Service Oriented Problems - <AUTHOR> http://rdegges.com/service-oriented-problems <comment><USER2> Honest, the issue with documentation is the killer. Not on just how to build SOA, but on what parts of it to document (AS MUCH AS YOU CAN is the right answer).

Nothing is worse then coming into an SOA project and discovering that you have to explore the code of many repos to figure out the logic behind the components that make up a project. Or that you have to explore Word/Google documents.

Part of SOA is the contract between applications. If you don't document the API contract then you've got an abstracted mess often built with conflicting coding styles. And, unfortunately, this seems to be the majority of SOA implementations I've seen for the past umpteen years.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's what I love the most about it. You can't not have excellent documentation. Forces you to do it right :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There is a technology uniquely suited to make service-oriented application programming brain-dead simple: Erlang/OTP. A well-designed Erlang program consists of many discrete services, even if they are running on the same machine. This makes it trivial to later on distribute these services over multiple machines to meet demand.

As long as you keep the Fallacies of Distributed Computing in mind and don't expect using Erlang to be some magic salve, following the OTP design principles will seriously simplify your SOA challenges.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've been mulling the idea of SOA-on-heroku lately - I'm used to working with SOA where the web service is publicly exposed, and the services are all available only on the intranet.

This brings up bigger questions with regards to authentication - how does the 'api' service know that a request is coming from a correctly authenticated user? Since on heroku, the 'api' service would be externally exposed, I'm trying to decide if there's a good way to correctly authenticate/authorize in such a way that the 'api' service understands.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER5> You can sign your messages using HMAC[1]. That's what Facebook does when it makes HTTP requests to your application.

[1] [http://rc3.org/2011/12/02/using-hmac-to-authenticate-web- ser...](http://rc3.org/2011/12/02/using-hmac-to-authenticate-web-service- requests/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've worked in a few small organizations where the decision was made to build a new product using a service-oriented architecture. Not a single time did this prove to be a good idea. I now get instinctively wary of anyone extolling the virtues of SoA on a small team.

Here's what usually happened:

* Testing got slow. Rather than just running a bunch of tests with nose or pytest, you had to provision a number of services, sometimes on a VM or build slave.

* Testing got bad. Because services have enforced privacy, you can't test or mock their internal states, so you have a bunch of happy path functional tests but much less in the way of comprehensive unit and integration tests.

* Communication deteriorated. In a perverse corollary to Conway's law, our team struggled to maintain a system that didn't mirror its own structure.

* We spent a long time re-implementing basics (auth, JSON serialization, parallelization), and less time building product. This was always justified to the product owners as a necessary short-term sacrifice, but it ended up being a long-term sacrifice too.

* Security failed -- distributed systems are harder to secure than monolithic ones, and most of the small companies trying to execute SOA don't have a clue about application security. The fact that they don't have robust implementations of common components available to them (because auth is now handled as a service, for example) doesn't help.

* Performance degraded: HTTP, JSON and TCP are slow compared to passing around objects in memory and pushing to the stack. They always will be. Most people forget that the database is more than a dumb repository of tuples, and thus end up reinventing the relational algebra in JSON—only with horrendous performance.

* Reliability was hurt. The idea that you have multiple services that can each go down without affecting the whole system is an absolute pipe dream. If the database goes down you can't do anything. If the web server segfaults, no one can see your site. End of. And things are far more likely to fuck up when you try to build a distributed architecture. You probably don't have the time or money to implement the correct provisioning or monitoring either, so when stuff does break you're gonna have a really fun time discovering and debugging it.

These are just my experiences from being on teams of a few people. In larger organizations I'd postulate that SOA is the better approach. But please don't fall into the trap of buying SOA before you've reached a definite need for it.

<comment><USER7> It may be that services were the wrong way to go for your organization. My experiences are almost completely opposite to yours. Bear in mind that I've done this mostly for larger organizations, so I think there may be an economy of scale effect going on.

* Testing is fast. Rather than trying to test a monolithic application you can break your system into small reusable chunks that can be tested independently.

* We implemented the basics once (or used a library) and reused them extensively. And then we created native libraries for others to use so they don't have to think about those pieces.

* Security became more robust. Rather than accepting the built in security we actually thought about security and developed a plan to secure everything in a consistent manner.

* Performance was about the same, although it required a bit more thought. Not only are we able to cache web pages, but now we cache data separately. Just because one piece of data on the page has expired there's no reason to go fetch everything from the db again, and in a large organization it is shocking how often the same data gets requested over and over again.

* Reliability is rock solid. Yes, if your database server goes down you're screwed. If your site goes down, you're screwed. But these are known issues and aren't particular to SOA. Now we have separate, multiple instances of our site and services, we're more fault tolerant. I'm still trying to convince management that geographic tolerance should be considered too.

* We re-invent fewer wheels. We have a very solid separation of concerns. The services have the business logic, and the UI doesn't matter. You want an IOS app? No problem, we create a UI that calls the service. You want a web app? No problem, we create a UI that calls the service.

Having said all of that, I do not like the term SOA. I think it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. It's not about writing services, it's about solving problems. I prefer to think of it as service enabled architecture, and then I try to remind myself that just because I have this awesome hammer that I love, it doesn't magically turn every problem into a nail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> One of really serious the problems with SOAs is that you need to reinvent cross-database joins. The promise is that you will decouple the logical components of the application; but in practice some secret-handshake, outside- of-view coupling actually occurs so that you can meaningfully do ad hoc queries across the different services.

Similarly, for languages with strong typing, you partially give that facility up.

</comment><comment><USER9> I feel like he makes some serious assumptions in this article. One that you need to put each service on a different server, and two that you need to connect each service to a different database.

For a small/medium/large/whatever app you can definitely host services on the same server and database. Just update the code/configurations as necessary if you one day move them.

</comment><comment><USER10> Great to see you called out the Authentication work so prominently. This is a bigger chunk of work than many people realize.

We building <http://www.dailycred.com> to offer Authentication as a service. One less component that devs need to design/build themselves.

<comment><USER11> This looks pretty sweet. I was actually thinking of doing something similar myself after rolling my own auth app several times in python / flask for my web services.

A nice CRUD API for handling users (+ emailing users / registration) would be nice.</comment></comment>


The idea of empathy for all ignores the limits of human psychology - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/no-you-cant-feel-sorry-for-everyone <comment><USER2> This article makes the mistake of assuming that things like the national debate of encryption and privacy sparked by e.g. the San Bernadino iPhone ordeal are actually about the moral themes they are characterized by.

