U.S. Startups Taking on Debt - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-19/u-s-startups-are-piling-on-debt <comment><USER3> With all due respect to the OP, I think debt is amazing and a great and sensible solution of financing a company - that VCs want to distract you from for their own benefit.

If all factors point into the right direction, why would you give VCs a free ride with a steaming train instead of just going all in yourself and personally taking on a bank loan? (especially in the way more conservative and less trigger happy VC environment in Europe)

No doubt it's hard (due to much heavier regulations around bank loans), but with the right KPIs it's really not much harder than raising a round.

Sociomantic did it. We did it too - and by now financed our own Series B with revenue.

Way too many people trying to build a startup instead of building a company...

<comment><USER4> > _why would you give VCs a free ride with a steaming train instead of just > going all in yourself and personally taking on a bank loan?_

Because most startups fail?

And startups that VCs aren't interested in, even more so?

<comment><USER5> > And startups that VCs aren't interested in, even more so?

Do you have any reference or data to back this claim?

VCs often aren't interested in startups that don't aim to be a billion dollar business. And those might actually have a better chance of succeeding.

<comment><USER6> Exactly. DHH quite famously argues this point.

[https://m.signalvnoise.com/reconsider-41adf356857f#.9npvz09a...](https://m.signalvnoise.com/reconsider-41adf356857f#.9npvz09ah)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't know if it's just me, but I feel like a majority of the HN community seems to lean towards building a sustainable business without the need to take on outside capital that adds debt to the business. I definitely agree with that sentiment, however I love a nuanced article like this which doesn't paint debt as an entirely "bad" thing that needs to be avoided at all costs.

This was an awesome article to read as it balances the risks and possible advantages that taking on debt can bring a small company.

<comment><USER8> It's great if you can take your time to get bootstrapped and build something sustainable, but sometimes you're Sidecar and you get Ubered by a company with seemingly infinite backing and you stand no chance, so you have to accelerate or be left in the dust by someone much hungrier. Same with businesses such as Homejoy / Handy where you need to be hugely unprofitable for a while until all of your competition dies out and then it's a winner-take-all market with you being the monopoly and reaping all of the benefits. It's a strategy, at the end of the day.

<comment><USER9> Or you can choose a smaller niche where you can't be ubered. The hedonistic value of money has a very steep downward slope.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article is not wrong, but I work in this space so maybe I can add some context from I have seen:

The author seems a bit hyperbole happy; yes debt volume is up but it's nothing to foam at the mouth over...Phrases like " _spiked_ in 2016", " _surged_ 19%", " _doubled last year 's total_" (Wellington did 5 loans last year, so "double" is only 5 more loans) this language makes "piling on debt" sound bigger than it really is...

If you look at the growth of startups over the past few years and compare that to debt volume: then up 19% or doing 5 more debt deals is in line with what would be expected and maybe even a bit low.

Second point: Without naming names, and without contradicting the article, a significant portion of debt taken on by startups is mezz debt or bridge loans. In the cases of bridge loans for example, more mature startups often use bridge loans prior to an expected IPO. So with the IPO market bottlednecked at the moment, the increase in debt deals this year is expected as it partly reflects startups waiting out an upcoming increase in IPOs (hopefully).

Connected to planning for IPOs is in some cases company boards and/or their VCs will encourage small debt deals to help train CEOs and CFOs for the "big leagues" after they IPO. New, relatively young, first-time CEOs and CFOs have no experience managing a complex capital structure of equity and debt. So boards and VCs encourage getting their feet wet with a bit of debt while still private. You see BS mini acquisitions by startups for similar reasons. If this sounds like boards and VCs treating some CEOs/CFOs like children who need training wheels, that is correct.

Lastly, the article makes it seem like a lot of startups are turning to debt because VC funding has dried up for them or they want to avoid printing a down round. This is not entirely accurate. While VC investors' approach might be generalized as thinking about 'reward before risk', debt lenders looks at 'risk before reward'. SO if a startup is too risky for VC capital, 9 times out of 10 they are too risky for debt as well. Any startups who think they have loans as a backup option if they can't raise their next round are in a for a tough wake up call. The startups that get debt are relatively healthy and will have both equity or debt as options. Or they just need a small amount of money and offer recourse assets. Debt is not as attractive as one might think if you actually do the math side by side and look at the convenants.

<comment><USER11> > SO if a startup is too risky for VC capital, 9 times out of 10 they are too > risky for debt as well. Any startups who think they have loans as a backup > option if they can't raise their next round are in a for a tough wake up > call.

Reminds me of the one startup we once partnered with that were entirely bank funded through a major R&D effort. I'm still in awe at the financial discipline it took them, given that the bank released money in tranches equivalent to what he needed for 1-2 months at a time, entirely contingent on meeting extremely narrow performance targets to convince the bank they were on track and still met the risk profile. Mess up the slightest little bit even one month, and they'd be totally at the mercy of their bank manager. The bank saw it as borderline in terms of their risk.

Meanwhile, if they'd gone to a VC with the business in the state it was in, the VCs would be metaphorically throwing stacks of money at the company.

<comment><USER12> Traditionally debt has been seen as the cheaper way to capitalize a business. It's just that start ups are terrible credit risks and had no ability to get loans. Obviously every situation is unique. The freedom of a lot of money now might be worth giving up equity, especially in a market where first mover is so significant.

But if you use debt, all the upside is yours.

I still think debt is better, especially because a lot of equity comes with with debt-like terms like liquidation preferences. So it's basically the worst part of debt and equity combined.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Umm... I donno. I think taking other peoples money in general is a bad thing due to psychology. It's very easy to spend other peoples money but you always think one time extra before you spend your own.

Many of these companies that take on huge VC rounds or take a lot of debt seem to often employ unnecessary many people, hire big unnecessary offices money that would never have been spent if it was their own money.

Sure I understand if you really need to grow fast, but even then I think many spend their money on unnecessary crap even when they have zero revenue.

The goal for every company should always be to maximize revenue and minimize the cost of doing business. People in the startup scene seems to forget that too often.

<comment><USER14> > maximize revenue and minimize the cost of doing business

Often doing both at the same time is difficult, and near impossible. To increase revenue you need a sales staff, and engineering time on building new features for new markets. Reducing costs requires your engineering staff, and maybe a business staff to negotiate with suppliers (or whatever your other inputs are). The engineers are often different kind of people. The type of engineer who is great at maximizing a process is probably not the same type of engineer who is good at rapid prototyping, and building something that "just works".

There's a transition in every startup that reaches a point of maturity where they start to build processeses, and start to rebuild existing systems. It's usually at the same time that the founding staff starts to leave.

Startups concentrate on Revenue, and hope they reach the level of worrying about costs.... and VC money makes that SO MUCH EASIER. Bootstrapping usually means you limit your input costs, which limits the rate of growth you can achieve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The very premise of the article:

"With fewer companies getting funded these days, many startups are opting to borrow money instead. "

Leaves some serious financial issues.

Generally speaking - if you could raise debt, you wouldn't ever want to raise equity.

The whole point of raising equity surrounds the fact that there's too much risk for debt.

If you can get good terms on a deal, and are not too leveraged, then every VC should be _wanting_ the company to have debt in lieu of equity. Why would anyone want to dilute if they don't have to?

What on earth are these startups using as collateral? Equipment? Receivables?

And given the likelihood of a startup going bust, why are banks even offering debt, at any price?

I can definitely understand a 'bridge loan' for some financial operation - <USER2> even holding off for better valuations ... or again, some kind of low-leverage on solid receivables for an SaaS or something ...

If someone has some experience with this, maybe they can chime in?

<comment><USER6> Debt financing is usually massively cheaper than equity financing. If you need working capital and can pay back loans with decent terms, then you should almost always prefer debt. I could be wrong, but I get the impression startups either don't understand how to leverage debt or it's just not sexy. No one gets a TechCrunch article written about their new 500k loan from Wells Fargo that they need for working capital. VCs aren't exactly keen on revenue producing startups going to a bank instead of them either.

