Opening a new chapter of my work in AI - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@andrewng/opening-a-new-chapter-of-my-work-in-ai-c6a4d1595d7b <comment><USER2> Wow, I'm amazed at Andrew's list of accomplishments. I mean any one of these would be a career capstone for most people

\- Stanford Professor

\- Founding lead of the Google Brain project

\- Author of one of the most famous and loved MOOC's

\- Head of AI for Baidu, built up the AI team in both China and the US.

\- Founder of Coursera

And I see from wikipedia that he and I are roughly the same age :(

Engineers are often seen as a cost center for most businesses, which means you'll eventually hit a compensation ceiling If you want to elevate yourself into one of the engineers you hear about that is able to break through the compensation ceiling then the below is one of the best ways to do so.....

> My team birthed one new business unit per year each of the last two years

If you can directly tie yourself to a Pnl then you'll always have more options than someone who is considered a cost center.

I hope that what ever he does, he takes some time of first if he needs it. I'd hate for someone like this to get burnt out.

<comment><USER3> ...and all that (excluding the professor part) since 2011! Boy, talk about working fast!

In case you can't tell, there's a great big sarcasm tag there. There is absolutely no way that the guy has contributed substantially to all of those things in less than six years.

Sometimes, people get a reputation for something, and then leverage that into a slingshot of career advancement. Good for him, but the people who are doing the actual work of developing this stuff can easily spend six years on a _single problem_ , so it's helpful to maintain perspective.

<comment><USER4> Or, perhaps a little less cynically, that it takes a long time for your work to reach a critical mass, but past that point many factors come into play that allow you to ship stuff at a much increased pace: your work has a much higher visibility, more people are willing to collaborate with you, you have easier acccess to grants, etc

<comment><USER3> This guy is an executive. He isn't "shipping" anything, and it isn't cynical to say that.

Engineers tend to think about these things as if the world is a meritocracy based on your individual contributions. But for a lot of famous people, 80% of their contribution comes from attaching their name to the management page.

I agree with you that none of this would be possible without the years of work he did to build his reputation. But people shouldn't feel bad just because a well-known person has lots of flash on their resume. This stuff accumulates at an unnatural rate.

<comment><USER5> Don't executives ship...execution?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Just as electricity transformed many industries roughly 100 years ago, AI will also now change nearly every major industry_

This is an underrated point, and something I don't think most people outside of the high level Machine Learning/AI world take seriously.

It's also one of the biggest challenges for the industry going forward because of natural monopolies. I say that because if AI is electricity then data is the coal/oil that drives it.

The big technology players have a massive advantage in their ability to build and deploy tools that collect the data, and then bring it back to be turned into "electricity." If we aren't careful they will be the only groups who can make progress and show actual real world ML driven capabilities - making the barriers to entry even higher.

If you just look at the computer vision space, to do really good Machine Vision you need a LOT of novel image data and the primary platforms creating image content are largely owned by the top 5 players in the form of collection (smartphones) and warehousing (cloud servers).

I'm not sure if there are solutions here that make it possible for a lot of companies to do really well - everyone will just be bought up or out competed by the bigs once the big ones notice a threat on the horizon.

<comment><USER7> > AI is electricity then data is the coal/oil that drives it. The big > technology players have a massive advantage in their ability to build and > deploy tools that collect the data, and then bring it back to be turned into > "electricity."

Data is important now, but when we have solved vision, speech, text and robotics to a decent degree, data won't matter as much. The great thing about AI is that we can cheaply copy already trained models or already labeled datasets. There aren't so many datasets needed to solve the most interesting and financially profitable few problems. Of course, there will always be fringe projects where more data is needed, but the main applications will be in the commons. You can copy an AI model if you can talk to it (use it to produce sample outputs). Any model could be copied in a dataset and transferred into another model. The great thing about machine learning is that it learns directly from data, so it's cheap to copy by tracing the inputs and outputs of other public AIs, just as current AIs are taught by tracing the inputs and outputs of people (supervision).

<comment><USER6> The distinction should be made between training data and [actionable] data.

In the former case we are taking data, labeling it, then using it to build our nets and models. You are correct to an extent that it's a usable model once trained and that data is less important.

However, equally if not more important is the data that is being put into the net to come out as a result/action. Arguably this data comes through the same pipe as training data - and the pipes are similarly limited. So its ALWAYS important because you can't take an action or classify or otherwise without it.

When you add in the reinforcement mechanism, or later unsupervised techniques then those data mechanisms blur between training and action data so the point is moot. It's not a one run process in the long run, it's iterative and always evolving based on the user.

<comment><USER8> If you don't have data to "put into the net" then you don't have a problem that you want to solve.

<comment><USER6> The key point is that it's about data friction. If you already have uploaded all of your photos to google cloud, then any new tool or capability google comes up with using a CNN, will be immediately applicable without you having to do anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I didn't find a single reference other than this as to what he is going to do post resigning.

>I will also explore new ways to support all of you in the global AI community, so that we can all work together to bring this AI-powered society to fruition.

It is true that AI is the new electricity which will change practically everything in our lives and it is good to see that alliances like OpenAI are forming to democratize the knowledge, this is because giant companies hold a monopoly, they are the only ones who have the sufficient data to do any meaningful research at all.

<comment><USER10> >it is good to see that alliances like OpenAI are forming to democratize the knowledge...

Very true! I hope he joins OpenAI and helps achieve their mission [1]. It would be a huge boost to their efforts.

[1] [https://openai.com/blog/introducing- openai/](https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai/)

<comment><USER11> I actually hope he doesn't.

<comment><USER9> May I ask why?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Ng's wife's company, Drive.ai, has made more progress in less time and with fewer resources than anybody in the autonomous driving space. So it's probably a billion dollar company. I wonder if that has anything to do with it. There's a lot of money in autonomous driving startups that can deliver results.

<comment><USER13> Googling around, I haven't seen any substantial evidence of any of your claims. It's hard to separate the hype from the reality when hearing anything about the self-driving car space.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sadly, the post has no meaningful information beyond that he's resigning.

<comment><USER9> It almost reads as an advert to how Baidu has transformed into an AI powerhouse.

<comment><USER15> Yes, and yet Baidu search is terrible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16>
        Baidu is now one of the few companies with world-class expertise
        in every major AI area: speech, NLP, computer vision, machine learning,
        knowledge graph.

Just idly, I find it interesting that practical applications of this technology seem to often funnel down to just this subset.

There's a lot of room to apply machine learning to solve actual problems that many people have, but often its unclear that doing so would end up with results that are significantly better than traditional approaches; or how to achieve those results, tangibly.

I'm sure we haven't heard the last of Andrew Ng; there are a lot of people who want those sorts of skills.

<comment><USER17> >often its unclear that doing so would end up with results that are significantly better than traditional approaches

If Deep Learning can approximate any function, does that mean that in some cases it ends up approximating the output of traditional approaches?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I haven't seen any comment or quotes yet from Baidu (please correct me if I'm wring!). Amicable high profile departures like this are almost always coordinated between the person leaving and the company, with joint statements. Not saying it's not amicable, but I do find that, and the fact he's not sharing his next move, a little odd.

I also saw a FB thread that seemed to suggest this may have been a surprise to some of his colleagues. Take that with a grain of salt though - I don't know the people on the thread and they were vague. I just got the sense it was news to them.

<comment><USER19> From [https://www.techinasia.com/ai-chief-scientist-andrew-ng- resi...](https://www.techinasia.com/ai-chief-scientist-andrew-ng-resigns- baidu)

"Andrew joined Baidu because of our shared pursuit for the future of AI," stated Baidu on its official Weibo account, China's answer to Twitter. "We still have this goal, which is to push forward the development of AI and make life in the future more beautiful."

"Despite our regrets, we send our thanks and blessings! We wish Andrew even greater success in the future, and hope all goes well!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Misleading title, because there is nothing about his "new chapter".

Correct title could have been "Closing the current chapter...".

</comment><comment><USER21> Is his Machine Learning course still relatively up to date? I was considering devoting some time to it, or a course like it soon.

<comment><USER22> If you are planning to take it, I would suggest a different approach which I have started.

1\. Do Practical Deep Learning For Coders:-

[http://course.fast.ai/](http://course.fast.ai/) To take a plunge directly into deep learning AI, this course has rave reviews. This course will allow you to do practical industry level stuff first, then learn theory behind it, rather than other way.

Course description:

>This 7-week course is designed for anyone with at least a year of coding experience, and some memory of high-school math. You will start with step one—learning how to get a GPU server online suitable for deep learning—and go all the way through to creating state of the art, highly practical, models for computer vision, natural language processing, and recommendation systems. There are around 20 hours of lessons, and you should plan to spend around 10 hours a week for 7 weeks to complete the material. The course is based on lessons recorded during the first certificate course at The Data Institute at USF. Part 2 will be taught at the Data Institute from Feb 27, 2017, and will be available online around May 2017.

