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's amazing what a killer the smartphone market turned out to be. Nokia. RIM. Microsoft are in bad trouble. Intel. who else?

<comment><USER34> Is Intel really in any trouble? They're got a huge dominance on laptop/desktop processors, no?

<comment><USER33> Desktops are a huge, but declining business. In laptops they already have serious competition in Samsung's ARM-based Chromebooks. Besides, laptops also don't grow nearly as fast as smartphones and tablets. In markets, it's the growth that matters most, not the current revenue.

<comment><USER35> Intel is fine. They have such a huge manufacturing and capital advantage they can afford to lose time after time, whereas the likes of AMD and ARM can only afford to lose once. Intel will own the mobile space in a decade or so.

<comment><USER33> Could you define how "ARM" would lose, given that "ARM" is an ISA which has different licensing levels and is implemented by multiple companies (including some that are larger than Intel - Samsung, Qualcomm, Apple).

<comment><USER35> I understand all that. Eventually companies like Samsung will be forced to abandon ARM because they'll get a better power/performance ratio from Intel than they can produce in house.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> From what I have gathered they have not managed the growth hiring people below the original level. A company with 12000 employes should be unmanageable because of bureaucracy anyway. After some point new people only slow you down. Hope the old core is still there and something will finally come out of this.

</comment><comment><USER37> The juxtaposition of these two headlines on Ars struck me with some awe: "Grand Theft Auto V rakes in over $1 billion in three days", "Blackberry warns of near-$1 billion loss this quarter". Especially since they're more tangible 'billions' than the Instagram deal.

</comment><comment><USER38> Good riddance. I was a fan, until I actually had to contact their customer support.

Bought an android right after.

</comment><comment><USER39> A long time ago i said RIM is the new Nortel. I think I can continue to stand by that statement.

<comment><USER40> Nortel? Or Novell? I guess both apply, but Novell seems to fit much better.

<comment><USER41> He likely means Nortel, especially in the sense of it being the Canadian tech darling that fritters away its business into irrelevancy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Press results from BB: [http://press.blackberry.com/financial/2013/blackberry- announ...](http://press.blackberry.com/financial/2013/blackberry-announces- preliminary-second-quarter-fiscal-2014-resu.html)

</comment><comment> mkr-hn Relevant Google Trends chart: [https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=google+android%2C+wi...](https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=google+android%2C+windows+phone%2C+ios%2C+blackberry#q=google%20android%2C%20windows%20phone%2C%20ios%2C%20blackberry&cmpt=q)

Blackberry's slide starts around October 2011. News search is a little more flat, but that probably reflects the fact that tech journalists like to compare the rise of one thing to the fall of another. Google search reflects what people are looking for in general, so it covers people looking up information on the phone and OS, not just news.

Oddly, Blackberry is still in the lead on image and shopping search. It was tied with iOS on youtube until recently.

<comment><USER43> Why "Google Android" instead of just "Android" (or alternately you could, I suppose, go with "Apple iOS"), because the latter much more closely mirrors what has happened in the market. Unless personal assistant robots have taken off corresponding with Android, I don't think it's being polluted much.

<comment><USER44> There is also cisco ios, which would also feature heavily on the web I would imagine.

<comment> mkr-hn I doubt enough people are searching for information on an enterprise networking operating system to overwhelm the volume of people searching for information on a major consumer mobile operating system.

<comment><USER44> True, but its more in line with ios the operating system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Queue "bye bye Blackberry". They milked their corporate entrenched position for an admirable duration of time.

</comment><comment><USER46> Now where will I have to go for a keyboard and an OS not by Google?

</comment><comment><USER47> So is this it then? They're finally gone?

</comment><comment><USER48> It will all be over, soon.

</comment><comment><USER49> Inventory kills hardware companies.

</comment><comment><USER20> It just occurred to me that BlackBerry is playing a brilliant strategy. This billion dollar writedown lowers the stocks so it can be taken private. Meanwhile, BlackBerry announces the flagship Z30 to get users excited.

Z10 hasn't been out that long, and already they're writing off stock? And Z10 is such an awesome phone, anyone who actually uses one loves it.

It could only be for one reason, to take the company private asap.