Another possibility could be they are no where near to producing the revenue needed to make payments or pay off a loan and equity has no hard deadline or immediate revenue requirements. Unfortunately, that's kind of a terrible cycle as a company with cheap debt and revenue is likely to be built on better fundamentals than one that has no idea when it will have revenue.

<comment><USER15> "could be they are no where near to producing the revenue needed to make payments or pay off a loan a"

\---> Then there is no way they could feasibly get any debt.

That's the odd part of all of this.

<comment><USER6> Good point. That part doesn't make any sense. I guess what lenders we're doing before the recession in the housing market didn't make sense either though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I really do not understand why anyone would would want to lend a startup money these rates (14%). it may sound like a high percentage but...

\- nobody is ultimately responsible for the debt. if the company runs out of cash, money gone. you cannot go after the people who squandered your cash. 90% of startups fails early. it's like a slot machine but when you win, you get 14%.

\- a recent strategy for companies is bankruptcy followed by a 'restart'. get rid of any debt and a lot of employees, keep the rest.

\- take the money and run. the current system would enable unscrupulous ceo's to direct the money to themselves and let the company crash. a lender would lose his money.

lending to companies is broken. if you have ever seen a loan fail to repay itself, you will not make that mistake again. to enable lenders to have a reasonable guarantee they will see their money back, the system should be adjusted so that shareholders can be easily held (personally) responsible for the companies debt.

conclusion: debt is an amazing way to finance a startup, if you can get it. the last thing seems very doubtful. a lot of these startup lenders are likely to lose money.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm confused. The CEO of Persado is quoted as saying "interest rates are low," while the article says that Metamarkets is paying 14% on a loan cut in Oct-- for comparison, the Merrill Triple-C-Rated index ("extremely speculative" junk bonds) is under 12%. So while it's true that UST base rates are low, that doesn't seem to be a factor in this funding. Sounds like a story about a few banks goosing earnings with risky loans and company insiders/VCs getting more upside "if things work out" and far less of those pesky loses if they don't, very much like the speculative real estate development loans in the 80s that made for a big but very short party.

</comment><comment><USER18> I wonder how much the emergence of fintech is affecting this trend?

Debt is a powerful, but often fairly complex, financial instrument. Much like venture capital. The difference is that most folks in the financial industry are intimately familiar with debt but relatively unfamiliar with venture capital; or worse, to those coming from a PE background VC can often appear completely insane.

The growth of fintech has indirectly added a whole cohort of founders and entrepreneurs who are much more likely to know how to work with debt and be able to use it in tandem (or in place of) venture capital.

</comment><comment><USER19> Last year venture capitalists plowed a record $79 billion into startups at often unsustainable valuations

</comment><comment><USER20> >>Unlike venture investors who typically bet one investment will hit big and compensate for duds, lenders get no upside if a startup succeeds.

Obviously not written by a lender. There are countless schemes for lending money. These are custom contracts, not credit cards. At the simplest, a lender can delay repayment for a period of years in full knowledge that the business may fail between now and then. The startup accepts an otherwise ridiculous interest rate. Or a hybrid approach can be made whereby the later debt can be settled with stock, stock valuated when the debt is due. Maybe the stock takes off and repayment is easy, or maybe the stock tanks and the lender takes substantial ownership of the company. The deal still begins life as a loan.

Lending money to a business and buying a shares in that business are not mutually exclusive concepts. There is an entire range of schemes available between those two options.

<comment><USER17> The article specifically mentions commercial bank lenders, which are regulated. While I'm sure there are non-bank lenders in this space, a commercial bank can't delay repayment without a charge to the loan-loss reserve, and taking stock in lieu of payment, unless the stock is good as cash, is also a loan impairment. Unregulated commercial lenders have more freedom, but they are also constrained by GAAP.

<comment><USER21> So they take a hit on the loan value which their funders might expect give tge returns they aim to produce.

Junk bonds are nothing new.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Seems like the bubble is finally shrinking... i think dept can actually help an early company focus their effort - if you know you have to produce value, to meet your next payments - instead of 'oh, yeah i got a billion dollars - lets buy some art for the office'. I am always amazed when i read articles on how much money a (typical) unicorn (actually) looses... Granted it can take some money to build a user-base etc. But, woo... i would love if someone could calculate the cost of customer for some big ones... Or tell me how shit, without a business-model, gets founding millions high.

</comment><comment><USER23> Debt in the limit is the same as equity, from the perspective of investors. You end up betting fundamentally on the solvency of the business rather than how much of a (positive) return they will generate.

</comment><comment><USER24> Reasonably priced debt is issued with the expectation that most recipients will succeed and access to it is generally limited to entities with a stable business model already.

VC money is mostly issued with the expectation that most recipients will fail and it's priced accordingly.

A strongly performing 'real' company (i.e. one with a strong profit stream) will nearly always prefer debt to VC money in the same way a strongly performing public company will issue bonds over selling more shares--the later tending to be for companies in trouble.

</comment><comment><USER25> From a finance perspective debt financing should be cheaper than equity financing. Sin e equity is more risky it requires a greater rate or return.

</comment><comment><USER26> Amazon famously took on a lot of debt to avoid equity dilution, but I think this was only after they had gone public.

Of course Bezos left Wall Street to found Amazon so he already had wider connections that gave him more flexibility in financing.

</comment><comment><USER27> Wow. 14% is really damn high.

</comment><comment><USER28> This article confirms that the low interest capital days are coming to an end. Porsche too thought they could grow with debt. Then the low interest capital ran out and they got bought by Volkswagen.

<comment><USER29> I think you're grossly under represending the porsche thing. Porsche did a very very well executed short squeeze on VW and very nearly succeeded in acquiring VW.

Look it up. It was a very ballsy move. Even by failing, it still went down in history as a pretty masterful move. It also caused Germany to change their accounting laws around things such as that. In the US an equivalent move would be illegal. The US learned from Short Squeezes when the NY City Council tried to punish Cornelius Vanderbilt and he exacted revenge on them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Not bad [http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt- clock.html](http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html)

</comment><comment><USER30> I've been saying for years that anyone who believes silicon valley is in a bubble needs to put their money where their mouth is and short SVB stock.

</comment><comment><USER31> Is this a bubble, and if so, when will it pop?

<comment><USER32> Sometimes debt is cheaper than VC money, if you have the cash flow to pay it back. If sales tank, and your cash flow slows down, you'll learn how quickly debt is not always cheaper :) In the article, the first company mentioned talks about how sales doubled in a year. Well, and an anything that grows that fast can shrink that fast, too. VC money can have really favorable payment terms for a company that needs to keep cash within the company to grow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> > "Folks don't want to do down rounds or flat rounds," says Haim Zaltzman, a > partner at law firm Latham & Watkins LLP, which has handled well over 100 > such loan transactions so far this year. "Debt allows you to get around > that."

Eh. I'm not too into the whole startup scene these days, and I haven't been exactly fishing for VC deals in today's market, but I believe that if your startup is only getting term sheets that provide you with a deal that forces you down or flat, you should seriously be considering looking at your business fundamentals before you are trying to raise funding by other means.

VC is speculative and looks for returns with dilution; if your company starts to go belly up, you can look at some acquihire or insta-acquisition through the VC's network so the VC firm can save face and see some ROI.

However, if you can't make your debt payments, banks don't care. They have no LPs to answer to, just their balance sheets. They will gladly step in with their attorneys and carve out any asset they can from your precious company. Caveat emptor. I have always been told by trusted GPs that debt is useful in very, very limited situations, and it seemed to me that the dreams of the entrepreneurs getting stuck with debt deals are already grasping at straws. I think there's a point at which you need to know when to quit.

<comment><USER34> If your company starts to go belly up and you get acquihired, you'll probably walk away as empty handed as a bank default, due to liquidation preferences and other terms in VC funding.

<comment><USER35> Founders aren't always in it just for the bank account. Between going belly up and shuttering, and going belly up and giving their team a chance in another company, existing customers, etc., acquihire is preferable to getting carved up. At the very least, founders need to save face too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Really? Like convertible notes?