2\. Read [http://www.deeplearningbook.org/](http://www.deeplearningbook.org/) to gain the relevant math behind it. If you don't know some of the math like calculus or linear algebra presented in the book, learn as you read it from sources like Khan academy.

Now we are up to date on practical side of things, especially deep learning part. We can move on to gain a more generalized and rigorous outlook on various machine learning techniques.

3\. Do [https://see.stanford.edu/Course/CS229/](https://see.stanford.edu/Course/CS229/) \- CS229 By Andrew NG , its more rigorous, and complete compared to coursera course. And coursera course is not

I think within a year (max) just this coursework plan would give a strong foundations on practical, theoretical side of things in AI.

I get distracted trying to learn so many stuff at once, (clojure , sicp, haskell, advanced algo) etc etc. So I made this lesson plan to follow as I am interested in AI the most.

<comment><USER23> I recommend this AI/ML learning method too. Practical first. Trust me, it'll keep you from getting bored/sleepy.

And for the practicals, I'll also suggest going over some of the hands-on examples at blog.algorithmia.com, especially if you have some Web dev experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Surprising, Andrew Ng leaves Baidu so fast.

<comment><USER25> Frankly, I wonder why Dr Ng stayed at Baidu so long.

Without question, Baidu's dominance over search plays two very painful roles: 1) they're the cutting edge of China's online civilian spy apparatus, and 2) they're the gatekeeper for news and dissemination of gov't propaganda. If you search the web or visit links sponsored by Baidu, either you will find what the government wants you to find or you will be identified as an outlier, and at best, labeled as a potential threat and tracked. It's impossible to imagine that Baidu does not place the names of web denizens matching certain profiles on threat databases thus altering the trajectory of their lives accordingly (and invisibly).

Personally, I can't imagine anyone of conscience working long for an employer so committed to diminish the freedoms of thought and speech. I applaud Dr Ng for his departure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Big blow for Baidu. Wonder if he'll join Google again. They are the foremost in AI.

<comment><USER27> Or Nvdia, for their hardware prowess in AI.

<comment><USER28> Why would he work at a hardware company?

<comment><USER29> Why sell a box that does nothing when you can sell a box that does something?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> How does this compare to the SITA API? [https://www.developer.aero/Flight- Information-API/API-Overvi...](https://www.developer.aero/Flight-Information- API/API-Overview)

</comment><comment><USER19> I wonder if Baidu hiring Qi Lu as COO in January has anything to do with it? He has been called "a leading authority in the field of artificial intelligence".

OTOH Ng specifically thanked Lu Qi on twitter.

Oh well, I guess eventually we'll know more.

</comment><comment><USER31> Andrew left just after Qi Lu was hired as COO in Baidu. Hopefully, Qi Lu can bring some shining product out of those great techniques, encouraging the AI team left behind.

<comment><USER32> Was it less than a year? A "China suprise" syndrome I guess

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> He has been a huge influence on me. We partially have a community AI org because his thoughts on democratizing AI.</comment>


A flurry of features for feed readers - <AUTHOR> http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2009/08/flurry-of-features-for-feed-readers.html

<comment><USER2> You can share straight to Hacker News, under "Send To" click on Create a custom link and enter this:

      name: Hacker News
      URL: http://news.ycombinator.com/submitlink?u=${url}&t=${title}
      Icon URL: http://ycombinator.com/favicon.ico</comment>


Apple Reverses Course On In-App Subscriptions - <AUTHOR> http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/09/apple-reverses-course-on-in-app-subscriptions/ <comment><USER2> Why is everyone assuming Apple's being evil here?

Not that they're perfect by any means, but the pattern seems pretty clear: they start off with a restrictive situation, see how it works, and then adjust. (Sometimes they restrict more, then relax; sometimes they stay more restrictive.)

They're engaged in a learning process, folks. Nothing quite like the App Store has been attempted before on this scale, and you know they've gotta be rather conservative at each step. You would if you were in their shoes.

Yes, they're trying to make money, but I see lots of signs that they're also trying to accommodate the needs of users first, then developers.

Never assume malice when it could just be incompetence (i.e., learning from mistakes), etc.

(I'm not shilling for Apple. I didn't even attend WWDC this year for the first time in many years. ;-)

<comment><USER3> The "same price or less than it is offered outside the app" clause was the part I always imagined to be most likely to set off a DOJ smoke detector. Not surprised to see it go.

<comment><USER4> Right after that e-book competitor shut it's doors (It's been like 3 weeks.)

This is how apple kills off competitors. They "experiment", competitors close shop, then they come to their senses and undo the damage.

I am surprised Apple is not being brought up on monopoly charges.

<comment><USER5> "Right after that e-book competitor shut it's doors (It's been like 3 weeks.)"

"This is how apple kills off competitors. They "experiment", competitors close shop, then they come to their senses and undo the damage."

Do you really think Apple went through all this to kill off some tiny company building software for their platform? No. They're relenting to make sure companies like Amazon, Netflix, and major newspaper and magazine publishers stay on iOS.

"I am surprised Apple is not being brought up on monopoly charges."

In what market does Apple enjoy a monopoly?

<comment><USER3> The DOJ would have most likely been looking for evidence of restraint of trade. <http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/restraint-of-trade/>

Note that only Section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust act even mentions monopolies. The rest of it deals with anti-competitive actions, of which monopoly may only be a potential outcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Essentially Apple wanted to see if they could get away with being greedy, and when it didn't work out they abandoned it.

It's similar to what they've done with app approvals, features, terms of service, signal strength bars, location data, etc.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I sure do hate it when Apple responds positively to feedback.

<comment><USER8> Yes, it's great when husband stops beating his wife. What a great husband!

The policy was greedy, and current policy is not a complete reversal — any other purchase systems and even linking to an external shop are still forbidden.

<comment><USER9> Ignoring the hideous inappropriateness of the metaphor, you'd prefer the husband kept beating the wife?

People do bad stuff for any number of reasons but stopping doing bad stuff is always a good thing.

<comment><USER10> pornel's point is that this isn't a point in Apple's favor, they just saw that being horrible didn't work for them and scaled it down to being merely terrible.

Also, I find the metaphor quite apt.

<comment><USER9> You really equate continual physical and mental abuse with unfavourable trade practices?

Each to their own I guess.

EDIT: My point is that it's a bad metaphor not because there are no links between the two but, as with most heavily emotive metaphors, it comes with too much baggage which distracts from the intended message.

A metaphor doesn't have to be a perfect match for what it's describing but the broad content and emotional tone should be similar and here I think it's hard to justify that this is the case.

<comment><USER10> Ah, that must be why people complain about my metaphors all the time. I am pretty good at not paying any attention to the baggage, which makes me judge a metaphor just on its merits, whereas other people complain because, ostensibly, they are offended by that.

<comment><USER9> Given that metaphors are about communication, that people complain about them all the time, and that communication is about other people, you might want to accept that they are bad metaphors.

<comment><USER10> Never! My metaphors are good like other things that are good.

<comment><USER9> That's a simile, not a metaphor...

<comment><USER10> A simile _is_ a metaphor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The problem with in-app purchases was always that Apple HAS to use the same 30% fee. If they use another percentage, developers just create free apps and make 'premium' features available for the same price as their paid app would otherwise be, thereby handing over less money to Apple.

Because Apple's in-app purchases don't distinguish between features and content, Apple can't use different pricing schemes.

I think Apple may try to change this situation with their News Stand system in iOS5. The content appearing there are still normal apps, they're just grouped together in a special folder and feature automatic downloads.

My guess is that content purchased in those News Stand apps will be less taxed than other in-app purchases, for example just 10%. That way Apple will keep some of their most important 'partners' happy.

<comment><USER12> I still don't buy any argument that Apple is entitled to any subscription fee at all.

If I use my own subscription system, own payment system, own user system, and my own bandwidth to supply the content, then I shouldn't have to give anything to Apple. I don't need to send a fee to Microsoft if I have software that delivers content in the same way. That Apple thinks they are entitled to anything in this regard is absurd.

<comment><USER13> Apple brought you the customers, Apple adevertised your application, Apple provided you with the bandwidth to distribute your software and updates, Apple provided you with the SDK/APIs to write the application, Apple provided you with support for that SDK and the OS it runs on, and Apple takes on some legal liability for selling it.

How are they not entitled to something?

You wouldn't have the customers if they hadn't provided the market place.

<comment><USER14> This (and don't forget apple made the device itself).

Basically Apple is like a giant cruise ship company that can stop at any of thousands of islands along it's way. The islands that don't want to follow their rules (give us 30% of your bananas, don't use our private radio channel, wear some pants for god's sake, etc.) well that's their prerogative but they won't be able to sell their wares to Apple's thousands of well heeled tourists.

<comment><USER15> _wear some pants for god's sake_

As if you could offend The Creator, who made humans[1] pantsless, by not wearing pants.