They are not about those moral themes. They are just status and in-group vs. out-group games like everything else. We don't use data-driven approaches to them for the same reason why people continue to hire underperforming assest managers or why they hire over-priced management consultants.

With encryption, immigration, climate change, finance reform, etc. etc., you pick a side of the debate and that identifies Who You Are and What Team You Are On for purposes of letting other people know that you're either their implicit ally or implicit enemy, that you would submit to them or resist them, that you intrinsically respect their credential or that you treat their credential with skepticism.

I was hoping this article might be about scope insensitivity and would speak about how we have to intelligently use legislation and law enforcement to protect human rights because, even for the best of us, it's not cognitively feasible to feel the morality you would wish upon others.

Instead it seems like a meandering groan that we aren't more data driven -- but of course we aren't!

And even when we are "data driven" it's generally just an excuse to use politically manipulated notions of data-based reasoning to only enhance the degree of coalition politics, not to defeat it.

Take software for example. We claim that systematic hiring via commoditized task examinations (like IKM or HackerRank), or the use of dumb shit process management like Agile/Scrum, are supposed to represent a shift into "objective" and "data-driven" evaluation. But it's unequivocally not. These are just ways of letting middle management and political gatekeepers engineer whatever subjective metrics they prefer, while being shielded from complaints that they are not being objective.

If we can't even get this right for something as small as project management or software hiring, it's beyond realistic hope that we could actually develop a moral calculus at a national level and use data-driven principles to actually inform the national debate over privacy vs. safety.

<comment><USER3> > e don't use data-driven approaches to them for the same reason why people > continue to hire underperforming assest managers or why they hire over- > priced management consultants.

i've got a data-driven solution for evaluating potential business partners, contractors, anything:

[https://github.com/neyer/respect](https://github.com/neyer/respect)

it's basically page rank, with a small twist.

> it's beyond realistic hope that we could actually develop a moral calculus > at a national level and use data-driven principles to actually inform the > national debate over privacy vs. safety.

i think the key here is record taking, with really simple metrics.

<comment><USER4> Get sufficiently many people to base meaningful decisions on that and it will be gamed just as Google is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >That means that, in principle, if we eliminate out-group hate completely, we may also undermine in-group love. Empathy is a zero-sum game.

Oh rubbish. Look at Buddhist monk types and angry political extremist types. They do a pretty good job of loving everything and hating most things respectively.

I mean the article has a point that universal human empathy is not widespread and we should design systems accordingly but that's been common knowledge for centuries.

</comment><comment><USER6> Confucius said, "Is there anyone who can even for a day give their full strength to being humane? I haven't met anyone who lacked the strength. But if anyone has done this, I haven't seen it."

([http://dailyanalect.tumblr.com/post/113164355376/46](http://dailyanalect.tumblr.com/post/113164355376/46))

<comment><USER7> Sweet quote. Your site?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Absolute universalism, in which we feel compassion for every individual on Earth, is psychologically impossible."

The author has obviously never read science fiction. A non-human out-group instantly allows all humans to be in one in-group.

<comment><USER9> You don't actually need science fiction to find a non-human out-group. There are plenty of real species around. :)

<comment><USER10> Or even closer to home, just look at those with mental health issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't see the point of this article.

In group and out group is just a conceptualization of competition. That's how we improve ourselves and how we evolved. It's the basis of capitalism and so many other things.

I have no trouble "extending equal compassion to foreign earthquake victims and hurricane victims in our own country". I might not donate equally but that's not a proper measure of empathy. There is no accurate measure for that. The scientists of Nautilus will never understand that because they've been trained to only publish things based on collected data. "world's leading thinkers" [1] my butt!

[1] [http://m.nautil.us/about](http://m.nautil.us/about)

</comment><comment><USER11> I guess once we have thrown away universal empathy we may as well throw away the natural numbers, the concept of a line or using categories to designate things we have never seen. I mean what's the point of calling a table a table if I will never be able to hold all existing tables in my head?

More seriously, infinite concepts are usually really simple to conceive for most human minds, it's much more complicated to look at real life objects clashing with mental objects and extract new meaningful concepts that may help solve those inconsistencies.

>And then the pendulum swung back. People do care, newspaper editorialists and social-media commenters granted. But they care inconsistently: grieving for victims of Brussels' recent attacks and ignoring Yemen's recent bombing victims; expressing outrage over ISIS rather than the much deadlier Boko Haram; mourning the death of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe while overlooking countless human murder victims. There are far worthier tragedies, they wrote, than the ones that attract the most public empathy.

>[...] If we recognized that we have a limited quantity of empathy to begin with, it would help to cure some of the acrimony and self-flagellation of these discussions. [...] We must begin with a realistic assessment of what those limits are, and then construct a scientific way of choosing which values matter most to us.

For example in the above paragraph the author seems to extract that the meaning of those criticism is that we should feel bad about ourselves. I don't think that's the point, I agree that self-flagellation is improductive, but we can rationally examine those kinds of inconsistent beliefs and emotions. Is the way we look at those other people influencing how we act towards them? Do those actions affect how they act towards us? Is there any chance of reconciliation?

The author also seems to blindly accept the belief that personal intervention is the only way to reduce misery, with no place for cold restructuring of society in a way that avoid generating that misery in the first place, done in a cold calculated way, with no need to deplete our precious, finite, empathy.

</comment><comment><USER12> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price)

</comment><comment> awinter-py Empathy isn't a psychological proposition, it's an economic one (evolutionary psychology when it works at all attempts to unify those topics).

</comment><comment><USER13> ok, sure, the idea of empathy ignores the limits of human psychology... because it's an "idea". human psychology is not an idea, nor is are its constituent parts ideas. so what?

if there is scarcity and competition, no doubt human psychology will kick in. but the idea of empathy would live on anyway.

</comment><comment><USER14> This says that 'Absolute universalism, in which we feel compassion for every individual on Earth, is psychologically impossible' because we need to be able to hate on out-groups to love on in-groups. If we discover aliens might this not hold?

<comment><USER15> It's not impossible but it requires a long sincere practice to peel off the layers of false identities that we associate ourselves with. These are gradually created starting right from our birth. However one way it's true because once compassion for all beings (not just humans) becomes our nature, we no longer remain human – we become divine.

That's the goal of all paths of Yoga (Karma/devotion/meditation/wisdom)

The above isn't something theoretical jargon – I know at least one individual living at this moment who has reached to that state by following the meditation path of yoga [0].