<comment><USER37> The author is contrasting "venture deals" against "borrowing capital" so I'm pretty sure they mean conventional loans with banks.

EDIT: The author is totally talking about venture debt and buried the lede. So yes, convertible notes as far as I can tell. Very misleading.

<comment><USER38> Venture debt is very different to convertible notes. Venture debt usually involves warrants and preferred shares, they'll take IP as collateral, and are only offered from a few banks and other financial institutions. They often have defined interest payments as well.

We had a $X million dollar venture note from SVB at a previous company that needed to raise cash, it was helpful to keep the company afloat but definitely came with some pretty onerous terms (as to be expected). It was much different to the convertible notes that started the company.

[https://www.svb.com/Blogs/Derek_Ridgley/Extend_your_startup_...](https://www.svb.com/Blogs/Derek_Ridgley/Extend_your_startup_s_runway__How_venture_debt_works/)

<comment><USER37> Part of the issue is that the author goes through no effort to actually explain WTF they are talking about, while making it sound like these startups are raising capital with no equity on the line.

<comment><USER39> Uber actually is. They've been taking on straight debt.[1]

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-06-15/uber-s-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-06-15/uber- s-debt-fueled-cheap-price-race-is-on-borrowed-time)

<comment><USER40> Wow! Uber is quite the domino :-)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why are some people better at working from home than others? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200506-why-are-some-people-better-at-working-from-home-than-others <comment><USER3> One really positive thing I have found for myself in the WFH life is that I am taking MUCH better care of myself. So far I have lost weight, started a bodyweight workout routine, which I do in between meetings/calls/other work, and have gained back 2 hours of my day by not taking transit into the city. That's 2 more hours every day that I get to relax, work on a personal project, hang out with my SO, or even crush out some work-related interest if I am feeling motivated. It has also been a fantastic motivator and resource for cooking — I can start dinner before my workday is over, cook myself lunch, meal plan...

I also pay thousands of dollars to live in a cool place, and now I am finally getting to enjoy it, and enjoy it with my SO.

At the end of the day, maybe I am less "productive", by normal standards, but maybe I didn't need to be in an office for 8+ hours every day to get the parts of my job done that need getting done.

There surely are parts of this that I want to change or can't wait to change, but at the end of the day I am grateful for the forcing function to working from home full-time.

<comment><USER4> Actually it's the opposite for me, I've started taking so much junk snacks (which wasn't available at Office), Less Walks and No proper schedule. Sleeps off the time. Many a days just getting up and jumping into calls.

On the positive side, it's more quality time with family but I'm still wondering how to fix the health part.

<comment><USER5> > I've started taking so much junk snacks (which wasn't available at Office)

What I've found helps is to not buy snacks. I eat junk if it's available, but if nothing is nearby, then I can't be bothered to go out and purchase it, so I'll eat a grapefruit instead.

Another thing that I have found helps is to order a community supported agriculture (CSA) produce box. A lot of farmers that supply restaurants are losing a lot of business lately, and at least in the Bay Area, many are starting to sell directly to consumers. I'm on a weekly schedule now where every Wednesday I pick up a box of restaurant quality vegetables in SF, and it's pretty fun because a lot of these vegetables are ones I've never even heard of before. It has become a hobby to come up with new types of meals, and it also gives my wife and I a nice break from the monotony to go for our vegetable pickup excursion.

<comment><USER6> One of my mottos: Good eating starts in the supermarket, not in the kitchen.

I can easily not buy potato chips. I don't even pretend like I'll control myself and not eat a whole bag in one night if it's in the house.

<comment><USER7> Do you have a second motto that helps me not stress eat all the good food I just bought?

<comment><USER8> My motto is: if you're house is dirty, you're probably getting depressed. Clean your house.

It'll probably help with the stress eating. Anxiety is a big culprit and it is common these days.

<comment><USER9> On the other hand, if my house is very clean and uncluttered, I'm probably depressed/anxious and not spending time doing things I like. I personally despise cleaning house, and minimal cleaning for practical reasons works for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Let me caveat the following by saying that I'm one who believes the future of tech work is fully remote and personally hope to stay fully remote post-COVID.

I do not believe now is the time to be drawing comparisons or conclusions between the office norm and the fully remote situation most of us have been thrust into.

Sure, some people procrastinate more than others. Some people need more management than others to keep going. Some people are better self-driven and self-organized than others.

The effects of the externalities many are now faced with

\- worry over savings / the state of the market

\- job security as we watch others get laid off

\- how the kids are holding up, how will this impact their education and future

\- sick family members

\- etc. etc.

renders it impossible to draw conclusions meaningfully e.g. "Susan was super productive when we were working in the office, but she seems to have really dropped off now that she's remote. Looks like remote isn't for her!"

or

"I was so effective in the office but now that I'm at home I can't seem to get anything done, or focus, therefore I must not be cut out for remote work".

Whilst in the background you, or Susan, are facing a big drop in your 401k, or you're worried your kids are watching too much tv at home all day, or Mom is headed out to get groceries again when she really shouldn't be and there's nothing I can do about it.

I believe the sweet period when some sense of normality resumes but we're still mandated to WFH because it'll be impossible to institute social distancing effectively in cost-optimized open office spaces will be when we can more effectively starting measuring and drawing conclusions over fully remote work and its impact on people and the office.

<comment><USER11> Honestly, it's just not for some people. And that's ok.

<comment><USER12> Thats true. The point of the comment is that the set of people who just aren't cut our to work from home happily and productively is a lot smaller than the set of people who can't work happily and productively _right now_ , no matter where they work.

<comment><USER11> Well, that's fair enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you have a baby and two young children around who you also have to homeschool for 8 hours a day then you're not going to be "productive" working at home.

People who slack at work by hide it by having lots of meetings / playing politics are useless whilst working-from home because they don't know how operate when their productivity is more visible.

<comment><USER14> I first experienced this roughly a year ago when I was having a discussion with a colleague in China, and she happened to be at home because of the time zone difference. All of a sudden, a baby started screaming and all hell broke loose. She was so embarrassed, but we all just laughed it off and she realized that we weren't annoyed at all.

When we all went on lockdown recently, I noticed that at first people were careful to create a "proper" workspace that was not only silent but also photogenic for their camera. Naturally, a kid sees a closed door with the most interesting new thing in the house happening on the other side. The only proper recourse is to bang on the door.

Even within just a few weeks, things have relaxed considerably. Now, I rarely attend a meeting, even when there are higher-ups in attendance, where there are not kid noises in the background, folks going on "mute" to deal with a meltdown, even just letting the kids play in the same room. Going shopping during the work day, when the stores are less crowded, is completely normal now.

When all of this started, some folks said: "Finally this will normalize working from home." Maybe it will go even further, and normalize folks having a real life.

<comment><USER15> > Maybe it will go even further, and normalize folks having a real life.

I absolutely love this. I love seeing my colleagues contextualized in their private spaces, that reflects their personal choices, humanity, wholeness. In the office this is reduced to a 2x5' desk.

Office as a space also has a sense of self-importance to it. It is not unlike a church or a stadium where the purpose of the gathering is super-salient and the participants' rich humanity is backgrounded. Working from home, it is harder to be reduced to one's function as a worker, it is impossible to forget that you are a human with a life when constantly surrounded by the cues that remind you of that life, in the space that you live that life.

<comment><USER14> Totally agreed. At the same time, I also feel that someone should be able to separate work and life if they want to. I have one colleague who never turns her camera on, which is perfectly OK too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As of this writing, a lot of comments are sharing their varied personal experiences in WFH.

Which is good, because they are all more interesting and valuable than the article, which skips the "varied" part and basically lumps everything in to "if you have troubles working from home, you need more willpower" (paraphrase).

I found it insulting and was a bit surprised to see what I assumed to be American work-fetish from a BBC article.