[1] source: a creation story

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is it possible that Amazon was playing 'chicken' with the Kindle app, and finally at the last moment, Apple relented and Amazon won?

On an episode of The Talkshow, Gruber was speculating that this would come to a head in early June and that something had to happen either way: The Kindle app gets pulled or Apple makes some kind of exception to the rule.

<comment><USER17> Or maybe Amazon/Netflix/et al acted like mature, responsible companies and worked out a compromise with Apple?

<comment><USER18> _"....worked out a compromise with Apple?"_

I chuckled when I read this. Work out a compromise with Apple? Most reasonable people would view Apple's position as being too constraining on content providers. If another tech giant whom I won't mention pulled a move like this, then people who be up in arms about it. But no, not for Apple ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The key difference between the old policy...

"provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app."

...and the new...

"that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to purchase the approved content. Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues for approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app"

Now it appears that it's fine to show content that is subscribed for outside of the App Store ecosystem (but you may not link directly to your payment pages).

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm pleased that they've made at least this change, but saddened that so many good services that used this functionality have already disappeared.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it's closing the stable door after the horse has bolted somewhat.

Presumably the recent announcements from large media brands (Playboy, FT) of their intention to deliver through webapps has caused this, so we should be thankful to them for this result!

I don't understand why they didn't position subscriptions more sensibly from the start - if it had been a 5-10% cut this situation probably wouldn't have happened in the first place.

<comment><USER20> 30% would be somewhat defensible if Apple provided the CDN for the content. As they don't, they're taxing convenience and taking it far too high. The 5-10% number holds a lot more water.

On the flip side, young upstarts will still lap the system up. Apple has has given them a chance to get one up on old media. The problem is it makes Apple a very large, capricious gorilla in the market.

<comment><USER21> My problem was more about setting restrictions on what I could charge my customer. If the customer wants to pay the premium for buying from the iphone application, fine by me.

As far as a "reasonable" fee, I think it should be more in the range of what a credit card charges.

 _young upstarts will still lap the system up_

I totally agree here. I wonder if it's a viable long-term strategy. In the first wave Apple's store got a bit of a reputation for having a lot of crap in it.

But they could be doing the following, which I think would be pretty brilliant:

We have a new platform, and a new way of interacting with media and with each other. What is the best use of this? What ideas will be seen as valuable? Well, let's just get as many ideas as we can as cheaply as we can, let the system percolate for a bit and see what is great.

When we know what is great, we'll then steer things strongly that way either by (1) building more stuff in-house and relegating indie applications to the cellar, or (2) very tight restrictions on the devs. This amounts to a _huge_ marketing experiment that they _make_ a ton of money from rather than having to spend a ton of money. Brilliant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Wow, this could not have come at a better time, since I was just wondering the other day if our companion app to our SaaS offering would be approved. Very pleased to see them reversing their position on this, and further clarifying that even this guideline excludes SaaS subscriptions (which I think is why they specifically spell out audio, video, etc. as the types of content). Thanks, Apple!

<comment><USER16> I think at that time there was one of those one-word email from Steve Jobs to someone basically clarifying that SaaS subscriptions were not part of that model anyway. Now the whole thing is moot though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Looks like Apple is (successfully?) copying Facebook's policy strategy... Two big steps forward, then one little step backwards!

<comment><USER24> Facebook doesn't take any step backwards.

<comment><USER25> Oh really?

[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-18/tech/facebook.reversal_1_...](http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-18/tech/facebook.reversal_1_facebook- social-networking-site-barry-schnitt?_s=PM:TECH)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Probably their lawyers got to them. They have a near monopoly in legal music downloads (market share at 70%), so if their app store policies led to Rhapsody or Rdio going out of business it would look pretty bad in the eyes of regulators.

<comment><USER27> I don't know, "near monopoly" doesn't mean anything - 70% or 7%, you either have a leverage over the market and are a monopoly or you don't and aren't.

I think it's rather that Apple figured that those two (and others) going out of business (or at least ditching iOS) will hurt their platform more than anything they'll gain from the subscription rule change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't know how it is you're supposed to build a business on top of Apple's platforms. I'm staying as far away as I can.

<comment><USER29> Apple has paid 2.5 billion to developers -- and that doesn't include other ways of making money on the ecosystem (e.g. writing apps for others)

The danger parts are if you are trying to make money in the same way Apple is, or threatening them in some way.

Some examples:

\- if you are going to try to make some kind of significant (30%) affiliate payment as a go-between. (iFlow)

\- if you try to fill a temporary obvious gap in iOS, that nearly every user would want -- this only works if you can keep out-innovating Apple (if they even allow it). (Instapaper -- but I think he'll out-innovate)

\- if somehow your app/service gives some advantage to Apple's competitors (AdMob)

<comment><USER30> "Apple has paid 2.5 billion to developers"

Let's change our perspective here: customers have paid $2.5 billion to developers and $1.1 billion to Apple for apps.

<comment><USER31> And many still claim that the App Store and iTunes are run at zero profit or a loss. Could that be true?

<comment><USER32> They claim that because it's what Apple CFO Oppenheimer said in February during a shareholder meeting: "We run the App Store just a little over break- even."

Apple makes money by selling hardware with good margins. The App Store and the Music Store help them sell more hardware.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Planned the whole time?

1) Apple introduces a strict requirement for using IAP with a deadline

2) All the devs who were planning to comply to keep their apps in the store have likely done the work integrating IAP already

3) Apple reverses policies

4) Devs have the option to drop IAP in their apps but it's not likely that many will IMO

</comment><comment><USER34> Does this mean that people like iFlow (<https://www.iflowreader.com/Closing.aspx>) can start selling eBooks again now? Or is it too late for them already?

<comment><USER35> Well, I'd imagine they still can't sell it in the app, because the agency model means that they have to pay out 70% of the sale price to the publisher. After Apple's 30% cut, that leaves nothing for them.

However, it seems as though Apple's ok with apps selling content through a website, as long as it isn't linked to from the app.

<comment><USER36> The requirement that in-app purchases be the same price is gone as well, so now they can charge a 30% markup to buy from the iPhone app.

<comment><USER37> Not under the Agency model where they still owe publishers 70% of the sale and Apple 30% of the sale. If they want a cut, they can only sell from a website, outside the app. They had a flawed business model to egin with in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It makes perfect sense now that they have Newsstand in iOS 5. Netflix, Amazon Kindle, SaaS apps and what-have-you can do what they want subscription-wise and still provide immense value to the platform, while magazines and newspapers will want to be part of Newsstand and will give Apple their 30% without much of a fuss. Everybody wins.

</comment><comment><USER39> I truly don't understand why apple does this, I can only assume its because they have nothing but contempt for the people who develop apps for their platform.

<comment><AUTHOR> Firstly this is a positive change (not perfect, but better).

But the original rules as stated already in these comments were presumably to see if

a) they could get away with it

b) to stop people using subscriptions to avoid normal purchases

c) to start from the most extreme point to leave room to manoeuvre later

<comment><USER39> I'm aware this is a positive change, my point is as a developer it breeds ever increasing uncertainty. Apple introduce draconian changes penciled in to come into effect in four months time, everyone complains about it, they don't say or do anything about it for four months and then quietly change policy a couple of weeks before it comes into effect.

I'm not saying apple can't act like that, I'm not saying that it might not be in their own business interests, I am saying that it shows complete contempt for the people developing apps for their platform who have to plan around changes that might or might not come into effect and which might or might not be clarified at some point sooner or later but probably later.

<comment><AUTHOR> On that point we are in complete agreement :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I would like to point out to people who say that Apple is being greedy: until they came out with their 30% deal it was normal for Phone companies to ban all software from their phones except for their own. When phone companies did include outside developers software, deals of 90%+ were common (as they still are in the games' industry)

<comment><USER41> This was never true on the two dominant smart phone platforms, Palm OS and Windows Mobile. Development on the former required only Codewarrior while the latter VS.Net, which became free. Neither Palm nor Microsoft ever required you to pay them money either to develop or release applications, nor did they require approval for those applications to run on devices.

You're comparing Apple's smart phone ecosytem against other companies' dumb phone ecosystems. A more reasonable comparison against other smart phone platforms shows that Apple's is unusually restrictive.

<comment><USER40> When I owned a Palm, software was prohibitively expensive, hard-to-find, buggy and rarely did what it advertised.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I wonder if I can use In-App subscriptions to subscribe to a service instead of content. And, if not, if I can link to the external site.

<comment><USER43> Check out my GeeTasksLite app, I do exactly that. If you follow in my foot steps you should be ok.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> _That is, these apps can't have a "buy" button that takes users to an external subscription page._

I can't see how this is good for the user at all.