I expect announcement of a sale soon.</comment>


Does anyone want to give me some feedback? - <AUTHOR>

I need some feedback from someone who can give me good feedback on my online marketing Platform I've been working on. Any takers? Maybe we could strike a partnership and build this platform together as like cofounders. If you want instant access go here: overviewmarketingsolutions dot com. I really need some high quality feedback to make sure I am going the right way. Thanks in advance please tell me what you think I've been working really hard on it. <comment><USER2> 1st impression: Bad grammar/spelling. None of the apostrophies on the front page belong there. Eg. "Policy's" is spelled "policies". Then the 2 above that would be with an "s" at the end of the word, without the ' before them.

It could be clearer what exactly you're offering. I'm left to wonder if I'd get access to all my dashboards scattered across the web. I don't see why I'd need you whenn I already have all these other elements giving me data on my efforts. All I know from your site is that I'd get everything I need in 1 place, & that I have to pay $1 to see if you've got it organized in a useful manner.

One good thing I noticed was flawless rendering on my BlackBerry, which apparently is a challenge for many.

There's mention on HN somewhere about a website that gives you feedback on your site when you give feedback on someoneelse's site. A 1:1 trade. Don't remember what it was, maybe "Critique" or something. May be worth checking out.

Best of luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the insight will correct the grammar and spelling mistakes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> tried to sign up for demo. didn't work. can you pls fix it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Try this one: [https://overviewmarketingsolutions.com/checkout/?rid=mdX10J](https://overviewmarketingsolutions.com/checkout/?rid=mdX10J)</comment></comment>


Are You an Alcoholic Yet?  Dealing With Stresses of Founding a Company - <AUTHOR> http://blog.eladgil.com/2010/09/are-you-alcoholic-yet-or-great-startup.html

<comment><USER2> To answer the question, check out: <http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-3_isaaforyou.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm working on it.

</comment><comment><USER4> I drink a hell of a lot of whiskey.

<comment><USER3> I've only recently discovered the difference between scotch and bourbon. I'm going to blame this on... um, the stress of having a startup? Sounds good.</comment></comment>


Who Backs Linux, Some Numbers in Perspective - <AUTHOR> http://robertogaloppini.net/2010/12/02/who-backs-linux-some-numbers-in-perspective/ <comment><USER2> i didn't find the blog all that readable, but the report itself is interesting: [http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_developm...](http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I wanted to see the "market share" rather than the rate of change.

From page 13 of the PDF, individuals (18.9%), RedHat (12.4%), Novell (7.0%), and IBM (6.9%) are biggest contributors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I got into the habit of doing "Yoda Conditions" in C to prevent accidental assignment from typos. To be honest, though, I can't remember the last time I typed = instead of ==.

</comment><comment><USER5> at what point does it change from "backing" to "having influence over" or "affecting design decisions"?

<comment><USER6> He that writes the code has an extreme amount of influence, and can effect design decisions.

Linus is the benevolent dictator, but if the code is clean and doesn't stomp on other stuff, it goes in. It's always been that way...and is as it should be in most large-scale Open Source projects. If you want to see examples of conflicts and how they were resolved, or not resolved, look at the ZFS in Linux discussion or the history of ReiserFS (somehow filesystems bring out the fight in people), though there have been other points of contention where developers wanted to push a little too far into the core design in ways that Linus didn't like.

With companies and individuals that do it well, like Red Hat and IBM (individuals end up becoming Linus' "lieutinents", like Alan Cox for a famous example), it is almost invisible...they produce code that Linus likes, they take his advice on changes without making it a fight, and so he trusts them more and more over time, to the point that now it's pretty rare to see a Red Hat sponsored contribution lead to significant conflict.

Do you have concerns about someone like Red Hat or IBM having influence over the kernel? I'd be curious what those concerns are based on.</comment></comment>


Rant@HN: Can we please stop taking Open Graph Protocol seriously? - <AUTHOR>

I realize that it's often best to release early, but Open Graph Protocol is especially annoying because it's not a 'protocol' (there's no exchange of anything), it's not about a 'graph' (there are no links between elements in it).
It should really be called something like Some Page Associated Metadata or Node Metadata Specification.
If you go and read the 'specification' you'll find an apparently almost random collection of 'object types' and other attributes.
The reality is that Open Graph Protocol is a very weak specification which benefits Facebook and that's about it.  Sure, everyone else can consume it, but it's so Facebook oriented that it cries out for competition.
And I question its 'open' nature.  Given that it's page metadata it basically had to be open.  Facebook would have had a hard time making it not open since everyone could scrape whatever they got publishers to place on their pages. <comment><USER2> In the words of HN's own resident Facebook liason:

"What do you suggest?"</comment>


Why RAID 5 stops working in 2009 - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162

<comment><USER2> What a weird idea for an article</comment>


John McAfee releases secure anti-surveillance messaging app 'Chadder'  - <AUTHOR> http://www.chadder.im/ <comment><USER2> Or use TextSecure and RedPhone: [https://whispersystems.org/](https://whispersystems.org/) ([https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/](https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/))

<comment><USER3> Isn't that Android only?