There are LOTS of reasons because people are very different and our environments are very different. I don't have kids, I am easily distracted by visuals or sounds in my periphery, I have a separate room for my home office, I don't have neighbors that share a wall or live above my ceiling, I have good internet service, I'm an introvert...so yeah, I have an easier time working from home. But those that don't, they obviously just lack dedication to work. Garbage.

<comment><USER17> I think willpower is an important factor, but not the only one. The bigger issue is viewing lack of willpower as a personal moral failing rather than something that can be fixed with practice and attention. I really buy into the fact that willpower is like a muscle that you can exercise and that there _are_ real practical ways to improve it. I've seen huge increases in my own focus and working ability in the last five years - part of that due to a maturing prefrontal cortex but in large part also because I've taken concrete steps to improving it (and reducing procrastination).

That is not to say that all distractions are easily fixed or that everybody _should_ have great focus and attention.

<comment><USER18> Can you give any tips on where to start? Any particular books or anything you found helpful in giving you practical ways to exercise your willpower?

<comment><USER17> Not really books, but stuff I've picked up via osmosis, mostly from the internet:

First, the biggest way to make improvements quickly is to make sure you are getting good sleep, exercising regularly, and eating well. This does huge benefits for mood, alertness, and energy. Also if you drink, smoke weed, or take some other non-stimulant drug regularly that you don't need to be taking - stop. Not only do these impede focus while under the influence and for a day or two after, they also prevent you from getting high quality sleep (which is why you get very vivid dreams after ceasing regular use for a few weeks - <USER2> are catching up on REM sleep).

Second, set small bite sized goals. Instead of thinking about the long path ahead, it's better to think about what is the first thing you need to do. That really helps me prevent procrastinating. You can also do what I think of as "reverse procrastinating" where you tell yourself you'll take a 30m break from procrastinating right now to get something done - usually I end up getting in the zone and working for longer than 30m.

Taking breaks is also helpful. The frequency/length depends on the person and for me changes from day to day. If you catch yourself slacking or losing focus, or stuck on something, get up and walk around. When I'm at work I basically drink 5+ diet sodas a day, partially for the caffeine, but weirdly enough also because it makes me pee a lot so it forces me to get up and walk around every 1-2 hours.

The goal setting, and seeing them to completion or at least making good, sustained effort, is the part that improves over time with practice. Eventually you start setting larger goals and can start planning more (if you are like me, paralysis by analysis is really easy to fall into, so you have to take it easy here). I'm by no means some kind of self-actualized ubermensch, but these have really worked for me, to the point where I've transitioned from a serial procastinator in college - doing almost everything day before, day of, or late if the penalty was low - to someone who actually does stuff in advance and spends almost the entire workday working.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've been working from home for the past 10 years and I don't think I could go back to a regular office.

\- I can work at my own natural pace whenever I want. Some days I work 4 hours. Some days I work 12 hours until 1-2 am.

\- If I need to buy something I just do it. I can go to the supermarket at the best times.

\- I can eat home made food and follow any schedule I wish. My SO also works at home and we're doing intermittent fasting 4/20\. We start eating at 2pm and stop at 6pm.

\- I loooove espresso. To give you an idea my espresso setup costs more than my work setup and I roast my own beans. No office could provide me with this.

\- We have 2 large dogs and we just couldn't abandon them for 8-10 hours every day. I don't know how people do that.

\- We can live wherever we want and we don't have to pay extra to live in a nice house. Gone are the days of living in apartments without garden.

<comment><USER20> > Some days I work 4 hours. Some days I work 12 hours until 1-2 am.

Do you track those hours to make sure you don't think you worked enough but in fact consistently work too little or too much? Wondering because I had that problem (working slightly too much every week).

<comment><USER19> I've never measured it but I've learned to work as much as I can without getting into burnout territory. On average I think I now work 50-60 hours per week.

Most of these 10 years I've been working as a freelancer or now building my thing. Even when I was working for a company for a couple of years I was completely independent as far as time management goes.

<comment><USER20> Wait, why would you "work as much as [you] can without getting into burnout territory"? That sounds like you consistently and deliberately work more than you get paid for. Do you enjoy the job that much or is there some other reason, if I may ask?

<comment><USER19> Like I explained in my previous comment, I work for myself now.

<comment><USER20> If that explained it, I wouldn't be asking :-)

Or do I misunderstand that 'working for yourself' means that you have your own company and you work for customers? If you really just work for "yourself" and nobody pays you (I don't think that's what you mean, but I'm not a native speaker so perhaps I'm missing something) then I understand that you just work as much as you like. But if someone pays you, why would you work more time than you get paid for rather than spending that time on a hobby or with family and friends? Even if you're not paid/bill by the hour, I assume you can't ask a rate much higher than competitors even if you get projects done faster because customers would just go elsewhere; they'd expect you work normal hours and get it done in a normal amount of time. Or at least, that's what it seems like from my perspective but since you work more there has to be a flaw in the logic somewhere.

<comment><USER19> "working for myself" means I don't have a contract with a company to exchange a fixed amount of daily hours for money. I do have freelancing clients which I budget per hour but they don't care how and when I work, they just see the results. I'm also building a SaaS so it's up to me how I want to work.

> _But if someone pays you, why would you work more time than you get paid for > rather than spending that time on a hobby or with family and friends?_

If for example I'm working on a 200 hour freelance project I don't spend more time that I got paid. I just do the work at my own pace.

I do spend time doing other activities than working. What do you think I do on those days I only work 4 hours :)

When I was mostly freelancing (now I'm mostly working on my SaaS) I took a couple of days off after finishing each project, sometimes even a 2-3 weeks after big projects.

When I was working as an employee they didn't pay me to work X hours per day. They paid me for results and didn't care how or when I worked either. I admit there were situations where I did give more than what I got paid for, doing things outside my responsibilities, and that was a mistake. I did that because it was an education company I joined with great ideals, not because of the money.

I learned from those years as an employee that I simply don't have an employee mentality. For example I treated my bosses as I treated my clients. As a freelancer or running your own company you're measured by the quality and efficiency of your work so you learn to care about that. Employees around me were trying to work as little as possible and only cared about their paycheck. They didn't care about solving problems or being efficient. For example, there was this programmer (who didn't work for me) that preferred to spend a couple of hours every day doing a manual report instead of automating it and be given more work. Of course he was friends with the IT manager, another person with employee mentality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I actually thought i'm the type of person who needs the office.

Apparently i'm not. That gives me great hope for my future plan to do home office when buying a farm.

Just yesterday i did nothing in the morning and worked highly concentrated and efficient until 10pm (that was a one time thing normally i'm quite punctual as i had an private appointment).

When working at the office, i have to hurry to be on time and at the evening i'm stressing on going home because i wanna see my wife and a wanna eat something. Now my wife is here anyway and i'm much more flexible now.

<comment><USER22> I like the flexibility, but you have to be conscious to still set boundaries. Having to leave the office to catch my train on time is a great motivator to make sure everything is wrapped up and I don't linger at the office. When work is at home, what's another 15 minutes, or 30, or 2 hours.. I'm hearing from my coworkers that they are having a hard time with separating at the end of the day, when "going home" is just going into the other room (or disconnecting from the VPN).

<comment><USER23> > I'm hearing from my coworkers that they are having a hard time with > separating at the end of the day

Yup, the thing I always try to remember is tomorrow's another day and that whatever I'm working on likely isn't as important as I'm making it out to be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm an introvert and a teacher. In class I successfully turn myself into a charismatic extrovert.

I have 80+ teenage pupils to manage remotely, with me on camera for a significant amount of that time. I find it _very easy_.

All pupils have an iPad. We all have full accounts in Microsoft Outlook and in Google Classroom, Forms, Docs and Meet.

Being remote has made me tighten up my document formatting game. I just set up a nice asciidoctor template to make classroom materials have a bit more wow factor for the assignments and ideas I post online.

The tools hold pupils to deadlines. It's a boundary they respect and it gets a lot more out of them. They find remote work a lot harder than I do of course. It makes school feel a lot more tiring.