0: [http://omswami.com](http://omswami.com)

<comment><USER16> I don't think this is an appropriate forum for religious proselytizing.

<comment><USER4> Sometimes it might be beneficial to hear voices from outside your local echo chamber ;)

For one, I like reading about "weird" stuff, in reasonable quantities.

<comment><USER16> As an antidote to this echo chamber effect, I invite proselytizers to discuss their ideas in a non-proselytizing way, so that we can meet on common ground instead of assuming vague terms like "divine" etc. If we can't get to that point, it's just one echo chamber talking to another.

<comment><USER4> Echo chamber tourism isn't just sitting in yours and waiting for others to come.

<comment><USER16> Do you think that's what I do, based on my opinion that this forum is an inappropriate place for proselytizing?

<comment><USER4> For some people religion is all they have ever known. You won't find them on any other "ground".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Empathy =! Compassion.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have a seriously hard time reading this comment while knowing what Orson Scott Card is actually like. In the frame of who he really is, everything about Ender's game seems like a reflection of an idea of parody or hyperbole of the personality types in the book. That said, it's one of my favorite books.

<comment><USER18> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11508746](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11508746) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER10> Fair enough. I'll try to keep things more on-topic!</comment></comment></comment>


SAP to halt development of Business ByDesign - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/sap-to-halt-development-of-business-bydesign-report-7000022141/

<comment><USER2> This post's title is now much improved, away from something akin to "SAP stops cloud strategy" to "SAP to halt development of Business ByDesign".

Business ByDesign was a horrible, lackluster way of offering ERP under the SaaS model. I've used it - and I was absolutely disgusted. It could not compete with the likes of Netsuite when it comes to the SMB market.

I've thought long and hard as to why SAP is not offering a 'true' SaaS product - the main reason I think is still lack of customer interest. Most of SAP's customers are large to very-large companies who require a crapton of customization to their ERP and other core systems. Their internal processes are simply not standard enough and hence a strict SaaS play product is not a great fit for large accounts.

On top of that the whole sales process to large accounts is radically different (and 'old skool') with consultants visiting customer sites and planning implementations... very traditional. It seems to be almost required still for ERP. Customers don't just whip out their credit card to set up an ERP system. Yet.

SAP still does plenty in the cloud but most customer requests are for IaaS type cloud hosting. SaaS is not done right at SAP right now, whereas I still think they /can/ do it - they certainly have the brainpower for it. I hope development efforts will shift to a fresh product that will rival Netsuite and target the SMB market.

Although having said that - Netsuite's revenue and market share compared to SAP are still tiny...

<comment><USER3> > SAP is not offering a 'true' SaaS product

That's not true anymore. They have this:

[http://www.sap.com/campaigns/2013_Hana_Enterprise_Cloud/inde...](http://www.sap.com/campaigns/2013_Hana_Enterprise_Cloud/index.epx)

<comment><USER2> HANA Enterprise Cloud is a "managed cloud environment". In other words, IaaS or hosted applications at best; not a true SaaS play.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Misleading title. Should be called "SAP stops development of crappy product, as it should have a long time ago"

</comment><comment><USER5> This should have been done a while ago... Preferably before I took a course on it in school. Oh well, more useless knowledge from the broken-ass university system.

</comment><comment><USER6> Wrong title. SAP has many things in the cloud, this is not "its cloud strategy". This is one particular cloud product.</comment>


Becoming a Tech Lead at HubSpot: How I've Balanced Coaching with Coding - <AUTHOR> http://product.hubspot.com/blog/tech-lead-balancing-coaching-with-coding <comment><USER2> Most powerful form of coaching is validating that someone is already doing something the right way.</comment>


If This Is Your Inspiration from Space, You're Doing It Wrong - <AUTHOR> https://hackaday.com/2020/05/31/if-this-is-your-inspiration-from-space-youre-doing-it-wrong/ <comment><USER2> I was also feeling irked by that comment, especially because those 3 are also famous for:

\- treating their employees badly

\- narcissism, or a lack of empathy

\- greed

\- drugs & sex scandals

\- tax evasion

<comment><USER3> I've yet to meet a person that didn't try to pay the minimum amount of taxes legally possible, but I'd agree with you on all the other points.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Experiences with 'Gödel, Escher, Bach' (GEB)? - <AUTHOR>

I've heard so many good things about Hofstadter's famous book and I'm about to begin it myself.  Anyone care to share their experiences with GEB/whether reading it was as transformative as I've heard it is?  Also, any suggestions for how to approach the book itself? <comment><USER2> I love it. But:

The book is NOT a good introduction to the incompleteness theorem. It is not a book about M.C. Escher. It could, barely, be said to be about papa Bach.

If you read it for math or science, you will be disappointed. It's a horrendous textbook.

Read it paying attention to his words, how and why he choses them, and GEB is a pretty marvelous thing. If the English language excites you, then read it, and read Le Ton Beau de Marot. GEB is a _demonstration_ of ideas, not a discussion of them.

Hofstadter is not a computer scientist. He's a philosopher, a linguist, and a gedankenspiel-smith. Read him to laugh and play. Expect pretension because big words are fun.

Or skip it. I don't think it will change your life.

</comment><comment><USER3> I finished it, but found it pretentious, boring as hell and thin on content. In my opinion (which is not shared widely ;-)) it would have made a good 15 page pamphlet. The rest is turgid verbiage(imo). I can understand someone for whom recursion(say) is some kind of mind blowing concept getting some value out of the book, but I've never understood why _programmers_ find it fascinating. It has a few ultra basic concepts, stretched across multiple pages with lots of padding, then endlessly repeated in minor variations with lots of faux insight.

<comment><USER4> Out of genuine curiosity, what were expecting to get out of it before you started reading it? Also, if you found the proof of Gödel's incompleteness and RNA transcription "ultra basic concepts" my hat is off to you.

I'm a programmer with a maths background[1] and I've read the book twice–once when I was 19 and again when I was 26. Both times I really enjoyed the digressions, language games, dialogues, and playfulness of the book. I got the sense Hofstadter was deeply curious and enthusiastic about the topics he explores and did a wonderful job at sharing that enthusiasm.

In my opinion it is a great example of writing for the sheer joy of exploring ideas. I can see how approaching such a book with a "just the facts please" attitude might end badly.

[1]: I've been told I'm a strange math/programmer though. I enjoy a wide range of literature too: Cervantes, Nabokov, Wallace, and Coetzee being some of my favourite authors.

<comment><USER3> "Out of genuine curiosity, what were expecting to get out of it before you started reading it? "

I wasn't expecting anything but a good read.Which is exactly what I didn't get.