</comment><comment><USER45> I think this also has to do with the in-App Patent trouble. Now Apple can say, hey, we did not force you to offer in-App purchase in your app, you can sell your subscriptions just outside the store; in the end, you as the developer of the app are responsible for any resulting legal trouble.

</comment><comment><USER46> Is it confirmed?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I've just logged in to Developer Centre to check and the policy is updated on there.

<comment><USER47> This is still there:

"Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchases or subscriptions to be used in the app, such as a "buy" button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book, will be rejected"

The Kindle app still doesn't conform to this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> The logo certainly makes Apple guilty of a trade dress infringement. This guy will have no shortage of IP attorneys willing to take his case pro bono.

</comment><comment><USER26> What does this mean for Readability?

<comment><USER49> They said they're going to review their options: <https://twitter.com/#!/readability/status/78858529263464448>

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> IMHO, they probably freaked out everybody is eyeing HTML5 as a viable cross- platform app alternative.</comment>


Delaware Governor Signs Blockchain Legislation into Law - <AUTHOR> https://www.coindesk.com/delaware-governor-signs-blockchain-legislation-law/ <comment><USER2> [http://legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocume...](http://legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocument?legislationId=25730&legislationTypeId=1&docTypeId=2&legislationName=SB69)

^ Full text

</comment><comment><USER3> i read that two companies involved in traditional securities trading on distributed ledgers lobbied for this legislation.

Reading the text, they did not make sufficient changes required to have a legal entity on a blockchain like ethereum or bitcoin.

for example, Delaware requires keeping track of the full names of each person/entity that owns a corp.

<comment><USER2> I'm from Delaware, only recently moved. This whole bill seemed very vague to me. I've got a feeling this has something to do with the Wilmington stock exchange. Which has been kicking around for several years now [1].

Delaware makes a lot off the fact it incorporates a large number of companies. Allowing a stock exchange with block chain technology. Then providing complete audit history of each stock share, it seems plausible. Add in Wilmington houses rather large offices for Chase, WSFS, Wilmington Trust, Bank of America, Barclays, and maybe still T&D Bank. Essentially there are a lot of banks headquarted in northern Delaware. Several of which I think are starting, or have rumored to start on block chain technology.

Delaware despite it's size has a pretty good tech system in the government. It's not a tech hub by any stretch. But Capital One when I interviewed there was doing some innovative things.

1) [http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2017/05/07/wilmingt...](http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2017/05/07/wilmington- stock-exchange-delaware-venture-capital-penny-stocks/101293666/)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What makes a good place to work? - <AUTHOR> For some time I've wondered what makes a place of employment more than just a sweat-to-cash conversion machine, something you can enjoy. As a developer, I know I have my preferences, and I know my current colleagues more-or-less share them. But do others? Are there any universal developer-values that make one place more attractive than another? Besides fat stacks of cash of course.
Couple years ago on a whim I started studying for MBA, and now that it's drawing to a close, the school is asking me to do some research. I've decided to tackle this question - what makes a good place to work, for a software developer?
So I'd like to ask you to take five minutes of your time and help me - would you please fill out https://survey.mikoss.lv/ ? The diversity of HN crowd should make for some interesting data. Thank you in advance! <comment><USER2> Here's one thing I've been thinking about more and more: If you think about your tech job as a sports game, you have offense plays and defense plays. Offense can involve anything from creating great things, building sw architecture, designing features, presenting results to management, prioritizing workload, thinking ahead, and planning for the future. Defense includes fixing bugs, cleaning up technical debt, putting out fires, dealing with angry customers, defending the team from micromanaging execs, answering pop quizzes from the boss, justifying your actions, proving you're doing your job right, doing postmortems, and looking backwards. The offense plays are all about creating stuff and driving things that happen, while the defense plays are always about responding to things that happen and anticipating so you can respond better.

The worst jobs I have had were nothing but running defense day in and day out. Putting out fire after fire, with management who evidently hired me to put out fires yet don't trust me to do it right. There must always be a little defense, but primarily I want to be running offense, getting in front of things, and driving forward. It's empowering, satisfying, and you leave for home every day thinking "without me, XYZ wouldn't have gotten done" rather than "what urgent thing did I fail to respond to today?"

When applying for a role, I'd try to figure out how to probe interviewer to get a feel for whether or not I'm applying to be on the offense or defense team. It makes a big difference morale-wise, job satisfaction-wise, sanity- wise!

<comment><USER3> Creators vs. Maintainers.

There are some people who really enjoy the Maintainer role, and will not enjoy being on a Creator team, and vice versa. It's always important to know which you are, so you don't find yourself going crazy or facing a skills mismatch.

<comment><USER4> I agree.

Current trends in software ("agile" in particular), seem to push against allowing this kind of distinction to develop, and give negative connotations to maintaining code developed by another team ("thrown over the wall" seems to be the preferred expression).

Any thoughts on how to structure things so that maintainers and creators can both focus on their strengths without too much tension?

<comment><USER3> Finding the right balance usually requires, unfortunately, a very mature company with a policy of keeping talent happy and a strong R&D department (which requires a lot of income to maintain). The creators get to thrive in R&D while the maintainers get to thrive in working on very mature (and usually profitable) codebases.

I say unfortunately, since those companies tend to look like (and are) Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, etc. Oracle, in particular, has a policy that you can make any lateral move you want at almost any time; at the cost of pushing out your eligibility for a raise.

This kind of flexibility doesn't exist in most startups; I've personally been turned down for a lateral move within a startup because I "failed" a whiteboard interview. Startups also don't tend to attract the Maintainer personality since they are considered startups because they're creating something new.

I also think they have trouble with easily accepting lateral transfers because there's so much raw talent banging on the doors that it's appealing to bring in outside help on new projects. Especially since a transfer will be viewed as a loss of critical knowledge about the project that just switched into maintenance mode. What's missed is that the person who requested the transfer is probably going to leave anyways because of a the mismatch with their new job role and what they _want_ to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For discussion purposes, in order:

      - A team I enjoy working with.
      - Career growth, solid pay and benefits.
      - A culture that doesn't tolerate toxic people or excessive politics.
      - A quiet environment where I can concentrate and/or remote work days.
      - An interesting project.

I used to care more about working with resume building technology. As I've gotten older, I care a lot more about interpersonal issues and my work environment.

<comment><USER6> Would you care to elaborate on what you consider to be toxic people?

I have met people that are hell to work and/or interact with, though the word toxic does not come to mind when trying to describe them, therefore I'm curious.

<comment><USER7> The problem isn't toxic people. No one wakes up saying, gee, it's a great day to be toxic today. The problem is toxic environments that incentivize people to become toxic. This usually happens due to overly stressed environments, that don't have Work/life balance, with deadlines that are way too aggressive, thus culminating in a pressure cooker environment, that's sure to blow up sooner or later. Once, you relax those constraints, everything else can work out and people don't have to become toxic.

<comment><USER6> Strangely, the worst people I had to deal with were self-centered little- capable know-it-all egoists. Whatever question arises they have their opinion and know better. Thrown at a problem they try to raise their hands and float out of there or half-ass minimum viable prototype and leave it for others to fix. They go out of their way to make things suit their personal agenda. Need half of their hour to make a release? Sorry, cannot delay my daily jog. They promised something will be done (probably to client)? Will try to maneuver three levels of management to coerce someone to do it, because they lack competence to do it themselves and are not willing to learn. Such were the people I found barely bearable to work next to.

<comment><USER8> These are more than likely narcissists.

And they are extremely toxic and dangerous. It is best to avoid them, keep them away, or leave if you can't make them leave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In my 30 years of experience, the single biggest factor is your manager, the person you report to. My last permie gig (2010-12) had great tech, great pay & great colleagues, but all that was negated by shitty slave driving chaotic management. Conversely my 2004-2010 permie role was at a firm that had a bad reputation as brutal hire and fire shop. But 2004-7 was a career highpoint for me. I built great software and a great team, got promotions and bonuses. Then my manager left for another role, I was exposed to the vicious politics at the next level up, and things went south. Now I'm a contractor bootstrapping on the side. If I get my venture off the ground I want it to be a dev shop that folk never want to leave.

<comment><AUTHOR> One of the managers at my very first job put it best: a good manager is like an umbrella, shielding you in the downpour but somewhere out of sight in the sunshine. Meaning, a good manager isolates the employees from in-fighting in the above levels and takes the blame coming down, but exposes the team to praise when a project is going smoothly.

<comment><USER10> Isn't that a bit like a leaky abstraction. Even with an umbrella your ankles will get wet! For example if you have to work with other teams members who are toxic to get a project done then there is only so much your manager can do if that toxicity is the median behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My criteria:

1\. Being able to work from home.

2\. Being able to work from home full time.

3\. Getting paid well.

4\. The work is gratifying and challenging.

Personally, everything else is fluff and unnecessary: Ping ping tables, free drinks, beer carts, the right "fit" or culture (no place is an exact fit, and even if so, people come and go).