(Periods have about 30% face time and the rest they are left to work under their own steam — with parents no doubt pushing them on my behalf.)

We will go back to school eventually and we had all these tools before but I don't feel we used them to anything like the full extent we do right now. Remote teaching has really changed the game for me, for the better. It's not something I'd choose to do — for their sake — but I'm enjoying what it's helped me learn and look forward to carrying a ton of techniques over into the new school year.

</comment><comment><USER25> Everyone is different and the whole thing depends on so many things, that there is no one solution fits all. I started my career or a good part of it as a freelancer and then with my own company that was fully remote in a time where home office wasn't even a thing. I loved it, I was working for myself, I could work whenever I wanted, could take time off, but also had big projects where I was working 7 days a week for a month. I didn't care because in the end I was young and single and life was simple.

Now, working in a company, I miss the office so much. I don't like this lack of border between work and personal life. I didn't sign up for this, my home is my own space and I don't want calls, I don't want anything related to work in there. I don't like having my work laptop and equipment in my personal space and office, I don't like switching laptops just so that I can do something else that I like. The thing is, I like the office where I work, I like my colleagues, I like our lunches, I like the social interactions, it was always a nice change of space where I could fully focus on my work, knowing that when I leave the building, work is done and I'm switching to my other environment.

</comment><comment><USER26> While working in an office, I considered myself one of the more productive members of my team, and one colleague called me the most productive team member. Now, working from home, I am often standing up, walking around and dreaming for hours. I am glad I was allowed to return to an office alone this Monday. I am not 100% sure it is all due to WFH because my assigned project changed at about the same time but I can only hope I'll recover when I'm in an office again, even if nobody else is there to watch over me.

<comment><USER27> How much of that walk around time is just time saving from other things?

I'm also called productive by my team and I do the same as I save so much time by not having to deal with interruptions, leaving meetings on in the background, and and being able to work through lunch.

<comment><USER26> None of the walkaround time is saved from other things I'd say. I don't work through lunch, my lunch break has gotten longer because I make food instead of eating in the canteen, and lunch is one of the enjoyable times when I do not feel guilty for not working. The 'enjoyable because I do not feel guilty for not working' is somewhat true for the meetings now as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've always been a night owl and WFH seems to fix my mental health after years of trying to force myself to work during "normal office hours" (let's just agree to call them bricklaying and farming hours) in noisy office environments (I'm doing a mixture between natural science and AI which requires plenty of focus).

I'm slowly regaining trust in my ability to focus, getting into flow, and feel "normal" again. I'm starting my day with food-related stuff, sports and work communication, then going for an open-end session only towards late afternoon when communication slows down, working into the night.

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't get how some people work different hours at home. Generally, I have to have Slack availability and then the meetings all get scheduled around the standard 9-5 times. So I have to work the same times anyway, or else I will just look like I don't work.

Work from office seems like a lose-lose situation however. I have to commute, and at work, I just waste more time because showing up counts as work. I sort of wish I felt more at ease at home. I mostly work harder. So the one-size- fits-all-butts-in-seats, in some cases, falls into that stupidity where one party (the employer) causes a loss for both parties without benefits, because they'll make no effort to figure out what works best for who and just have a dumb blanket policy.

<comment><USER30> _> I don't get how some people work different hours at home.. _

Not every company will have a stack of meetings or require you to be on Slack. For 10 years I did WFH for a company where everything happened via email, and it was designed to be asynchronous. That meant I could choose any hours to work, and I often worked at night & slept in through the morning. As long as the work got done and milestones were finished on time, it didn't matter.

My personal opinion, but if a company is requiring you to work _synchronously_ from home, something has gone a bit wrong and their processes are fragile. It's like multi-threaded code but the threads are always blocked waiting on each other. (In that case, the company is probably just doing WFH to save on rental costs and to get the employees to buy the office equipment instead.)

At least in those cases you still get the benefit of designing the work environment you want with the gear you want, but you miss out on the time flexibility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm finding myself to be terrible working from home, but (a) I have kids, one of whom needs a lot of supervision, (b) the only real focused workspace I have is in my unfinished basement, and it's as dank and awful as most such basements are. I've ended several workdays wheezing and coughing.

<comment><USER32> I'd recommend at least getting a quiet dehumidifier and an air purifier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I haven't found the results of WFH to be surprising.

The self-motivated people are getting just as much if not more work done.

The people who are chatty in the office are more unproductive at home simply because the main reason they stopped chatting was because the boss walked by. I don't think they are more productive as shirking work in the office is equally easy. Just claim to be doing "background research."

Work from home just removes the outside influences, causing people to become more like who they would otherwise be.

In my case, I ignore meetings and just have them on in the background. I am barely in attendance. I can't do that in the office as my managers/team are watching. That is my one behavioral change.

</comment><comment><USER33> The discussion so far is largely unproductive, because it is conflating "WFH life" and "we're in the midst of a global pandemic and we can't do our favourite activities." Personally I'm hating my current situation, but if I could go to a concert or plan a vacation, WFH might be awesome. I really have no idea.

</comment><comment><USER34> I am of the opinion that autonomy plays a major role in whether you enjoy working from home or not. If you have the autonomy to execute on a clear purpose that you have planned for yourself, there is seemingly no difference in whether that work is carried out in an office or at home. In my experience, all the need for constant feedback and 'catching up' is mostly a side effect of poor project management caused by kicking off work on unbaked requirements or where the estimations haven't been done well or where the dependencies were assumed to be in some state while they're not really there.

That said, you could still catch up from home, if not more, simply because you don't have to scurry around looking for a quiet place or finding the colleague.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm an introvert with two small kids at home. They do not disturb during work hours (b/c wife).

WFH has been a blessing these two last months. Minimum interruptions. I am probably 10-20% more productive than in the Office.

Schedule:

\- get up at 8

\- eat b/f with kids

\- work 8:30-12

\- lunch + exercise 12-1pm

\- work 1-5pm

It just works. I am much happier, less fatigued due to no commute AND I get exercise.

</comment><comment><USER36> A lot of people don't really do anything but churn and make sound and fury, signifying nothing.

There's much less cause for engaging in that behavior when everyone is working from home, so it becomes more apparent that they don't actually do anything productive.

</comment><comment><USER37> As a rule of thumb, what I've figured out is that people who have kids at home are far less productive than people who don't have kids.

</comment><comment> 2019-nCoV It mostly comes down introversion levels. While natural extroverts have always had the upper hand, contemporary technology is reversing this trend:

Dating: moving from bars to apps

Social: moving from third places to apps

Working: moving from the office to apps

<comment><USER38> Software by the technologists, for the technologists!

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> For the same reason some people are better at working from the office than others - they just do the work and are diligent about putting in the time required. Someone who is motivated to do the work will do the work from anywhere. I'm one of those people. If I didn't want to be doing the work, I'd be shirking my duties at the office too. And tech is still good enough for us workers that I'd go down the street for a new job before I ever got to the point where I didn't want to do the work anymore.

</comment><comment><USER40> Some people are more motivated than others.

Just like some people are more intelligent than others, or more athletic than others... some are more self-motivated and can work through their own initiative rather than relying on external input (such as managers).

That's not a bad thing, either! We should encourage those self-motivated people to work however makes them the most productive members of our economy. That is incredibly crucial for the times that we live in.

<comment><USER41> When I was a manager I'd always just say to the people under me that they where driven, until they actually started to be motivated. It's a great little trick that made everyone happier, works on teaching programming too.

I don't think it's that easy as self-motivation as a scale, it's all about the environment and task that makes people the most productive.

I always want there to be someone with insane amounts of grit and ask how they do it. Insane amounts of grit would be: \- Six pack and can run a marathon when old. \- Recognised in their field. \- Earned enough through work (not through the insane rise in housing prices) to be able to stay in their home for a decade without working.