<comment><USER4> The iOS client will (hopefully) be released in the next few months.

<comment><USER2> Link: [https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure- iOS](https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-iOS)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Some observations:

\- This uses an external service 'scrambls' ([https://scrambls.com/](https://scrambls.com/)) which seems to do per-message symmetric key management. Therefore, the owners of this service can read all your messages.

\- The thing which seems to be sent along with the ciphertext is an 'XID' which is sent to scrambls and exchanged for the raw AES message encryption key. There doesn't seem to be any binding to the recipient in this step(?)

\- The encryption of messages is AES-CBC with PKCS#5 padding. There is no message integrity, so therefore this provides no confidentiality under CCA2.

In conclusion, this is the sort of thing you should expect from a secure messaging app. (TextSecure excepted.)

<comment><USER6> It's interesting how they know it's happening, but don't seem to understand the consequences.

In the video, they say that "the key and message can only be read by Sally."

Or look at this one, where they even visualize it: [http://siliconangle.com/blog/2014/05/03/the-design-behind- ch...](http://siliconangle.com/blog/2014/05/03/the-design-behind-chadder-john- mcafees-new-chat-app-for-security-conscious-millennials/)

 _The architecture of the product features a unique web-based exchange of key transfer capabilities to facilitate completely encrypted messaging._

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Having access to source is no guarantee of security or correctness (see Heartbleed) but relying on any of these secure messaging apps seems optimistic. Writing correct crypto code is hard and John McAfee's involvement offers no assurances.

<comment><USER8> Especially since his stint with the authoroties of Belize and his subsequent escape from said country... I thought it was a very entertaining story, but professional suicide for him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Free software is a prerequisite for software to be "anti-surveillance" and I see no indication that Chadder is free software.

<comment><USER10> _Libre_ is a prerequisite, _gratis_ isn't. This is an important distinction to make. While it is true that this software seems to be neither, it is important to note when we try to convince them to release it free, we mean _libre_ and not necessarily _gratis_. (Although the two often go hand in hand.)

When people hear us complaining about it, they often think we want to avoid paying money for it. This is false, and a bad impression to give. That is the purpose behind making this distinction.

<comment><USER11> Libre isn't prerequisite either. Access to buildable source is.

<comment><USER12> Doesn't libre require access to source code?

According to the free software definition [1], it's one of the essential freedoms:

 _> The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this._

[1] [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free- sw](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw)

<comment><USER13> Absolutely, libre implies code.

Access to compilable code can happen in more ways than fully libre release though.

I think that is what the parent post to yours meant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So that's an iPhone screenshot on what appears to be a Nexus 4 without the navigation buttons with the android contact icons but there isn't even an iOS version yet. The first screenshot in the playstore shows the windows phone version and the second is the actual android version, what?

</comment><comment><USER15> Why do people keep releasing messaging applications? These things rarely, if ever catch on.

Awaiting the inevitable HN thread about how Chadder is flawed.

<comment><USER16> Small investment, tiny chance of success, huge payoff iff successful. It is the lottery of applications.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> McAfee ceased to be a brand that you'd want to be associated with a while ago, I wonder what they intend to achieve by attaching their reputation to his.

Toxic doesn't even begin to describe it, he's the IT world equivalent of a rogue.

<comment><USER18> One would presume because "he is/was a fugitive, so he really understands the need of that underrepresented user community".

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If the source code isn't available then any claims to being secure should be treated cautiously. For instance, how do we know that there aren't heartbleed- style errors in this anti-surveillance app?

<comment><USER20> I love open source, but we didn't know about heartbleed even with the sources available.