</comment><comment><USER12> I have thought a lot about this question over my career both as an employee and as a manager wondering how to make the environment better.

One of the conclusions I've come to is that the group dynamic is unique to the individuals in the group. This means that people who get along with each other have a better experience at work than those who don't (which is kind of obvious) except that the _mix_ is important too.

When I first started hiring I focused on the technical requirements of the role and experienced hiring people who were incompatible with other members of the team. And I have also experienced people who just made everyone else on the team more functional. Sometimes it is obvious, people who are blatantly prejudiced or misogynistic, sometimes it is more a subtle introverts and extroverts.

But when you get it right and people get along well, and the problem is an interesting one, and everyone feels like they are contributing in a way that is both valued and part of the bigger plan, they respond very favorably on surveys about great places to work.

As an employee I look for checks on antagonistic behavior of peers, and enough transparency so that I understand what is important and what isn't. And of course a level of autonomy and delegation that is appropriate for my experience level. Nothing really crimps my style like a manager telling me how to do my job every day.

I've known employees however for whom what is important is simply the quantity of office 'perks.' Free stuff like food, t-shirts, and field trips. They do enough work to not get fired but not much more, and they really don't take anything outside the office (as soon as they leave the building they forget any and all work efforts, or at least put them out of their mind).

Bottom line, a good place to work is where you get along with the people you are working with and share respect. Pretty much everything else is noise.

<comment><USER13> I think "team fit" as you've described is probably the most important factor for me. But it's a really tough thing to interview for / create within a team.

I had a coworker who could be described as a 'social butterfly', someone who can talk to anyone for hours on end and make them feel comfortable. They would spend half an hour with each interview candidate, not asking any technical questions, but just having a friendly conversation. Then they would give a 'yes/no' opinion of whether we should hire the candidate. All of their preferred hires were very successful and fit in with the team. It was remarkable. Some people are just excellent at reading others. Most people really aren't sadly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Some of the extra items:

Individual office with lockable door, and you get the key when you move in, rather than hunting someone down to ask for it.

Work weeks are maximum of 40 hours.

You have one boss at a time, and you know who that person is. Your supervisor's boss will never ask you to do anything directly.

No on-call after hours, ever.

A wall of separation exists between work life and social life. Social opportunities with co-workers exist, but can be skipped without consequence.

Performance that exceeds expectations is recognized and rewarded.

<comment><USER15> That office with a door.... Who offers that these days, and can I please go work there?

<comment><USER14> Personally, it's gone like this:

      Year  Workspace     Door?  Locks?  Key?  Window?
      1     1/4 cubicle   no     no      no    yes
      2     pair office   yes    no      no    yes!
      3-4   home          yes    yes     yes   yes
      5-6   office        yes    no      no    no
      7     5/8 cubicle   no     no      no    yes!
      8     1/4 cubicle   no     no      no    no
      9     office        yes    yes     no    no
      10    3/4 cubicle   no     no      no    yes
      11-12 full cubicle  no     no      no    no
      13-14 office        yes    yes     no    no
      15-17 office        yes    yes     no    no

Locations are 1-4 Chicago, IL; 5-8 Madison, WI; 9-17 near-South military- industrial complex, USA

It seems as though companies that require security clearance placed higher value on doors, locks, and the dangers of overheard conversation. They have always had at least 3 standard-height cubicle walls per employee. Although windows are apparently a security risk.

But no one seems to care about whether employees can lock up their own workspaces upon leaving work. My offices of late have always had locks, but no one ever bothers giving me the key. To anything. Not the door, not the desk, not the cabinets. That's why I can now pop the lock on office furniture with just a paper clip and a binder clip. I'd only leave anything valuable in my workspace if I had a key to the door lock, and as you can see from the table above...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> 1\. Get paid enough to pursue interesting hobbies in my free time.

2\. Have a contract that lets me own anything that I create that doesn't relate to my work.

3\. Have enough free time to pursue interesting hobbies.

That's about it, really. Autonomy at work is important too, but I can overlook a lot of bullshit if I have something to look forwards to at the end of the day.

I like to learn and make things. That's a big part of why you hired me. Don't restrict what things I can learn and make. Don't claim ownership of things you don't pay me to do. Not only is it unenforcable and unethical, it encourages me to leave at the drop of a hat if I think I'm on to something. I don't understand why this is a controversial topic with so many employers.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'd say a big one for me is hours. I'm currently capped at 40 hours a week and couldn't be happier.

<comment><AUTHOR> This seems to be a uniquely (?) american cultural issue - in my eastern eouropean working experience the long weeks are few and far between, and it's generally accepted that you take it easy when the crunch time is over.

Is that the same across all industries in USA? From what I've talked with some finance guys from the states, they have their hardships when it's time to close the year (or maybe quarter), but get to slack off later on. Only in software does it seem to go from mad rush to "normal" level to mad rush, never dipping below. Or am I mistaken?

<comment><USER18> I used to work in sub-contract electronic engineering in the UK.

The company would send an invoice to the customer. Payment would be 30 days after the month end that they got the invoice.

They had a sort of Just in time system - all the orders for components would be placed in month one, for delivery on the first day of month two. Everything would be booked into stores, and then kitted out onto the shop floor. The product would be built, and delivered, before the end of month 2, which meant that payment would be received sometime in month 3.

Sometimes components would be late, or there'd be more to book into stores and to kit up for the shop floor, or the wrong item would be sent in. All of these push production back a few days, and since production was aiming for shipping on day 30 without delays it meant that there was always a crunch from day 25 to 30, every month.

What the company could have done is taken one or two people from inspection and put them onto goods in at week one of the month and inspection at weeks two, three, and four of the month.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The survey is missing team dynamics type of stuff. Do I enjoy working with the people I interact with most frequently. If I don't, everything else in the company could be the best in the world, but I would still hate my job. I think there are two components to that...are they competent and how well I can get along with them.

Also my current employer is very, very active in philanthropy and charitable activity. While I don't personally take advantage of those opportunities all that much, I know a lot of other people in the company do, and it's a big factor why they enjoy working here.

</comment><comment><USER7> \- Good work/life balance

\- Stability (can remain in the same job 5+ years)

\- Money and benefits

\- Close commute

I find that the Work/life balance part of it is the most important because this is the most important factor that influences almost everything else: cooperative culture, better teamwork, no toxic environment, less politics, no stabbing in the back, etc.

<comment><USER20> Work/life balance, absolutely. I've got a wife and kids. I don't live and die with the project meeting some arbitrary deadline. You want it to ship by a certain date? Fine. Control the feature list. You want it to ship by then plus have all the features everyone can dream up? Sorry, I'm not going to kill myself to make it happen.

Now, in this business, I get that crunch time happens sometimes. I accept it as part of the job, _as long as it 's rare_. One month a year is reasonably rare. (On my current job, it was one night in seven years.) One month out of two is not rare, and I won't put up with it.

<comment><USER8> Crunch time should rarely ever happen unless the people having to crunch are the ones that agreed to and bought into the project, its scope, and deadlines. That is rarely ever the case. The implementors are rarely the ones that have enough say or control over scope, time, or budget. The one(s) that made the promise(s) should be held accountable for their failure(s).

<comment><USER21> There's also the factor that some people are chronic workaholics who can't separate work from real life.

When you're learning to code early on the push to become a "stronger" developer makes it easy to pursue this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'll fill out your survey, but also answer here for discussion:

\- A purpose and mission you can believe in

\- Opportunity for personal and professional growth

\- A high quality team to work along-side and be inspired by

\- A diverse and inclusive atmosphere

<comment><USER23> \- Money

<comment><USER22> That's under "professional growth". The idea that you advance in your career.

<comment><USER24> Things that advance your career don't always come with money upfront. Example: unpaid internships.

<comment><USER25> Unpaid internships are a lie told in industries who undervalue their hiring pool.

<comment><USER24> I disagree... Price is dictated by supply and demand. Industries are paying nothing for these interns because they can get away with it, not because they consider them worthless.

You pay nothing to breathe oxygen. How valuable is it to you?

<comment><USER21> When you need something done right, you pay for it.

When you do unpaid work, it means that it's work that doesn't matter, which means it isn't providing you with much in terms of valuable skills.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Ideally I am making something beautiful. This means languages and tools that are well designed and easy to use, enough time to make the program beautiful, and little or no bureaucratic paperwork to suck away energy.

It is required that I make something I believe in, that I think is actually helping people. Note that this can be different from making something that people ask for or something that tickles their fancy in the short term but causes damage in some way long term.

I would like to be paid the industry average for what I do. If I am paid a lot less, it had better be because I work for a nonprofit or something (see above about helping people). It's also dangerous to be paid a lot more than average, because I don't want to be a target for layoffs.

I work with a laptop in my lap. I am low maintenance. I don't really want free soda, ping pong tables, company picnics, free tickets to the game. I just want a company network that doesn't flake out, high-quality open-source software wherever possible, and minimal management.