The writing style is (imo) very turgid on the other end of the spectrum from (say) pg's crisp and incisive style. Feynman is another example of a writer who exposes his interest in a wide variety of stuff(Brazilian drumming for eg) but he isn't yawn inducing. I hate writing that tests readers' patience by prolonged aimless meandering. Fwiw I didn't like _why's book on Ruby either.So there does seem to be a pattern there somewhere ;-)

I have no problems if other people like such books. Different folks different strokes and all that. I was just expressing _my_ opinion.

"Also, if you found the proof of Gödel's incompleteness and RNA transcription "ultra basic concepts" my hat is off to you."

I am sorry but these were basic to me or I could find crisper explanations elsewhere. It has been a while since I read the book (I read this when I was 19 or so iirc) but I would guess that a few hundred pages could be lopped off with "computer programs, music and some kinds of drawing exhibit recursive structure" and giving a few examples each.

I don't remember the RNA transcription bit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't meander all over the place without saying anything much for a few dozen pages or so.

There is plenty of popular science and non fiction written crisply, interestingly and in an uncondescending fashion which explores ideas without boring the reader silly.That said I completely acknowledge this is a matter of taste and that one man's food is another's poison.

The question to which that post was a reply _did_ ask for opinions of HNers on the book. And my _opinion_ is that GEB is overhyped and overblown and I said as much. YMMV.And that is as it should be.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the answers. I wasn't disputing your opinion, I just wanted to know your experience differed so much from mine. De gustibus non est disputandum.

It seems the main point of difference is that you found the meandering digressions annoying whereas I really enjoyed them. For me, understanding the topics (computation, recursion, use/mention, self-reference) wasn't the main reason for reading the book. The blurring of form and function in the writing and general playfulness were just as important and anything but boring.

PG, Feynman, and _why are useful points of reference. I like all three but recognise how different the latter one is to the former two. A similar distinction would be between Coetzee (precision) vs. Wallace (verbosity). I strenuously suggest you avoid Wallace even though I think both authors are amazing. :) Having enjoyed Wallace's non-fiction book on infinity, "Everything and More", I recommended it to a work mate (also a programmer) and he hated it. Upon reflection, I think he has similar tastes to you and would probably not like GEB either.

Out of interest, what style of fiction (if any) do you enjoy?

<comment><USER3> hey I didn't think you were disputing either. Just trying to say that I was tossing off an opinion without thinking too much about it because that was what the OP asked for.

"It seems the main point of difference is that you found the meandering digressions annoying whereas I really enjoyed them. The blurring of form and function in the writing and general playfulness were just as important and anything but boring."

I agree. Our tastes differ.

As for fiction, I generally like fiction which has a strong plot and/or characterization. Taking fantasy as a random genre, I like the first few books of George Martin's "Ice and Fire" fantasy series (the last two books meander too much imo :-P) and I can't stand Robert Jordan. I hate cardboard cut out characters and too predictable plots.

But, I digress too much from the OP's topic here so will stop now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Frankly it made me feel like I'm not smart enough much of the time. But trying not to let that bother me, I plowed ahead anyway. I found quite a few things actually quite mind expanding. His exposition about infinite recursion was worth the price of admission alone. A small segment of that is here: <http://amberbaldet.com/uploads/little-harmonic-labrynth.html>

Another book which I did find truly transformative include "The Art of Game Design" by Jessie Schell. Also Anathem, by Neal Stephenson, is also a very worthwhile mind-broadening scientific read. A New Kind of Science by Wolfram is also quite a bit of fun.

But by far my most prized techie book is Genetic Programming, by the legendary John Koza (if you're not a Lisp person like I wasn't when I read this, then you really need to read it!). Braid and all of the books I mentioned have something in common: They are all fat, heavy, meaty, thought-provoking tomes.

<comment><USER6> Seconded, this book caused me to do more research to cover my ignorance than any text book I've ever picked up, but I absolutely enjoyed every minute of it. I also think Anathem is Stephenson's best book by far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've read it two times through. The first time, I thought it was one of the most brilliant books I had ever read (I read it the first time in the early 80's). I became especially fascinated with Godel's Proof and the thoughts of E.O. Wilson on whether an ant colony was in reality a single organism. I was very, very excited about the possibilities of artificial intelligence and especially natural language processing.

The second time I read it (somewhere in the 90's), I enjoyed it tremendously but I was surprised by how excited I had been before. The second time through, I caught a lot of additional insights but somehow, it felt less revolutionary.

I plan to read it again in a few years. It's been over ten years since the last time I read it. I have no idea how I'll react to it.

</comment><comment><USER8> I read the last ~1/3 of it while recovering from food poisoning in a Buenos Aires hotel room. The simpsons was playing on TV, in spanish. Although the context was trippy, the content seemed pretty reasonable to me. It made a lot of sense from a theory of computation perspective; my response was mainly "oh, just like turing machines." Of course, I may have missed something.

</comment><comment><USER9> My major was Cognitive Science, so I always had to read excerpts of this book as part of course requirement, but never finished the whole thing.

Now I read it by jumping between pages and hoping the individual sentences/paragraphs could spark my own thought process (this is how I read most of the time nowadays).

For a much more concise overview on the similar subject matters, checkout this book by Andy Clark [http://www.amazon.com/Mindware-Introduction-Philosophy- Cogni...](http://www.amazon.com/Mindware-Introduction-Philosophy-Cognitive- Science/dp/0195138570)

</comment><comment><USER10> You should read GEB like a playful, mathematical Alice in Wonderland full of puzzles, philosophy and sometimes self-indulgent wit. Once you go down Hofstadter's rabbit hole you'll get a mind-expanding romp through the meta- logical underpinnings of modern mathematics, information theory and computer science. At the end, whether you find it deep or simultaneously twee and pretentious is a matter of taste, but you'll definitely find yourself a lot more capable of thinking of three impossible things before breakfast.

</comment><comment><USER11> The first time I read it straight through. I was in the middle of college, and transitioning from a dual bio/chem major to a math/cs major, and the book really hit a sweet spot for me with the nature of the universe.

If you're a programmer, then you have a big leg up on the core concepts introduced in the first half, but its still a tough read.

The biggest piece of advice: keep going, and don't be intimidated as the examples grow. There are examples that are drawn from many fields of study, and the dialogues in between chapters give a more intuitive sense of the concepts being introduced in the following chapter. Re-read those if you start finding the main discussions too dry.