Checking all these boxes, would be the master of grit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> It's a little bit too early to judge whether WFH works for everyone and i think that some companies are doing a wrong move deciding to go fully remote forever at these circumstances. The main point is that we were forced to work from home due to a global emergency, but it is way different to do it by choice and in companies formed with a remote work culture. Also i think there is some excuse for employees' current lack of productivity (due to the health concerns or summer break approaching) which will probably change in the next few months. People are probably seeing WFH as a chance to do their work from a beach house, an island, next to a pool and it's perfect because it's summer but most of them will hate it in the winter.

Hence i foresee a lot of people currently loving it will change views after a few months or so and also a lot of companies getting frustrated with their employees and will request the majority of them to return to their premises.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm definitely in the group that works better in the office:

1) My productivity seems to be polarizing. In some day I feel I have accomplished a lot more, but in other days not great. Generally, many things seem to take longer to attain.

2) My working environment simply sucks. I only have cluttered desk with my personal equipment. I improvised the TV to use as my secondary monitor, but is definitely not optimal from ergonomic standpoint, so mostly ended up working on the tiny laptop screen. I upgrade to better chair, and that at least helped me a lot.

3) I don't have air conditioning, and if the WFH prolongs, this will be problematic.

4) My workout level certainly has dropped for a while after the lockdown WFH started. I have gradually improved this, by establishing daily walking, and remote work out sessions.

</comment><comment><USER44> If I were not prone to procrastination, I wouldn't be reading articles from bbc.com that I found on HN.

But procrastination isn't the problem, I can do that at the office too. The office even has many avenues of approved procrastination. No, the problem is I am not working at home by myself, in blissful isolation, but with a number of other people who demand my time and attention.

I have read a number of "The self-motivated people are getting just as much if not more work done" posts, and to be frank, that is codwobble. Even self- motivated people experience pandemic anxiety and financial pressure, and have partners and children who they need to spend time with.

</comment><comment><USER45> I find myself being more relaxed and because of that I indulge in breaks and brcause of that I end having to put in some work here and there at night after my kid fell sleep. So it feels like my whole day is work, lighter but permanent work.. At least its on my mind. The moment i was leaving the office work was out of mind. In an ideal world I'd do wfh 2-3 days a week and the rest in the office. I even miss my routine and buss ride to work. Some of it is I suspect simply isolation nonsense, im now saving 1.5 hours of commute which can't possibly be worse

</comment><comment><USER46> Same reason some toddlers pass the marshmallow test and others don't.

<comment><USER47> Thanks you made me google it ... wow interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I'm finding WFH incredibly distracting for an odd reason: my home office is where I work on my side hustle.

Having to share my innovation space with _work_ work is jarring, and I'm having a lot of difficulty disentangling the two. I now spent a lot of my _work_ day thinking about my startup since I'm in the place where I used to do that in isolation. Ultimately I'm now a lot less productive at both. It's driving my focus and energy down.

</comment><comment><USER49> I've had so man bad experiences with ppl that I just came to hate them in general. I feel bothered by noises from outside, I hate my neighbour who just wants the house clean and asks me to clean outside of my room. She just wants a friend, but she akss for a thing back to just talk about how bad her back is and blabla... I liked the first few weeks of quietness when social distancing started,no I'm bothered by every noise that comes into my space.

</comment><comment><USER50> Some people have ideal conditions to work in at home. Some people will struggle with increased costs and induced domestic stresses. Some people can communicate and socialise remotely. Some people will struggle to find reason to leave the house. Some people will repurpose commute times and flexibility to their advantage. Some people will stop looking after themselves.

</comment><comment><USER51> It depends a lot on your family situation. If you live in a small flat, locked down with a couple of young kids, then working from home is impossible.

</comment><comment><USER52> The article has some official-sounding theories about WFH, which may be a little more high-minded than necessary?

Success working from home boils down to two things: 1\. Desire to work from home and 2\. Space free from distraction.

I am the only long-term WFH guy working with an office of 40 "In office" folks who have found themselves at home. Some of them complain, others don't. Some of them have toddlers (!!), others don't.

</comment><comment><USER53> As a programmer, apparently for me the best will be WFH with coming to office in between, let's say 1 or 2 days a week, based on ongoing tasks.

While wfh and online conference brings so much benefits, it cannot replace the value of face to face meeting. There are some problems that can be easily tackled with physical discussion, that can be complicated with online meeting / conference.

</comment><comment><USER54> I started WFH when the company I worked for had moved to a place where commuting meant 3 hours stuck in traffic each day.

I never 'missed the office'. I found most people that do are confusing work with having an actual social life, which they lack because they spend the time it would take to build one listening to podcasts while stuck in traffic.

</comment><comment><USER55> I've been a remote worker since before the lockdowns started. My life is more of a mess now because work has become more intense since everyone started working remotely. It would be easy to ignore a single person asking for favor at 8PM but sometimes it's a whole team discussing stuff at night.

</comment><comment><USER56> I wouldn't say that I'm very productive at home, but I'm also not any more productive at the office either.

</comment><comment><USER57> I feel.lioe so much of this discussion misses that all of these things about people are both situational and mutable.

I've done some WFH on every job I've had, with wildly different results, depending on how motivated I was to do the work.

Just because WFH did not work for you once doesn't mean you're not suited to it.

</comment><comment><USER58> Kids.

</comment><comment><USER59> no mention of babies, kids, teens, spouses or parents

</comment><comment><USER60> Because they have no young kids

</comment><comment><USER61> >> "All of this said, chronic procrastinators will procrastinate just about anywhere," Pychyl adds. "That's just something that's inherent. It's just your disposition, and it's not going to change overnight."

Well that's depressing.

</comment><comment><USER62> You need a home office, a separate room in your home. It's too easy to get distracted otherwise. Simple as that.

<comment><USER63> Some of us don't have the space for a separate home office. That being said, I WFHed part time before the pandemic, so the new part for me is being home 100 percent of the time. My workspace is a table in my (multipurpose) living room. I've made a small tweak or two since the pandemic but it is basically the same as before. My work and personal habits are better since the pandemic started. Several reasons. Part is that it is springtime, and I am much less of a couch potato naturally then. And the other part is that I have been taking the risks of getting sick and the associated issues like the economic problems seriously and making conscious efforts to take care of my health, reorganize my home, take steps towards bolstering my economic security, etc. I think that small distractions are OK (it's actually unhealthy to stay in your chair for too long) as long as they are kept under control.

<comment><USER64> CGP Grey did a video about the importance of having different spaces for different activities¹, and in one of the comments for the video², one Vallejo B. said that they have handled the lack of physical space by using tricks to fool the mind into _thinking_ it is a different space, using different lighting, sounds, tastes for different modes. Like stage set design, a simple difference goes a long way, and as long your own brain is fooled, it works.

1\. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snAhsXyO3Ck](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snAhsXyO3Ck)

2\. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snAhsXyO3Ck&lc=Ugzl3DOl0s0oS...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snAhsXyO3Ck&lc=Ugzl3DOl0s0oSv6osRp4AaABAg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Written communication skills are crucial to successful remote work. Both writing and reading.

</comment><comment><USER66> Some people need to go to a gym to do their exercise, some people are okay with a home gym. It's little to do with diligence or anything, people have different styles of motivation or drive.

</comment><comment><USER67> I've found the WFH experiment very unsurprising. Diligent and reliable coworkers are just as diligent and reliable. People who were iffy in person are basically non-existent WFH.

<comment><USER68> So you dispute that "struggles in the office but thrives WFH" is a real category?

<comment><USER67> I actually wonder about such a person. Do they exist? I haven't had enough time WFH to tell.

<comment><USER68> Yeah. It's me for a start.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Discipline?

</comment><comment><USER70> Because some people are just better at their jobs and don't need to be rode crop to do it.</comment>


Google: Android now shipping on 60,000 handsets per day - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/02/16/google-now-shipping-60000-android-handsets-per-day/

<comment><USER2> > _Whether "shipped" here means "sold to end users" or "ordered by retailers" > is unclear – but regardless, it's quite the feat either way._

That's a very important distinction that's left out.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is awesome, I can't wait for the apps to start really rolling in. I've got a Droid right now and I love it, but it's a work phone and I'm starting a new job on Monday so I have to give this one back. Luckily, my new Android phone is in the mail right now and I should have it before the week is out. I'm really glad Android is doing so well and I hope the trend continues. Now I just need to make that killer app for it and I'll be a millionairez!