</comment><comment><USER27> You got into an MBA program on whim? Was it full-time?? I look at the sticker price for the degree (around 100K just base tuition for a top program; more than double that in lost income). Even a part-time program seems like an expensive proposition. I just cannot justify it as a mid-career tech professional.

</comment><comment><USER28> Pay rate. While money is not the only thing in the world, a company that doesn't pay well probably isn't going to be enjoyable to work at, either. People who are worried about making ends meet are not always pleasant to be around.

</comment><comment><USER29>
      - clear understanding of the problem I am being asked to solve

      - major influence (if not outright ownership) of the solution to that problem

Good bullet points for anyone who works, not just software developers.

</comment><comment><USER30> Being at least a mile from your nearest coworker, preferably hundreds or thousands of miles and not having to work unpaid overtime (slave labor). To be fair, the latter is by definition included in the former if you have any kind of sense and self-respect. That literally solves 99% of work problems. The other 1% is communication. I didn't say it was perfect.

</comment><comment><USER31> I gave anything related to what I was actually working on 5 stars.

I gave everything else 1 star.

This has always been pretty binary for me.

When I have loved working on what I was working on, nothing else could have screwed that up. I just kept plowing on, motivated almost solely by compulsion.

When I have not loved what I was working on, nothing else could have helped except working on something else that I loved working on.

</comment><comment><USER32> \- no mac

\- vim

\- no javascript

\- no overtime

\- no on call

\- personal projects on fridays

<comment><USER33> What do you have against mandatory access control?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> If you are look into a startup, beware of companies that are in "growing" phase. While this might get you all pumped, in most cases they just sideline you if you are not the decision maker (Which is what happens if you are a developer).

<comment><USER21> What do you define as a "growing" phase? 10 people? 30 people? 100-200 people? Uber 1000+?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Can you separate out the HN responses from the Reddit responses? Saw the same link in [https://www.reddit.com/r/SampleSize/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SampleSize/)

<comment><AUTHOR> In the end I'm striving for a larger sample size.

I did not build in any 'hard' differentiator for source, but I should be able to get a feel for the distribution by the timestamp of answers, as I tried to space out the submissions to social media sites. I'll try to remember that for when it's time to publish the results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ability to work independently on something for non-trivial stretches of time. The kind of team-oriented working that needs daily synchronisation is bearable some of the time, but unsatisfying, and burns me out pretty rapidly.

</comment><comment><USER36> Will you share the results when you're done? I'd love to see the patterns!

</comment><comment><USER37> I would focus in career growth, a company where it is too bureaucratic and cumbersome to grow, eventually decays and causes employees to burn themselves out.

</comment><comment><USER38> I filled it out. Good luck to you. I hope you'll share your findings.

</comment><comment><USER39> Filled out, really interested to read the results if you publish them!

<comment><USER20> Agreed, when you publish, please post an article on HN with the results.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will. Probably not the paper itself, but definitely the results.

However, given my previous experience with how fast I work, don't expect it faster than tail end of may / early june.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Coworkers can make any place less bad to work, or just bad.

</comment><comment><USER41> When asking people to fill out survey forms, it is probably best not to be anonymous.

<comment><USER42> Why?</comment></comment>


Google co-founder expects Chrome for Android  - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10031318-2.html

<comment><USER2> I expect, additionally, Chrome for Symbian, WinCE, and iPhone.

[http://comments.deasil.com/2008/09/02/google-chrome-could- be...](http://comments.deasil.com/2008/09/02/google-chrome-could-be-big)

 _Google doesn't need it's own phone OS, they just need to get apps onto Symbian, iPhone and WinMob._</comment>


Why Apache Beam? A Data Artisans Perspective - <AUTHOR> http://data-artisans.com/why-apache-beam/ <comment><USER2> Here's the Google perspective: [https://cloud.google.com/blog/big- data/2016/05/why-apache-be...](https://cloud.google.com/blog/big- data/2016/05/why-apache-beam-a-google-perspective)</comment>


Ask HN: Guide for securing home network with smart devices? - <AUTHOR> My parents have recently moved into an apartment in NYC with a number of smart devices that came with the apartment: thermostats, light bulbs, et cetera.<p>Given the tenuous security of IoT devices, are there guides or resources that you'd recommend for securing and configuring one's home WiFi so that this doesn't become a Mirai-botnet-style problem? <comment><USER2> This is a good question.

I suggest you begin with the network itself, and look at the different fault points that exist or could be easily introduced. There are three basic components - the IoT smart devices, the computer(s) used to browse the internet and the networking equipment (specifically the gateway/router, but also separate access points and switches if you happen to have those).

Let's first outline reasonable security goals:

1) reduce the likelihood of one IoT device compromise leading to compromise in any other single IoT device,

2) reduce the likelihood of one IoT device compromise leading to compromise in your network itself (gateway/router)

3) reduce the likelihood of one IoT device compromise leading to compromise in your computer(1)

Now we can proceed:

1) Set up a separate VLAN for IoT devices so that they cannot interact with the other fault points on your network (your computers).

2) Assign a statically mapped subnet address to each device.

3) Set a firewall policy so that no device can see any other device on the network by default.

4) Set a firewall policy that drops all traffic on this network by default.

5) Now we'll sort the devices by required privilege. For devices like the Amazon Echo, Google Home, Control4, URC, etc that need to control many other devices, allow traffic from their IPs to proceed to the devices they need to control.

6) If you can figure out exactly which ports the devices use to send and receive requests, further lock them down.

7) Set a firewall policy that drops all outbound traffic from the IoT VLAN by default. For each device, set a specific policy that allows traffic for it to pass through _only_ to specific hosts (i.e. Hue lights to Hue hosts). Nest cameras don't need to send traffic anywhere but Google's servers, for example.

8) Remove password-based SSH authentication into your router and set a firewall policy that only allows SSH login from a specific IP address that you control (such as a $5/month VPS).

9) So that you don't shoot yourself in the foot with 8), set up daily backups of the router in case you lock yourself out of it and need to restore settings.

10) Set up your router so that it can only be locally managed from a specific subnet IP, which will be your main computer.

This is a reasonable start. All the other advice about how to secure your main computer still applies, because (as ever), that is a huge failure point.</comment>


Ask YC: How to form a Delaware C-Corp? - <AUTHOR>

I've been Googling for the past couple of days and am having a tough time pinning down the steps I should follow in forming a Delaware C-corp.
Like many of you, we'll be based out of the Bay Area. -> Who do I deal with? -> What documents should one file and when? -> What should one talk to a lawyer about and when? -> What happens at what stage?
Would be good to construct some sort of a step-by-step plan for anyone.. atleast with the basic information in it. <comment><USER2> Depends. If you have money, check out bizfilings.com. You can setup a C-corp for around $184.00, it's pretty quick and they do everything for you. They file all the appropriate forms, they have a registered agent in the state for you (which is required), they remind you to pay your yearly Delaware taxes when they're due, to just name a few things.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was also curious what sort of business licenses the State of Delaware would impose upon a start up software company. Thoughts?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Incorporate for free (still valid) <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=384402></comment>


Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37361556 <comment><USER2> Keep in mind that in today's global environment whenever a merger is proposed it has to go through alot of government scrutiny. Not just in the US, but also with the EU and China.

See the Haliburton/Baker Hughes merger that was blown up by the US government.

From a merger arbitrage perspective this has been a very interesting deal. This is the 4th proposal Bayer has made for Monsanto and with an all cash offer this might be enough, again assuming government approval.

They've went from an original offer of $122 to a final offer of $128/share. And the deal includes a breakup fee of $2 Billion for Monsanto if the deal falls through.

Monsanto has played this very well but the $128/share offer represents a 21% bump from yesterday's close, which is a bit concerning. With the other offers that have already been presented such a large premium means the market believes that there is a decent chance that this deal doesn't go through, now most likely due to government interference.

The typical remedy for governments who object to mergers is to have a company sell of a division or twp to show that the new company won't be a defacto monopoly.

Unfortunately in this case there is very little overlap between the two companies. This means that there isn't really anything for Bayer or Monsanto to sell off here.

The newly combined company will own the agricultural space, with a seeds and chemicals integrated vertical that would impress Apple.

<comment><USER3> The article says _The tie-up, which will give the new company control of more than 25% of the world 's supply of seeds and pesticides, comes amid a wave of mergers in the agriculture sector._

I'm skeptical that there is any particular public benefit to allowing the merger, but it seems a bit exaggerated to talk about the new entity owning the market.

<comment><USER4> Bayer CropScience is very small, just 2% of the global market, so them merging with Monsanto isn't really a massive game changer, which runs 23% [1]. I don't think it's going to shake up the market very much, could be that they even lose market share when the merged company consolidates its offerings. For example, Bayer's Liberty Link cotton is used when the local pests have become resistant to Monsanto's Glyphosate/Bt cotton, at some point Glyphosate/Bt sales will go down.