There is a _lot_ going on in that book, and you will not get it all on the first read. You will have a feeling that you are missing something and you are. Don't worry about that. Some is revealed in the later parts of the book, and you might find yourself looping back to earlier passages.

Take your time with it, but get through to the end, you will not regret it, and you will find yourself picking through parts of it for a long time to come.

Also, check out Metamagical Themas, which is the opposite, a series of discrete chapters on different topics, but just as fascinating. It covers lisp, rubics cubes, the prisoners dilemma, gender roles in language and a whole host of other good things.

</comment><comment><USER12> I highly recommend Gödel's Proof (Nagel and Newman) as a supplement. I got a lot out of Hofstadter's book, but honestly found much of the discussion of the incompleteness theorem more confusing than it needed to be. If you're mostly interested in the Gödel part, I actually recommend you read it instead of Hofstadter's book.

Gödel's Proof is very concise, and more clearly describes the core argument.

</comment><comment><USER13> GEB is a great experience. It's not a deeply technical book, though it is both deep and technical. It's more specifically an adventure of thought.

I hear there are hidden messages in the book itself. I'm not motivated to track them down and solve them, but this is certainly an indication of the kind of tone Hofstadter was after: playful.

</comment><comment><USER14> I absolutely love this book - I'm right in the middle, he's trying to answer the question, "Can minds be mapped onto each other?".

It's very engaging and fascinating, and I highly recommend it for all sentient beings. Admittedly I haven't finished the book just yet, but I hold the belief that I _may_ have been better off not going to college, but instead reading GEB two or three times.

One reason I occasionally stumble while reading it is because it's such a vast flow of information. It's a bit hard to process all of his thoughts at once, as it's basically a well-organized dump of Hofstadter's brain. Reminds me of Pirsig's Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance in that way.

As for how to approach reading the book, I recommend reading it outdoors in the summertime, which is a bit tricky in the northern hemisphere these days. And don't forget to have a LOT of coffee on-hand!

enjoy! :)

</comment><comment><USER15> As someone who does the majority of their reading in bed, GEB took _a long_ time to get through, and I definitely didn't pick up nearly as much of it as I should have.

That's not to say it's necessarily dry or boring, it's just, I imagine your brain has to be _on_ to really appreciate it.

</comment><comment><USER16> I first read GEB 2 years ago and was similarly mind-blown. I found that it didn't answer any questions, but it did ask a lot. I would consider essential reading for anyone studying AI, and indeed for anyone with a curious mind.

I'm also in the middle of I Am a Strange Loop, and it feels very familiar. Hofstadter's wit and skill with words comes through strongly, and the technical depth of thought is equally as compelling.

With regards to approaching the book, I found it enjoyable and helpful to stop every few pages and think about some of the concepts that are posed. Don't consider it a book on AI, or computing, or Bach, or Escher, or Godel, or quirky narratives. Instead, just go with it and follow along with the story. It takes a while, but once you've finished, you'll want to read it again.

</comment><comment><USER17> MIT OpenCourseWare has a couple of resources you may enjoy if you're looking at GEB:

A _Highlights for High School_ course called _Gödel, Escher, Bach: A Mental Space Odyssey_. This course has a set of 16 lecture notes and 6 video lectures. <http://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/courses/godel-escher-bach/>

The undergraduate special course, _SP.258 / ESG.SP258 Gödel, Escher, Bach_. [http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/special-programs/sp-258-goedel- es...](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/special-programs/sp-258-goedel-escher-bach- spring-2007/)

</comment><comment><USER18> It remains one of my favorite books. I read it once my senior year in high school and I think that it influenced (perhaps unconsciously) my course selection at university (cognitive neuroscience/EECS simultaneous degrees). I re-read it again as a senior in college and was amazed by how little I really understood during my first read and how nearly all the classes I chose fit into the subjects covered in the book.

</comment><comment><USER19> I thought it was awesome when I first read it in high school; the second time, after graduating university, I skipped all of the Achilles & the Tortoise sections and became quite frustrated at how many page turns it took to contain any given idea. Like Devilboy said, there's not reason it should have been 800pp.

</comment><comment><USER20> I made an attempt to read Hofstadter's more recent _I'm a Strange Loop_ about a year ago and didn't make it all the way through.

After being told (a few weeks ago, actually) that _GEB_ was a bit more accessible, relative at least to _ISL_ , I started reading it, and have thus far been blown away.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm in the middle of it and reading it slowly. It hasn't quite lived up to the hype, but I have deeply enjoyed it. I think it's wonderfully quirky and while yes, it's probably too long, I think that's ok, because it's not a blog post and I am happy to make room for something massive and rambly on my bookshelf.

</comment><comment><USER22> Good fun but too long. I loved it when I first read it, and in college I ran a reading course where we read it over one semester. But when I learned more and later came back to it, I found it disappointing content-wise. I'm still glad I read it, though; it was pretty formative for me.

</comment><comment><USER23> It got me hooked on programming, classical music and Escher at a young age. The best way to approach it is to realise the author's intention. He wants to explore the question: what is a self? If you keep that in mind, then his overall approach makes more sense.

</comment><comment><USER24> One of the few books I've put down after less than 1/3rd. Really bad and over- hyped, IMHO.

<comment><USER25> i hate to be 'that guy' who says "me too", but i felt the same way when reading it 5 years ago. i had far higher expectations of a pulitzer prize winning book in non-fiction. another pulitzer prize winner that's almost as long but far more engaging is Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel"

<comment><USER26> GGS is an amazing read. never found a more elegant and simple explanantion of the history of mankind. in hindsight it looks perfectly rational and logical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Yes, probably the single most important book I've read, and by far the best tutorial in symbolic logic that I know. Best approach: disappear for a month, take a holiday from the internet.

</comment><comment><USER28> Based on what I'd heard, I expected a lot more from it. At times, Hofstadter somehow manages to turn what should be insanely interesting subject matter into something quite dry.

</comment><comment><USER29> Great book. Like most people that start it, I didn't finish. It is a notoriously underfinished book. Give it a try anyways.

</comment><comment><USER30> I've read it twice. That says it all, I guess.

</comment><comment><USER31> I hated it. I felt like the author was just trying too hard. There's just not enough actual content in a book of 800 pages.