<comment><USER21> I think that it's rather because the source was available, we eventually found out about heartbleed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Isn't McAfee back in the US? You can't trust crypto tools that are closed source form the US. The current state of laws make that impossible. [1] [2]

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter) [2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act)

</comment><comment><USER23> I think the biggest problem here is that the application claims to be "anti- surveillance" yet it doesn't really solve the surveillance problem, namely meta-data.

If anything this application _helps_ surveillance by filtering out the communication from "regular" communication.

We have had encrypted messaging for ages now. I cannot tell what's new here.

<comment><USER24> Has anyone even publicly discussed how to mitigate metadata collection? I don't recall any such discussion, but this also isn't really my area of interest.

I'd imagine a system that's _completely_ a p2p mesh network. "Oh, hello, peer. I have 17 blocks for delivery on the network." Those 17 blocks might be pieces of messages for said peer; they might be destined for other nodes anywhere in the network; maybe they're noise. And don't forget to hand those blocks off to other nodes as well, because maliciously dumping blocks could be a thing...

<comment><USER23> Not really my topic either but I guess messaging via TOR or alike is the best solution.

<comment><USER24> Perhaps, but then I believe each participant in the messaging system would need to run a hidden service to receive messages. I think you may be onto something here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Anyone care to explain how this is supposed to work? If Chadder don't store or transmit the key, how does the person I'm sending a message to have it?

The ambiguity in the way the video explained it makes me a bit suspicious.

<comment><USER23> I do not know what your objections are. It's pretty straight forward.

I guess it's something like:

For messages: AES

Key exchange: RSA

Alice and Bob both generates their own RSA keypair (the server do not have their private keys). Alice generates the AES key to be used with Bob, encrypts it using Bobs public RSA key and then sends it to him.. _done_

<comment><USER26> But then how does Alice know if she's talking to the right Bob and not some evil middle-man? In other words, she has to trust the server that it is giving her the correct public key.

<comment><USER23> Signing. I.e. Bob encrypts a dummy message or whatever with his private key.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Oh wow. It uses a very innovative REST key exchange protocol.

Encryption:

      * Messages are encrypted with AES 128 CBC
      * Random key for each message
      * The AES key is sent to the server, and exchanged for some key-id
      * They key id is prepended to the message

Decryption:

      * Split message into key id and encrypted part
      * Download key from server
      * Decrypt message

Edit: Decompile it to see for yourself

<comment><USER6> It's based on "scrambls", and they have a description of their protocol here:

[https://developer.scrambls.com/bin/view/Main/P4ComponentInte...](https://developer.scrambls.com/bin/view/Main/P4ComponentInteraction)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Anything that claims to do 'APP X' with 'encryption' these days should not put itself out there without posting a full (and RECENT) security audit by an un- biased third party.

Otherwise, I'm going to assume you are still leaky as hell, make mistakes and have not cleaned up your code, etc.

And no, claiming you are 'open source' doesn't cover it (And I Don't even have to refer to Heartbleed here)

</comment><comment><USER28> When is the iOS client going to be released? It's kind of interesting that this comes up on HN and at the same time a security leak [0] in the iOS email client is found.

[0] [http://www.macrumors.com/2014/05/05/ios-7-email- attachment-e...](http://www.macrumors.com/2014/05/05/ios-7-email-attachment- encryption/)

</comment><comment><USER29> Do the phones have to be online at the same time in order to send the first key or does a Chadder server distribute the keys to each pair of users but simply not store the key after it's distribution?

Sorry if this question sounds ignorant, the details and best practices of encryption are way over my head.

<comment><USER6> Their server stores _all the keys_

[https://developer.scrambls.com/bin/view/Main/P4ComponentInte...](https://developer.scrambls.com/bin/view/Main/P4ComponentInteraction)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Even if it's not directly relevant to the product in question but I always think it's a bit weird to promote a "secure" product and don't even have SSL enabled on your own website. It's not like it's expensive to get a simple certificate these days.

<comment><USER31> It doesn't ask you for any information. What would be the benefit of enabling SSL?

<comment><USER23> SSL is not only for secrecy, it provides integrity as well.

For example: You cannot be sure the links are valid. The javascript- and/or youtube iframe might be modified/malicious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm confused. Does this app uses public key encryption? if so, how do I obtain the actual public keys of all my contacts? Do we have to personally meet and exchange the public keys?

</comment><comment><USER33> They didn't even capitalize his last name properly:

        We are also very excited to announce our partnership
        with John Mcafee and Future Tense Central!