In other news, Syngenta (9% of seed market) was recently acquired by ChemChina but that deal is waiting for European authorities.

[1] Biased source: www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/10558-the-worlds-top-ten-seed- companies-who-owns-nature

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Many documentaries have been broadcasted on TV in France about Mosanto. It was depicted a the evil personified (like [http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the- world-according-to-monsan...](http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world- according-to-monsanto/)). Most of this must be correct because no repeated broadcast has been prohibited.

Now, I wonder if this was a plot. Maybe Bayer has favored these broadcasts to reduce the cost of takeover. Maybe Bayer is worst than Mosanto. Welcome paranoia.

<comment><USER6> "Maybe Bayer is worst"

[http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/08/0...](http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/08/05/bayer- sells-aids-infected-drug-banned-in-us-in-europe-asia.aspx)

[http://anonhq.com/yes-bayer-drug-knowingly-infected- people-h...](http://anonhq.com/yes-bayer-drug-knowingly-infected-people-hiv/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Another agriculture merger was announced last week, albeit smaller, between Potash and Agrium.

[http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/potash-agrium- merger-1.37579...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/potash-agrium- merger-1.3757953)

</comment><comment><USER8> The PR implications of this, particularly in Germany, will be interesting to follow.

<comment><USER9> What's the PR angle for Monsanto and Bayer in Germany? In the UK, Monsanto is 'the big evil American company' and Bayer is 'the big evil German company' (of course we have own own).

<comment><USER10> In Germany Monsanto is 'the big evil American company' and Bayer is just a big company.

<comment><USER11> any chance this could help the perception of GMOs in Germany then?

<comment><USER12> No. GMOs are more or less banned throughout Europe for legitimate ecological concerns, with plenty of grassroots opposition in Germany. The fact that it's a field dominated by one of the more evil companies in the world is secondary.

<comment><USER11> to be more precise, they can be sold but then need to be labeled. Prob used in animal feedstock, but not attractive to market for human use in that form. I presume animal feed's still a significant market, but unsure if there's significant GMO market penetration there.

Only one GMO (a bt corn I think) could be planted in the EU, and used mostly in Spain, though there's some hope the new rules will enable pro-GMO countries to plant many more in the future (approval process was generally stuck in the Council because enough countries opposed GMOs; now they can just ban them on their own territory w/o preventing pro-GMO countries from using it, and avoiding a conflict is politically attractive).

I personally see it as an ecological gain, due to productivity and so landuse improvements, something europe has basically stagnated at since these bans.

Sad to hear not much chance of improvements in the political sphere on that front..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The faz says that in other news ChemChina is buying Syngenta - these are two big companies; Are there any hidden reasons why agriculture tech companies are so interested in mergers these days?

Hmm.. here [1] it says that "three straight years of declining prices for major crops have pressured profits and forced companies to scale back staff and research."; Does that explain the pressure for mergers in this area?

[1] [http://www.wsj.com/articles/chemchina-details-changes-to- str...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/chemchina-details-changes-to-structure-of- planned-syngenta-purchase-1466178106)

and that is supposedly because a glut in corn and soybeans is driving prices down;

[http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/High-corn-yield- hurts-...](http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/High-corn-yield-hurts-farmers --bottom-line-15228819)

<comment><USER13> i am wondering about the larger impact of agricultural issues on the economy & politics; i wonder if anyone ran a study of this factor over the long run:

for example the crash of 2008 was preceded by a long drought that caused a steep increase of food prices; also Arab countries were then unable to keep up food subsidies, so the Arab spring came and forced the governments out; Also the French revolution was preceded by a drought + the French state was basically bankrupt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is great news for conspiracy theorists.

</comment><comment><USER15> The competition angle isn't what scares me, it's the incentives created by the appearance that Monsanto, an entity whose primary income streams come from utilizing, manipulation, and corrupting the common-sense understanding of IP laws (even unto victimizing farmers who experience pollen drift from nearby farms which use Monsanto products [0]) has generated an exit at over 20% bump in share price.

IMO, the IP legal structure surrounding Monsanto's activities is no different than a direct government subsidy to that company, and given its downright evil actions, I don't think most voters want to subsidize it.

0: [https://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.displa...](https://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23451)

<comment><USER16> Your source is very biased. Do you have any evidence of Monsanto suing farmers for unintentionally growing crops from seeds that have drifted onto their fields?

The most well know case is Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, but the facts do not support the farmer's claims of innocence. It's clear he tried to grow and acquire as many of Monsanto's seeds as he could.

The case you pointed to is about invalidating Monsanto's patents, or at least rendering them unenforceable. It's plainly just an attempt for farmers to save money by using Monsanto's seeds without paying for them and nothing about "victimisation".

<comment><USER17> > It's clear he tried to grow and acquire as many of Monsanto's seeds as he > could.

What's wrong with that? If your patent passes on its genes onto my corn, then it's no longer exactly your plant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How can the competition authority allow this to happen?

<comment><USER19> It hasn't happened yet, but I'd suspect the merger will be approved. First, the general assumption among most competition authorities these days is that companies should be free to merge unless doing so would raise serious antitrust concerns. The focus of antitrust theory is on companies that compete directly with each other (e.g. Microsoft versus Google compete directly in search). Vertical integration (e.g. Apple buys Netflix), in comparison, doesn't raise the same concerns of immediate and direct reduction in competition.

<comment><USER20> In cases where vertical integration raises concerns, antitrust regulators seem to have also gotten more comfortable with attaching merger conditions rather than blocking the merger entirely. For example telecom mergers that produce vertical integration routinely are approved with conditions regarding third- party infrastructure access. The first big deal I can remember with such a condition was the AOL-Time Warner merger, which was approved on condition that Time Warner offer third-party ISPs wholesale access to its cable network.

Now that there are several big regulators involved (the EU, US, and China, mainly), that kind of thing could still scuttle deals, though, if the set of conditions becomes too big and conflicting. I'm pretty sure I recently ran across one such deal, that was approved but with conditions that investors balked at, effectively killing it, but googling isn't turning it up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Well this seems absolutely fucking horrible.

</comment><comment><USER22> one of my concerns regarding this is the likely increase in patenting of genetic plant material, but specifically for the plants that are used in medicine. This will especially be problematic when it comes to medicinal cannabis. Monsanto will engineer a "perfect strain" then make considerable profits off it. That's concerning because it's about to shift the drug war and I'm not sure where it will go.

<comment><USER23> I mean if a company (Monsanto or anyone else) actually does develop a perfect strain for medical use they certainly deserve the profit, don't they? I'm no fan of Monsanto but it doesn't mean that they're not entitled to the things any other company is entitled to in a capitalist society.

I could certainly see how the drug war could change following this in both good and bad ways, though I'm not sure they're connected enough that it should impact a potential merger?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This won't have negative consequences for the public at all.

/s

<comment><USER25> Zyklon B to buy Agent Orange... Such a nice fit.

<comment><USER26> a bit more complicated - IG Farben also produced multiple Nobel Prices in Medicine, represented the merged version of pretty much the complete German chemical industry.

AGFA, Bayer, BASF, Sanofi all trace back to IG Farben.

Not unlikely that you personally are alive because of their contributions to medicine. Unlike say Coca Cola or McDonalds. But yes, at the same time IG Farben used slave labor in WW2, experimented on humans and had a subsidiary produce Zyklon B.

History is complicated.

<comment><USER27> WW2 was in some ways as much a war between corporations as it was a war between governments. Not to mention, some corporations happily played both sides of the conflict; ITT [0] and General Motors [1] among the more notorious examples.

[0] [http://reformed- theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_...](http://reformed- theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_05.htm) (drawing on other sources)

[1] [http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Nazis-rode-to-war- on-G...](http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Nazis-rode-to-war-on-GM- wheels-2659006.php)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Could be interesting? Selling Glyphosate and 'roundup-ready' GMO crops is their main line of business in the United States for a long time! Monsanto is already a evil evil organisation -- and now they have the inventors of Heroin at the helm.

<comment><USER26> are we for the legalization of drugs today or against?

Heroin, basically a form of Morphine, has legit medical uses. Just like LSD and other fairly simple, potent molecules. Banning any R&D outright on them was a huge setback for medicine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I thought Bayer was Covestro now. So I had to look it up and Bayer still exists but Covestro was spun off.

"Covestro is a spinout formed in the fall of 2015 from Bayer; it was formerly Bayer's $12.3 billion materials science division. "

</comment><comment><USER30> >Bayer has been involved in controversies regarding some of its drug products; its statin drug Baycol (cerivastatin) was discontinued in 2001 after 52 people died from renal failure, and Trasylol (aprotinin), used to control bleeding during major surgery, was withdrawn from the markets worldwide when reports of increased mortality emerged; it was later re-introduced in Europe but not in the US.[0]

Can't wait to see what "pharmaceutical" solutions they will bring up together!