</comment><comment><USER4> Very misleading title. Google is only involved in shipping the Nexus One; this number references all Android devices shipped. Still interesting news though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point, edited - I think that MobileCrunch actually updated their title after I posted as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't understand why a new customer gets a discount, but a loyal tmobile customer gets to pay a $100 fee for that loyalty.

<comment><USER6> Because any corporation that claims to be rewarding your loyalty is really just locking you in (or collecting personal data) and once you're locked in know they can charge you more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm sure this will go up once they start offering the Nexus One for Verizon.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Most interesting point for me was that works out to 5.4 million a quarter vs. latest iPhone stats at 8.7 million a quarter.

<comment><USER8> I thought it was pretty disorienting, myself, to have the yearly total for Android compared to the quarterly one for iPhone. Don't know if it was intentionally misleading or not, but I have noticed this tendency for people to want their preferred product to "win", as though being slightly more popular than another product changes your experience of the product somehow.

<comment><USER8> Actually, thinking on it for a second, I realized that Apple products seem to bring that out in people more than anything else. Probably has something to do with their incredibly combative "I'm a PC" ads.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: How to fund my startup through Seedrs - Workplace productivity software - <AUTHOR>

I'm raising investment for my startup 'Hey Jimmy' through Seedrs. Check it out at http://seedrs.com/startups/hey-jimmy
I'm building an office timesheet application for every business in the world with staff. This application is going to regiment 'clocking in and out' procedures and increase productivity during that time.
Have a read through the Seedrs listing for more specifications on the product.
Expect a closed beta release in a couple of weeks! <comment><USER2> Looking through the details I think you need to completely revamp your business model, as it stands it doesn't make any economic sense.

Your user acquisition cost is going to be way higher than the revenue you'll generate from sales. Plus you're charging a one-off fee for a service you'll need to provide on a continuous business.

You should go for a SaaS approach and charge on a per-employee basis and justify it based on ROI. For example if an employee is earning £6/hour and you're saving the company an hour of employee time a month, you can quite easily justify charging £1/employee/month for the product.

Have a look at how other people in this market are doing it:

<http://www.shiftplanning.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comments ig1. Since I made the original submission to Seedrs I have had further thoughts on the pricing model and you're right - SaaS will be the right way to go.

I'm actually going to see if they'll allow me to amend the text. It was over a month ago I made the original submission.

I'm going to go with something like: Basic, Plus and Premium tiers. With added features and support for more employees as you go up in tiers.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Updated monetisation strategy:

The product will be monetised through a 'Software as a Service' strategy; with 'Basic', 'Plus', and 'Premium' pricing tiers. Higher tiers will support more employees and have added features, e.g. scanning of barcodes or 'Q codes' from employee ID cards as opposed to clocking in with staff ID numbers.

(Seedrs have said they won't allow me to update the text)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> We've already received 2.5% of our funding target with nearly 3 months left <https://seedrs.com/startups/hey-jimmy></comment>


HP Inc. Apologizes for Move That Blocked Rival Printer Cartridges - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/hp-inc-apologizes-for-move-that-blocked-rival-printer-cartridges-1475091050 <comment><USER2> "one customer who has a poor experience is one too many," said Jon Flaxman"

So HP is apologizing a bit, pointing out they'll do it again ("Mr. Flaxman said HP would continue such practices, which may prevent some third-party supplies from working.") and offers more transparency. I can imagine transparency is a new paragraph in the user manual or a checkbox to tick to install the software.

</comment><comment><USER3> 'We will continue to use security features to protect the quality of our customer experience' sounds like they are saying that the same thing will just happen again</comment>


Signs Point to Unencrypted Communications Between Terror Suspects - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/signs-point-to-unencrypted-communications-between-terror-suspects/ <comment><USER2> I don't mean to downplay the importance of this tragedy for the people involved, but it's interesting to observe the media reaction to this event with a more detached frame of mind than I was capable of as a child.

The attacks have played right into the hands of parties with political interests lying in wait. For months articles on one or the other side of the encryption "debate" have been produced by news organizations at a low hum. Now that something, anything, loosely relevant has occurred, they can now point to this as further evidence in support of whatever position was espoused over the course of the preceding months. It strikes a person who pays attention to such things as rather methodical.

<comment><USER3> Basically, everyone has already made up their minds whether encryption/guns/drugs/etc are good or bad, and use global events as "proof" of why they are right. It's not just the news anchors that do it.

When was the last time you read someone say, "And this latest attack has changed my mind...". Almost never. Mostly it's "And this latest attack proves my agenda is right..."

<comment><USER4> To give this a better framing, say after Sandy Hook, I'd wager that the first response in the mind of a liberal was, "Fuck! See, guns kill! If we didn't have the 2nd ammendment, so many children wouldn't have had to die!" For a conservative, their first response might have been, "Fuck! This is why teachers need guns to protect their children from crazymen! More children didn't have to die!" May be I'm a little too naive, but I really don't think people are insincerely manufacturing rage, both are upset about the tragedy, they just rationalize it in the mental framework they already have, and they sincerely respond with that mindset.

I think the better question is why can't we be more rational/scientific about this. Forget gut feelings, put down a spreadsheet (at least) how many instances of this statistic correlate with this hypothesis. If it doesn't work, clearly your intuition is wrong, and there's nothing wrong with that, you just need to sharpen your intuition. I'd like to see government work like that, but neither side seems to want to do something like that.

<comment><USER5> _be more rational /scientific about this. Forget gut feelings, put down a spreadsheet_

But that already presupposes the answer to one of the major arguments. There's a fair philosophical case to be made for "it doesn't matter if the empirical net is positive or negative: the bottom line is that I have a natural right to defend myself and my family, even if other people cannot or choose not to do so themselves".

Sorry, I don't mean to start the actual gun debate here. I'm just trying to show that the underlying question presents a false choice fallacy. It's incorrect to simply ask, "should the government make this regulation or not?". There's space for a lot more nuance in there: "is this a good idea or a bad idea? If it's a good idea, is it something that should be part of the private sector's purview? If not, can government do it effectively?"

<comment><USER4> The basic argument I have against this is that people say things that make assumptions they don't realize and those assumptions can be testable. Let me give an example.

Say you have a liberal who says, "regardless of whether we go into debt or not," since that is an objectively measurable observable, "we should spend more on education because education is something I value." That already has a problem: it assumes spending more on education increases the quality of education; therein lies a _testable hypothesis_ that we can demonstrate true or false. If a liberal is offended by that notion, that is what I'm arguing against--for me, ideas just aren't "so obvious" that they can't be demonstrated, if it's true, there better be evidence for its truth. If, for example, we spend more on education than other nations and we still have subpar outcomes (which is true, actually), then the stated reasoning "go into debt because we value education anyway" contains a false assumption and thus the argument is fallacious.

Also, other assumptions could be violated here. To further use my analogy, another assumption the liberal has underpinning his arguments is that a state exists to provide education. If you're in debt to the point where your government bonds are considered crap by the market, your decision to spend more money on education could threaten the existence of your state. Therefore, once again, you're making an argument and not rigorously considering whether assumptions are/will remain true or not.

Of course, you could change the "axioms" of the universe of discourse and just enshrine "spending on education is good regardless of whether it actually improves education or not," as a true, and at that point, you're right that I can no longer argue with you. However, I almost always hear an argument with a "because": "the right for free speech for the press is good because it ensures they report fairly and honestly and make their fellow citizens," or, "health- care as a right is good because the government providing healthcare to citizens increases the quality of their care and wellness." Whenever someone says this, there is something in there that is testable and they'd better be willing to demonstrate it, especially if my tax dollars are going to fund their ventures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The moment my wife and I heard about the attacks in Paris I said to her, "the spooks are going to use this as an excuse to take everyone's rights away."