</comment><comment><USER34> So the client is open source but the server and backend isn't, same as Telegram? What is the point? That and McAfee doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

<comment><USER35> Where do you see the client sources?

<comment><USER36> See here: [https://telegram.org/apps#source- code](https://telegram.org/apps#source-code)

<comment><USER35> I meant for Chadder.

<comment><USER34> Sorry, I assumed it was clients were open sources based on the article. Now that I looked it appears that is not the case. So ... it is safe because John McAfee?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> wow, that's a distracting background. Also the video doesn't explain how the key exchange works, and isn't that the important/hard bit?

<comment><USER32> It's the Matrix

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Only explanation they give is that it "uses encryption" and that should make the app trustworthy? Is this a joke?

</comment><comment><USER38> Is the name McAfee supposed to be a plus ? Isn't he kinda crazy these days ? That's a red flag in my book.

</comment><comment><USER39> If that's how they designed the website, I'm a little scared to download the app.

Also, no iOS?

</comment><comment><USER40> I thought he is in prison? Or at least under investigation?

</comment><comment><USER41> So how does it do that encryption? Through magic?

</comment><comment><USER42> Nothing against John McAfee, I have no idea what happened in Belize, and he can probably have a wonderful career as a reality TV star or a similar effort.

But I wouldn't touch a security product he offers with a 20 foot pole. Literally I wouldn't even visit the site, let alone hover my mouse over the download link.

And no, not because of McAfee Antivirus, but despite it.</comment>


'Being homeless is better than working for Amazon' - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/28/being-homeless-is-better-than-working-for-amazon <comment><USER2> It's interesting to see how certain jobs are thought of over the years.

Working in an Amazon warehouse is a pretty average blue-collar job these days. You're a slave to the time clock, you're on your feet all day, walking miles and miles, but other than that there's no real extremes. In every job you're expected to get a # of parts out per hours or ship so many package.

But the good thing about an Amazon warehouse, is you're not standing next to a heat-treating oven, sweating your bag off. You're not mixing dangerous chemicals that could poison you and requires you to wear an uncomfortable ventilation system or suit.

There are no fiberglass matting slivers to get in your arms or eyes. There are no 20 ton presses that will crush you in the blink of an eye. You're not outside in the freezing cold. You're not standing around in a meat freezer hacking away at a side of beef with a giant knife.

Is it the greatest job in the world? No, but there are a limited supply of those and competition for them is very high. Is it worst job? Far from it. And 30 years ago it would have been considered pretty cushy.

<comment><USER3> 30 years ago, factory jobs were on a fixed workweek with known job securities and benefits (and were often unionized too). The important part of this article is that it points out that all of these floor workers are temps, where each day they could be out of getting paid on a day-to-day basis: "if there was not any work, they would send us home early without pay. "

<comment><USER4> Those were skilled factory jobs. For low level factory jobs (like moving boxes) you had to wait in line each morning and the foreman would pick names. If you got work that day, great, if not, go wait in the next line or come back tomorrow.

Let's not glorify either side.

<comment><USER3> well then you are also responding to what I'm responding to; the comparison of the highly dangerous skilled factory job to the low level warehouse job is not an apt one. One is a career and the other is not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> They sound like a nut with a grievance.

The story is inconsistent. Begging and "writing" is morally superior to being "working poor?" And then they cannot find any other job with their degrees because of their grievance with Amazon? And then they like being homeless because they used to work at a camping store?

They cannot accept charity from family but they beg in front of a Whole Foods?

If this is the poster child for the anti-Amazon movement, Amazon has nothing to worry about.

<comment><USER6> "It didn't take long for me to realize that I was living a fantasy, thinking that a student of the humanities would be tolerated, and paid decently, in the corporate world of the modern university"

"I've worked for places to live in Oregon, mostly cooking and feeding families. It was a kind of Maoist re-education program– a little too much like slavery for my comfort."

The author's sense of self-entitlement is nauseating.

Seriously, slavery? You'd think a humanities student would have at least some basic perspective of the world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> While there's certainly an issue around working conditions at Amazon and more broadly with the US social safety net this story doesn't feel "real".

A quick google reveals the authors bio "I taught ESL in South Korea for more than two years, traveled Asia, been around the Caribbean and zig-zagged the U.S. I worked at the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the Chicago Brauhau." \- she also has a degree in Journalism with a focus on news editorial

It seems hard to believe someone with that background would be unable to figure out things like food stamps.