</comment><comment><USER32> I am 200 pages in. For now, it has just radically changed my view of the concept of formal systems.</comment>


Ask HN: Recommended Products for Home Office? – Dec 2017 - <AUTHOR> My business had a good year and I have some extra budget I'd like to spend to upgrade my home office and to help reduce taxes. Any suggestions on what to spend it on?
1) Sit-to-stand desk?
2) Monitors for MacBook Pros? Boom arms?
3) Shared storage solution (e.g. a NAS with RAID 5)? What types of hard drives should I put into it?
4) ~55"-65" that I can easily use as a projector for metrics? Should I get an Apple TV? ChromeCast? Something else?
5) What are some other great gadgets to improve a home office? <comment><AUTHOR> Currently these are my choices...

1) Fully Jarvis sit-to-stand desk with rolling casters

2) LG 27UD88-W - 27" 4k Monitor [https://www.amazon.com/LG- Electronics-27UD88-W-LED-Lit-Monit...](https://www.amazon.com/LG- Electronics-27UD88-W-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B01CDYB0QS)

I was thinking about getting the LG UltraFine 5k, but it seems like there are mixed reviews on it. Hopefully Apple will come out with a better monitor in 2018 that will also charge my 15" MacBook Pro.

3) Synology 1517+ with 8GB of RAM [https://www.amazon.com/Synology-DS1517-8GB- Disk-Station/dp/B...](https://www.amazon.com/Synology-DS1517-8GB-Disk- Station/dp/B06Y4VFRQP) Haven't determined which hard disks yet. Will check the latest Backblaze report. [https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-failure- rates-q3-2...](https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-failure- rates-q3-2017/)

4) Haven't looked into a TV yet

5) Already upgraded my router and modem...

Wireless router: [https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-Nighthawk-X4S-R7800-100NAS- Co...](https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-Nighthawk-X4S-R7800-100NAS- Compatible/dp/B0192911RA/)

Cable modem: [https://www.amazon.com/Next-Generation-ARRIS-SURFboard- SB820...](https://www.amazon.com/Next-Generation-ARRIS-SURFboard- SB8200-DOCSIS/dp/B01N6SKK1G)

Blue Yeti microphone: [https://www.amazon.com/Blue-Yeti-USB-Microphone- Blackout/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Blue-Yeti-USB-Microphone- Blackout/dp/B00N1YPXW2/)

Considering getting a drone, too... but haven't researched that yet.

<comment><USER2> The HP Envy is another great 4k monitor with USB-C and much cheaper the LG models. Getting it working with a macbook can be extremely frustrating but once you got it configured you can plug/unplug at will.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I recently got this monitor arm by VIVO from amazon: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01NH0HTM5/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01NH0HTM5/)

It is just $29 and the quality is decent and it holds my 32 inch 4K lg monitor with no problem. There is a weight limit so check your monitor weight before you purchase, but do NOT spend more than that on a monitor stand, most of them are identical.

</comment><comment><USER4> Big fan of monitor arms. Get separate arms rather a dual arm setup if you use multiple monitors. More range of angles available.

</comment><comment><USER5> Philips Hue bulbs. Being able to finely control lighting and reduce glare was big for me.</comment>


Goldman Sachs Demanding E-Mail be Deleted - <AUTHOR> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/07/goldman_sacks_d.html <comment><USER2> Why not post the source article: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/02/us-google- goldman-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/02/us-google-goldman-leak- idUSKBN0F729I20140702)

Bruce isn't adding very much here.

<comment><USER3> Bruce "just" added the right audience to get the story picked up on HN -- nothing wrong with that.

<comment><USER4> from ~11 hours earlier: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7981002](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7981002)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > to avoid the risk of unnecessary reputational damage to Goldman Sachs

What horrible injustice, being known as failure in security for being failure in security. Poor Goldman Sachs.

<comment><USER6> Isn't the reputational damage already done? The leak happened.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> They shouldn't be emailing around "highly confidential brokerage account information" in the first place. It should be locked down in some internal system. Poor practice from GS that caused it all in the first place.

<comment><USER8> Having worked at a similar iBank, I can assure you most people don't give a rat's ass about proper procedures until they're caught. Why it was even possible to send an email to an external address with such an unencrypted attachment is a bigger question. I hope the lucky recipient finds a high bidder for said information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm having a hard time getting outraged at either party.

We give companies a hard time for lax security practices. GS recognizes an error and is trying to take steps to reduce the likelihood of a data breach. What's wrong with that?

Google wants to protect its users from unnecessary interference in there email accounts, so it asked for a court order. What's wrong with that?

<comment><USER10> I'm not outraged, either, but curious. What if this had happened with physical mail? Does it make any difference whether it was read or not? Can the destination account argue and keep it?

There are many interesting questions raised here. It could be interesting to see how it plays out in the end.

<comment><USER9> Google should be able to tell whether the email has been opened or not, or whether the receiving account is active or has been logged into recently.

It's interesting to think about this email landing in my Gmail inbox. I'm pretty sure I'd reply and inform the sender that they screwed up and ask if they want me to delete it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Update: Google has apparently blocked access to the email.

source - [http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/03/google-goldman- lea...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/03/google-goldman-leak- idUSL2N0PD2R620140703)

</comment><comment><USER12> In the early 2000's I worked in a school system that used a faux-email system where un-sending messages was completely possible. Any user could un-send messages that no recipients had read, which was _great_ as a user. Only sys- admins could un-send read messages. The only time I remember the latter happening was after someone got fired and flamed their way out the door. It was a bit chilling if you did read their messages before all evidence of their outburst erased by the invisible hand of the sys-admins.

<comment><USER13> Frankly I've never understood why email doesn't work this way, it looks backwards to me. As long as the recipient hasn't read the email the sender should have the right to delete it. Even if the client has already delivered the email in the recipient's inbox there should be a way for the SMTP/IMAP server to notify the client and remove it.

Even Whatsapp works this way: once you've sent a message, you can't unsend it. The message is first relayed to their servers and then relayed to the client, but even if the recipient isn't online and the message is only on the server, deleting it only removes it from _your_ conversation. You'd think that in 2014 we would have addressed these kinds of flaws.

<comment><USER14> Outlook/Exchange does allow emails to be recalled - but I think this only works within the same Exchange organisation.

It is weird to see an email sitting in your Inbox disappear as you watch!

<comment><USER15> It seems to vary though; you can configure Outlook to not obey message recalls, although that might be at the discretion of an admin group policy. Either way, my last DoD network allowed you to avoid deleting emails based on recall requests, which was a very nice feature (or policy omission, not sure).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I use GPGTools when sending sensitive client information, to avoid situations like this.

GS has zero excuses, they could very easily code a Microsoft Outlook version of it that is seamlessly integrated. Instead they fail at proper risk management and rely on government intervention, sound familiar?