The media response on this was so predictable it was like clockwork:

* Conservative media immediately kicks off talking points in regards to, "if more people were carrying guns this wouldn't have happened!"

* "Where's the outrage from Muslims?"

* "Outraged Muslims say the attackers aren't true Muslims because Mohammed forbids killing innocents."

* "It had to have been Syrian refugees!"

* "Can't we just bomb the fsck out of Syria?"

* All manner of insinuations that all Muslims are dangerous and we should "kick them out" or prevent them entry into the our country.

...then, attempting to time things just right the spy organizations all over the world ask for everyone to give up their privacy so they can "stop terrorists".

What we _won 't_ see in the major news media/popular talking heads:

* Outrage that despite the billions upon billions invested in spying programs no one was able to predict or stop this attack. Proving that the vast spying powers granted to governmental organizations don't work.

* Factual stories pointing out that encryption with back doors won't be used by terrorists so it's useless against terrorists by definition.

* Investigations into _why_ the mass collection of everyone's personal details didn't work and can't work to stop these kinds of attacks.

* Informative stories about what every-day people or politicians can do to hurt terrorists and stop terrorism. For example, there will be no one even remotely connecting the dots between oil usage and terrorism. Or how there's a direct link between a country's oil revenues and democracy.

<comment><USER7> > * Outrage that despite the billions upon billions invested in spying > programs no one was able to predict or stop this attack. Proving that the > vast spying powers granted to governmental organizations don't work.

In fairness, we don't exactly find out about the successes...

<comment><USER8> We can't know, because that back-channel carries information that could be useful to the enemy.

<comment><USER9> This is a really serious problem. There's a reason why the normal process of justice involves presenting evidence in public rather than just saying, "We know this guy is guilty because reasons we can't tell you. Don't worry, we've already executed him."

The fight _has_ to be done procedurally or we'll end up shelling Parisian suburbs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Spotted on Twitter:

 _" If banning encryption would stop terrorists using it, why don't they just make terrorism illegal and be done with it?"_

<comment><USER11> Also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591621](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591621) -

> I love how Republicans believe that outlawing guns won't stop criminals from > having guns while at the same time believing that outlawing encryption will > keep criminals from using encryption.

> Encryption methods are far easier to transport and spread illegally than gun > are.

<comment><USER3> My favorite is the hippies who argue that we should legalize drugs because outlawing them didn't stop people from getting drugs- while also arguing that we should outlaw guns to stop people from getting guns.

<comment> semi-extrinsic One of these things is designed to hurt other humans, while the other is not.

<comment><USER12> But both of them _do_ hurt other humans, regardless of the _design_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well, yes: encryption is hard to use and sticks out a mile. Whereas good old codewords defeat dragnet surveillance and are easy to use. For every single concert and sporting event there are thousands of people discussing meeting up and going there over SMS, discussing times, locations and who's going to be there. How do you determine who has malicious intent?

<comment><USER13> What a prescient and logical observation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Meh. What matters are the principles; even if you could show that 100% of terrorists always used encrypted communications without exception..I would still not be in favour of outlawing encrypted messages.

<comment><USER15> I agree 100%. Getting into arguments over practicality with these slime balls lands you right where they want you, debating with them in order to earn rights you already have.

<comment><USER16> Rights are established and protected by constant legislative and judicial battle.

There are obviously a lot of people who think that hard-encryption shouldn't be available to the public. If you're not willing to engage with them you're just going to get steamrolled. In matters of law, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

<comment><USER17> Thomas Jefferson disagrees :)

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Time to ban unencrypted communication I guess

<comment><USER19> Over the wire? I'm in. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I found this to be a very interesting article on ISIS with insights to their communications,

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the- in...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story)

When people left Bucca, they had written each other's names & numbers on the elastic of their underwear.

They also responded to Anonymous' threat toward ISIS by suggesting techniques to secure Comms and what to avoid.

[http://www.businessinsider.com.au/isis-anonymous- statement-2...](http://www.businessinsider.com.au/isis-anonymous- statement-2015-11)

I would suggest that this cell did not use protection but I am confident the larger ISIS network is not so transparent. My suspicions would be that most Comms is via word of mouth.

<comment><USER21> Agreed. Word of mouth is still a very viable method of communication and, given the organization's value of human life, I wouldn't be surprised if runners are frequently used to disseminate critical communication.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Please don't use this news as a point if you're making a defense for encryption. Because there are going to be bad people who plan bad things using encrypted communication, and when that happens your point is gone and people will blame encryption.

</comment><comment><USER23> Telegram is the dominant communication app in Middle East and most people prefer unencrypted massaging because of multi-device capabilities. I don't think ISIS people are any different

</comment><comment><USER24> I don't like either result of discussing whether or not terrorists use encryption.

Terrorists used unencrypted communication -> government will want to spy on everyone's unencrypted content more.

Terrorists used encryption -> Government wants to restrict encryption.

Instead discussion should be around what is already legal but wasn't done and why.

</comment><comment><USER25> Whether or not this particular attack happened with unencrypted vs. encrypted communications is irrelevant. I'm sure if we look at terror suspects and attacks in the past year across the world --- some of them used unencrypted means to communicate and others that use encrypted means to communicate. 99.999% of people aren't terror suspects. The real question is the following: how do we fight against the remainder without comprising our values?

</comment><comment><USER26> I've been calling it for years: welcome to the return of the cryptowars. The 90's were just a stalling tactic, as admitted by a DoJ attorney to Eben Moglen back then. Expect creeping legislation to appear declaring more encryption "munitions grade", or some other such similar nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER27> <puts on tinfoil hat>

How soon till we get a staged terrorist event, or a staged communication from a legit one where the focus is on how they used encrypted communications?

Clearly people in power want this level of control, so the question is what lengths they will go to in order to ensure they get it.

<comment><USER28> I agree: people in power, from a large number of factions inside the group of people in power, want this level of control. The question is "Why"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> If encryption is banned, how are the surveillance people going to filter all the communication in the world when they can't even filter the currently limited unencrypted traffic correctly?

</comment><comment><USER30> Looking at this differently though -

Encryption or not, signs point to meta data collection being absolutely essential to tracking down these pricks' location.

</comment><comment><USER12> But they used cell phones. So we need to ban cell phones. Ban cell phones, or the terrorists win!

Oh, nobody's arguing for doing that? Hmm, why not?

</comment><comment><USER16> Not really relevant, the day will come when no terrorists communicate in the clear. I'm not suggesting we outlaw encrypted communications, but I do wonder how law enforcement is supposed to track terrorist communications after they go dark.

<comment><USER31> The big point of this article is, given all of the NSA spying and mass surveillance of pretty much all phone networks worldwide, they still failed to detect anything related to this attack.

It shows two main things:

1) Mass drag-net style surveillance programs are not very effective.

2) Banning encryption will have minimal-to-no effect on improving mass drag- net style surveillance programs.

This means, to date, the only "terrorist plot" thwarted by the NSA mass drag- net style surveillance program remains that one guy who tried to send $8,500 to the Taliban (and was promptly arrested)[1].

[1] [http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-spying-did-not- re...](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-spying-did-not-result-in- one-stopped-terrorist-plot-and-the-government-actually-did-spy-on-the-bad- guys-before-911.html)

<comment><USER16> Absolutely, so we as community, seeing these problems, need to be pro-active in helping government discover more effective ways to protect the people of this world from extremists.

The hands-up "Well, terrorism happens. Nothing to do about it." sentiment of many in our community is obviously not resonating with the general public. If we don't provide serious alternatives, they will continue pushing these sorts of methods to greater and greater extremes.

<comment> vezzy-fnord The general public are not the ones calling for encryption bans and regulations, or really much of anything. They're virtually disenfranchised in such matters, especially national security.

We absolutely do _not_ owe the government to protect anyone from anything. You have more to lose from government agents like police forces than terrorists.</comment></comment></comment></comment>