</comment><comment><USER8> 1\. She went to school to get a not very competitive degree (journalism?) and unfortunately took out loans to pay for it. It seems she couldn't pay it back, because later she says "my credit is wrecked".

2\. It turns out she and her combination of a degree is useless, because she ended up working at Amazon packing boxes.

3\. She hated her job, so she ended up quiting. Good!

4\. I respect that even after it's not her problem, she stands up against poor working conditions at Amazon by writing articles.

5\. It's unclear why she can't find a job after Amazon, or why she is homeless. She writes: "I've applied for many jobs, and any prospective employer that runs a Google search of my name can see my discontent with my last employer." But that's bogus, I think many employers outside the tech sector will not Google you.

6\. The ending of the article really falls apart for me. She says "I learned to live without money and without a home ... I know how to live outside. I refuse to live within oppressive walls." But then she says "I need cash and an opportunity. Anything!", and later "I became a capitalist."

The takeaway of the article for me is that there are probably issues around Amazon's working conditions and that the writer of this article has made some bad decisions that she needs to work out and stop blaming Amazon and whoever else.

<comment><USER9> > It seems she couldn't pay it back, because later she says "my credit is > wrecked".

Earlier in the article she says "I cashed in on my excellent credit, took out cards, and used them to pay rent and buy food because it would be six months before I could receive my first unemployment compensation check."

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I can't help it, as a European I'm always shocked how these things can happen in a rich country like the US. Is it inability to navigate the system (a problem by itself) or is the US social system really that non-existant? I know at least some of the arguments, it just never fails to shock me. (Issues with the behaviour of the writer aside.)

<comment><USER11> Between Harz IV and European retailers, the difference is unfortunately not that large in some parts of Europe:

[http://www.thelocal.de/20140427/saab-fighter-jet-deal-up- in-...](http://www.thelocal.de/20140427/saab-fighter-jet-deal-up-in-air-ahead- of-swiss-vote) [http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/us-amazon- germany-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/us-amazon-germany- idUSBREA3G08S20140417)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "I became a capitalist. I flew a sign to escape harrowing conditions in Oregon and I arrived in Seattle with nothing. When I landed I saw green. I created carefully crafted signs with cardboard and a Sharpie and, just like that, I was making money again."

That's a really curious statement. I suppose that she is succeeding in a form of marketing, and the value she's producing is an emotional salve on those that are wealthier than her and wish to help out or assuage their own guilt?

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm sure Amazon is already thinking about how to replace "pickers" with robots.

<comment><USER14> Yes this has been building up for years, although their PR states that it won't affect the flesh-and-bone employee numbers: [http://www.geekwire.com/2014/amazon-will-10000-robots- wareho...](http://www.geekwire.com/2014/amazon-will-10000-robots-warehouses- years-end-10-fold-bezos-says/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Even better would be finding a different job.

</comment><comment><USER16> If she is making more money being homeless than she was when she was working at Amazon, why hasn't she moved back into an apartment?

>I have been published in a scholarly journal and a social-justice oriented website.

Ah.

>My wallet does not contain a single bill. I need glasses. I need winter clothes. I need cash and an opportunity. Anything!

Anything except making $13 an hour taking things off of shelves? I mean...c'mon. Glasses, winter clothes etc. aren't _that_ expensive. Check out coastal.com, go to goodwill.

Maybe that just doesn't make as good of a story for "social justice oriented websites"</comment>


Chaos as global IT failure takes out all British Airways flights out of London - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/27/chaos-as-global-it-failure-takes-out-all-british-airways-flights-out-of-london/ <comment><USER2> Seems like a dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14429858](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14429858)</comment>


How to price anything: The psychology behind what we'll pay… - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/how-to-price-anything-19c5f71e3847#.orb1srkmo <comment><USER2> Problem with this is also, that especially technical people don't have the skills and often not (really) the need to price well. The other side of "pricing anything" you could say.

I mean, if you charge 100€ per hour for your consulting and you would "just" work for 25 weeks a year, you would make about 100k a year. Even if you just charge 70€, you still just need to work 36 weeks a year for 100k and 100k is a rather good income in most parts of the world.

Yes, it's pretty cool that some people charge 10k a week and I would like to do this too. But if I don't, I still have a nice life.</comment>