<comment><USER17> Do you also use encryption when sending information internally to a colleague? That's the situation here: it was an internal email accidentally sent to GMail instead of Goldman Sachs.

I bet a lot of firms fail in this case.

<comment><USER18> Internal email should be easier to encrypt, if anything. Because the company can control both end-points, so can make the encryption automatic.

<comment><USER19> And how would it help to automatically encrypt internal e-mails when an e-mail accidentally gets an external delivery address because someone fat-fingers?

<comment><USER16> Do you understand how PGP encryption functions?

<comment><USER19> Yes, I understand (on a superficial "don't actually use it on a day-to-day basis, but have encrypted e-mails before" level)

I am imagining this program that looks through your To: field for recipients in your address book that have shared their public key with you. If it finds any, those people get a copy sent to them which is encrypted and only they can read...

Now what happens if you accidentally try to send mail to someone not in your address book?

I guess hopefully you get a big popup that says "Warning: mail will not be encrypted!" Maybe not?

I've used the command-line tools to encrypt files and send encrypted attachments. It's nothing like "automatic" and it's certainly not an envelope for the whole message.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> wes-exp Understandably GS is not a very sympathetic figure, but in general I don't think it's unreasonable to wish for an email "undo" if you fat-finger the recipient address and realize it immediately.

<comment><USER20> Microsoft Exchange has that feature, exposed in Outlook. The fun thing is that IIRC it sends a special email to trigger it. So if the recipient is not using an Exchange server, he sees both emails.

<comment><USER21> A reply to the email with a single line saying "recall", IIRC. I got one of these from a business partner years ago... it was intended as an internal email between them, not as a response to us. It was kind of hilarious. I was very tempted to reply "no" :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I assume the email forgot to include the standard legal disclaimer and "delete-if-unintended-recipient" footer notice? Would that actually protect them if that was present on the email?

<comment><USER23> Those things don't do a darn thing. I've Googled it extensively and the only justification I can find is: "Why NOT include it? It does no harm and it might help."

I'm yet to find a single legal case where an email signature made or broke the case. It strikes me more as legal mumbo jumbo voodoo at this point than anything of merit.

Not least of all as a contract is between two parties, the recipient cannot be auto-magically placed into a contractual position just by receiving the email.

That would be like me sending a snail mail letter to someone with the words "By reading this mail you agree that all your stuff is now mine" and pretending like any court in the world (any country) would take that "contract" seriously.

That's essentially what these signatures do. Try to set up a contractual arrangement with one party "agreeing" to that arrangement just through the virtue of receiving an email?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> That is why a 30 minutes delay before sending emails feature is a must-have in any email client.

The reason I used "The Bat!" for ages, and now prefer Thunderbird/Postbox-inc.

</comment><comment><USER25> Whoops.

[http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/whoops](http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/whoops)</comment>


Zero-Commission Stock Trading App RobinHood Kicks Off Private Beta - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/27/trade-stocks-free-robinhood/ <comment><USER2> When this was on the front page last time, I pointed out that they charge fees: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6906374](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6906374)

> They appear to charge TAF and other regulatory fees ([https://brokerage- > static.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/robinhood/l...](https://brokerage- > static.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF%20Retail%20Commisions%20and%20Fees%20Schedule%20Rhfv1.2%2020131210.pdf)) > -- and based on the fee numbers it looks like they don't have significant > volume -- but the website shows "FEES $0" in the app screen. The fees may > not seem to be a lot, but saying that fees are zero is a factually incorrect > statement.

I'm glad they fixed their homepage, but the table in the article ([http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/screensh...](http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/screenshot-2013-12-18-at-6-36-44-am.png?w=1360&h=424)) is wrong.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ah, what cute example of disruption porn.

Hip, populist sounding name? Check.

New slick-designed facade on old activity? Check.

Marketed as if they're eliminating middlemen? Check. (wow! no fees!)

Promoted as making a begrudgingly-done banality suddenly fun? Check.

Entirely predicated on the idea that the founders' simplicity will persevere? Check.

Majority of money still flowing to well connected insiders? Check. (who do you think is on the other side of trades?)

Eventually going to be assimilated into an incumbent and end up as a tired pig's discarded lipstick? Check.

<comment><USER4> I'm sorry but this just sounds bitter to me. I'm sure the people behind Robinhood did not get together and say, "let's make a product that actually solves no problems, and only pretends to disrupt." Somebody built a new app that seems like at least a cool idea to me. People had a vision and they executed on it. They built a company and they shipped. What companies have you started? What have you built?

I think Theodore Roosevelt said it best: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

<comment><USER3> Yes, I'm a bit bitter that the tech zeitgeist has been co-opted into believing that building stylized website facades for the status quo counts as innovation or for that matter even "technology".

And you're right, the founders probably didn't set out to pretend and they actually believe they're changing the world. So I guess it's more appropriately described as "amateur disruption porn".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is an entire market around the buying and selling of so-called "uninformed flow". While others do this as well, I would give a word of warning to all those potentially interested in this. If you aren't buying something, you are the thing being sold.

<comment><USER6> Uninformed isn't where the value is anymore. It's that the flow isn't toxic to hedge funds trying to do size. People who execute US equities trades through any venue are guaranteed NBBO. Its a win-win.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's the problem:

|RobinHood co-founder Baiju Bhatt stresses that if you want to do deep financial research, you probably want to sit down at a desktop.

The heavy traders who would really benefit from zero-commission (assuming that it actually is) are on desktops in front of 4-10 monitors. Because of what it implies, I think regular people probably shouldn't be making trades that need to be done RIGHT NOW before a desktop can be reached.

edit to add: Is the "Share" button on the bottom of the trade confirmation screen really necessary? Are rich people going to be clogging up twitter with brags like "Just bought 1,000 shares of AAPL on Robinhood!"

<comment><USER8> > " _The heavy traders who would really benefit from zero-commission (assuming > that it actually is) are on desktops in front of 4-10 monitors. Because of > what it implies, I think regular people probably shouldn 't be making trades > that need to be done RIGHT NOW before a desktop can be reached._"

Those people don't pay $10 per trade. If you do enough volume, you're usually able to negotiate much lower commissions. In addition, some of them will also specifically route their orders to ECNs and benefit from credit gained for providing liquidity to even further reduce their fees. All in all this is clearly designed for retail traders aka _dumb money_. I'd be willing to bet that their business model is based on selling the order flow they generate to institutions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Zero-commission (on some trades), but a bunch of random fees for other things, and no guarantee that it will stay fee-free. They plan on making money by providing liquidity (ie. being a market maker) and offering premium services...

With my current brokerage, I get online trading in 10+ worldwide markets, I can hold a variety of currencies, I get excellent execution, and there's no fees, there's plenty of services available including charts, real-time quotes, reports and many things that would otherwise cost me money, and all I have to pay is a flat commission fee on my trades. I really don't see how Robinhood is superior, now or in the future... And many brokerages already offer API access, even if they don't advertise it.

<comment><USER10> Now I'm curious, who's your current broker?

<comment><USER9> TD Waterhouse (Canada). Commissions aren't the lowest, depending on the market too (I usually trade on European and Asian markets), but I'm very happy with the service. Keep in mind TD is also my main bank, so it is convenient to use them as my broker as well (part of the reason I don't mind the slightly higher costs).

If I were to switch, it would probably be to Interactive Brokers - their fees are significantly lower and they have an equally or possibly slightly more compelling set of features.

<comment><USER11> I use Scotiaitrade in Canada, and they are similar. You don't pay any commission if you have more than 50k invested with them (as far as I remember).

I feel happier letting a major bank hold onto my shares, do my trades, calculate interest and balances, etc. rather than some startup. I also use scotiabank for my banking, so it's very convenient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Just seems like a bad product. Most people trail the market because they trade too often. If you want your investments to make money, you don't want a product like this in your pocket all the time.

</comment><comment><USER13> What the zero-commission brokerages don't charge in commission, they make up for in execution.

<comment><USER14> I was thinking the same thing. At least it could be a fun toy for low-volume trading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Thought I recognized the guy in the video! He loves financial services.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9Sx34swEG0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9Sx34swEG0)

[https://vimeo.com/87163777](https://vimeo.com/87163777)

</comment><comment><USER16> If you sign up, use your referral code in another browser, with a fake email address. It boosts your position by 150,000 spots.

<comment><USER17> No kidding. Was at 51k, now I'm at 11k

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Didn't Zecco already prove this wasn't a sustainable business model?

<comment><USER18> I believe Zecco's business model was "We'll just remove our marketing budget so you can pay $4.95 per trade", which isn't unsustainable, but their merger with TradeKing shows that they probably didn't execute it as well as they could have.

<comment><USER19> That was later. They started off with $zero commissions (I believe this was the inspiration for the name Zecco). It started as no commissions no matter the account size, then they added minimums which crept up for a while, then, as I recall, they removed free commissions entirely, then they were bought by TradeKing.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, I was a member way back in the day (like 2006 I believe). It started off as free trades, then it was only 25 free trades a month, then it moved to $4.95, then they were sold to TradeKing. Similar thing with ThinkorSwim, they were also bought out. Perhaps RobinHood's strategy is to just acquire users at a loss and then get bought out...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Zero commission" does not actually mean zero commission. The commission just ends up being baked in to the prices they show you. e.g. If the market (institutional) bid/offer for MSFT were 39/41, they would show customers prices of 38/42\. For an order of $1000, that would mean they charge you $25 of implicit commission on the trade. It just doesn't show up on your bill. Get real. Their only innovation is hiding fees from their customers, not reducing them.

</comment><comment><USER22> If I'm in New Zealand I'm guessing this isn't for me?

[https://brokerage- static.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/robinhood/l...](https://brokerage- static.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF%20Jurisdictions.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER23> I hate to be negative, but this is designed perfectly for gamblers. Invest in index funds.

<comment><USER6> Why not buy ETFs on Robinhood and save the trading commission? I'm sure it will be a supported asset class soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Love this - and the team seems excellent.

I'd view the competition as Interactive Brokers, not E*TRADE or Fidelity.

If I didn't love my job so much I'd be schwangling my way in to try and get in the door there.

<comment><USER25> They don't compete with IB. IB is targeted at larger retail and small institutions. Their business models are similar when it comes to internalization but that is about it.

<comment><USER24> They are a tiny company. They don't compete with anybody, at least in the sense that another firm would view them as a threat. That said, the addressable market I would focus on is the one that IB does. Retail equity platforms are numerous, extensively marketed, and sticky.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I still don't have access.</comment>


Feature checklist dysfunction - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/380868888

<comment><USER2> Bit of a hysterical rant ✓

Written in the over-defensive Apple- _fanboi_ style ✓

Tells me nothing I didn't know ✓

There's nothing wrong with checklists, it's just information, unless you have some weird compulsion to claim that the one with the most, or the fewest, is in some way superior. That's the dysfunction.

This does happen in committee-driven enterprise software design and purchasing and is I think a genuine problem. Gadget blogs summarising useful information about products (does it have a CD drive yes/no) isn't a problem unless you've taken it as some kind of direct insult to your lifestyle choices because you bought the one that did, or didn't, have that feature.

Removing the checklists is not going to magically stop geeks fighting over pointless tech choices, they are just a tool that is too often used as a weapon.

<comment><USER3> I agree.

However, I do think that when there are long lists of comparable features between very comparable systems (intravendor rather than intervendor, I guess) I do wish they would do something to typographically offset the things that are different.

Compare variations of Thinkpads and they are often VERY similar. What are just the important differences? Etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good article. One of my biggest bugbears is seeing people make laptop feature comparisons that miss off weight, dimensions, and battery life - three things that are critically important to me.

<comment><USER5> I agree. But you seem to forget usability, style, safety (as opposed to security) and a few of other parameters that are actually key to the overall experience. Much more so than the inclusion of a digital fingerprint reader, for example.

<comment><USER2> Usability, style and safety do not belong in a checklist because there's no simple yes/no or appropriate numerical figure, which is why only one of the example tables in the article is even vaguely realistic. This does not mean they should not be considered in purchasing decisions, just that they're complex to evaluate and compare.

Not listing dimensions and weight is ridiculous, or would be if I'd ever seen a comparison that didn't include these basics.

<comment><USER5> I agree with you. I was pointing that out, regarding the title of the article, "Feature checklist dysfunction". Basically I'm critical of the very system of "checklists" for products or as a mean of comparing products.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A VC: Every Product Is A Platform - <AUTHOR> http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2007/09/every-product-i.html

<comment><USER2> He gets at a really smart point here, and it's really the most important one of the article: if your existence helps secure others' existence, then you're sitting in the catbird seat. To paraphrase a professor of mine from a couple years ago, why steal pieces of the pie from others when you can spend your time making the pie a lot bigger for everyone?

The best-designed platforms not only get better with more apps, but they make it so that the presence of every new app benefits all the others.</comment>