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

<comment><USER31> Of course there are controversies. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. We have half the folks crying "Hurry up approval of life-saving drugs! Stop stalling! Too much paperwork!" and the other half "Condemn the heartless drug company that rushed in a drug that killed (some) people! No blood for profit!"</comment></comment>


That's a Dilly of a Pickle: Diagnosing and Debugging Problems Under Stress  - <AUTHOR> http://www.fitnr.com/archives/2008/09/thats-a-dilly-of-a-pickle.html

<comment><USER2> The "ownership of bugs" problem is one reason that it's nice to work on OSS platforms. It's nice to be able to debug down to whatever component you or a co-worker has decided to blame things on to realized that it really probably is your code.

Co-workers who publicly and loudly always blame components they didn't write is one of my pet peeves. (I do it to myself, and usually know I'm wrong. :-) )</comment>


Occupiers are blaming the wrong people - <AUTHOR> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/occupiers-are-blaming-the-wrong-people/article2226104/

<comment><USER2> >These are people who weren't interested in just any white-collar work. They wanted to do transformational, world-saving work – which would presumably be underwritten by taxing the rich.

Tidily sums up the whole article and its flaws. Gross generalizations to sweep under the rug any inconvenient facts how the rich and powerful play the system to their advantage.

I see this whole article just as a distraction, an attempt to defuse a very real and acute grievances.</comment>


A high school student created a fake 2020 candidate. Twitter verified it - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/tech/fake-twitter-candidate-2020/index.html <comment><USER2> I understand why they dont want to use officially filed candidates (though i personally, think they should).

Checking for an ID for someone getting a blue checkmark seems like an easy start though.

</comment><comment><USER3> Twitter is a joke. I don't know why anyone uses it.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a way to do this layout in HTML 5? - <AUTHOR> http://raw.gibney.org/height_test_quirks Meanwhile jlft has posted the right answer to this. Scroll way down to see it. Its on the second last position of this thread. <comment><USER2> Sure there is, here is my saturday morning no coffee's take on it:

       <!doctype html>

Hey I'm a header

Left Panel Here

Right Panel

I'm a footer

_You should probably ask this question on StackOverflow.com_

And it's probably been answered there already.But what heck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Its not the same. You made a lot of changes. For example deleting the textarea and other elements.

<comment><USER2> Just put the textarea in the left panel.

He asked for the layout in HTML5, not the same code. Separating content from presentation is a better practice than shoveling it all in a table.

       <!doctype html>

                   <form action="go.php" method="post">

Hey I'm a header

                               <textarea name="text">Write here</textarea>

Right Panel

                           I'm a footer, hit submit

                           <input type="submit" class="submit" value="submit" name="" />

                   </form>

<comment><AUTHOR> Same problem as with "thegooley"s solution.

<comment><USER2> change height: 10% to min-height: 10% in ".header, .footer" ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not the same. In the original, the footer adopts its height to its content. Putting in a min-height of 10% will not accomplish that. You can simply verify it by comparing your solution and the original visually. They look completely different.

Please be aware, that meanwhile there is a working solution here:

<http://raw.gibney.org/height_test_standards_2>

It was suggested by jlft but his post got no upvotes, so its burried almost on the bottom of this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> You should probably ask this question on StackOverflow.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Good suggestion. Will do that if no solution comes up on HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://pastehtml.com/view/c6bge5hig.html>

table { position:absolute; top: 0; bottom: 0; ....

<comment><AUTHOR> Its not the same. The textarea does not resize to the parents height in this solution. Also it extends into the right half of the screen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You need 6 div. one container. Everything goes in there. One header, one wrapper that holds the two big boxes and a footer.

Set HTML & body height to 100%. If you don't your container and other divs will likely ignore your height:100%

Everything else you need from there is float, position, clear, width and height. Should even be compatible with most versions of IE.

Sp yes it is possible and even simple with HTML and CSS. No need for tables.

<comment><AUTHOR> There have been solutions been suggested without tables. Look through this thread. Nothing works so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Add this:

form { height: 100%; } td {height: 100%; }

<comment><AUTHOR> The best solution so far!

<http://raw.gibney.org/height_test_standards_1>

Only problem: The textare is slighty misaligned.

<comment><USER7> you just need to add this to textarea

-webkit-box-sizing: border-box; -moz-box-sizing: border-box; box-sizing: border-box;

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome! We got it!

<http://raw.gibney.org/height_test_standards_2>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The form is the element screwing you over. It's compressing everything to minimum. Set form{height:100%} and it spans the page again. You can also move the form just inside of the table and get the desired effect.

<comment><AUTHOR> jlft already suggested this. Please see his reply. And if possible upvote it. He made the best solution so far, but his post is burried down below.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> You may find this useful: [http://matthewjamestaylor.com/blog/equal-height- columns-2-co...](http://matthewjamestaylor.com/blog/equal-height- columns-2-column.htm)

</comment><comment><USER10> It has been a while since I have played around with HTML (do Java at work, mostly) but surely one can do tables in HTML 5, as in previous versions? If not, something wrong there, IMO...

</comment><comment><USER11> Is this the kind of code that you're looking for? <http://files.thegooley.com/example-fullpage-app.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> No, its not the same. When the text in the footer wraps, it leaves the page so you cannot read it anymore. In my example that does not happen. If you left all the text the same, that would be easier to see.

<comment><USER11> Ah yes, this method does set the height of the header and footer as constant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's a jsFiddle in HTML5 mode with the table code pre-entered if anyone wants to play with it: <http://jsfiddle.net/bzf9W/>

</comment><comment><USER13> <https://gist.github.com/3193548>

<comment><AUTHOR> Same problem as with "the1"s solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Do you have to use
?

<comment><USER15> that's precisely his question I guess; can you do this in HTML5 and CSS without resorting to javascript hacks?

<comment><AUTHOR> Right, im looking for a pure HTML 5 + CSS solution. Just like it is in quirks mode.</comment></comment></comment>


The Humble Brainiac Book Bundle - <AUTHOR> https://www.humblebundle.com/books <comment><USER2> very exciting! Give to your kids, EFF, Freedom of the Press Foundation, and yourself!</comment>


Wetware Refactorings - <AUTHOR> http://www.moserware.com/2009/01/wetware-refactorings.html

<comment><USER2> Take-aways: Cliff's "Buffalo Theory" as it relates to neurogenesis. "If you're a programmer stuck in a drab cubicle, you will never grow new neurons."

"And if that wasn't bad enough, a controversial study done in the United Kingdom noted that if you constantly interrupt your task to check email or respond to an IM text message, your effective IQ drops ten points."

And more things to revive your brain.</comment>


Covid-19 has blown apart the myth of Silicon Valley innovation - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/25/1000563/covid-19-has-killed-the-myth-of-silicon-valley-innovation/ <comment><USER2> The 2020 soothsayers [0] could not have been more wrong. This pandemic has questioned the sustainability of many startups that provide no value to society and have resorted to purely being driven by buzzwords and hype to get investors to continuously throw money at them. The red flag was signalled after the poor tech IPO performances of 2019 and right now, the same companies have taken a critical hit from this pandemic.

Maybe when this is all over, we should really go back to looking at companies that are 'financially sustainable' rather than investing in frivolous tech companies that compete in burning up their capital on cloud services owned by some FAAMNG companies. Henceforth, the magnificent FAANMG will sail through this storm unscathed.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21934955](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21934955)

<comment><USER3> What is an example of something that provides no value?

<comment><USER2> You can take most of the companies mentioned in this article which most of them are in SoftBank's Vision Fund: [0]

My favourites are 'Brandless' [1] and 'Wag'

[0] [https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/13/softbank- expects-24-billio...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/13/softbank- expects-24-billion-in-losses-from-vision-fund-wework-and-oneweb-investments/)

[1] [https://brandless.com/](https://brandless.com/)

<comment><USER4> Wag may be overvalued, but it definitely provides nonzero value.

Anecdata: we use it (and Rover) almost weekly to find someone to sit or walk our dog when we can't get home in a timely manner due to work or social events. We've kept the contacts of several sitters but it's so much easier to use a platform for scheduling rather than playing are-you-free with 3 or 4 people that we'll pay the markup. Having access to those services is a huge QoL improvement.

It also enables a pretty easy additional income stream for people in a position to do the gigs. From what I've seen, it's straightforward to support yourself and even make a good middle-income wage just because dogs are a little simpler to parallelize than, say, taxi rides or food deliveries.

<comment><USER5> Sure, but what you're describing is service for people rich enough to try and have it all (aka paying a lot of money to not have to give up weekly social occasions to take care of their pets) but not wealthy enough to have full time help.

The vast, vast majority of the world doesnt have that kind of luxury, which is why most people aren't too terribly sad to see these businesses fail.

<comment><USER6> "The vast, vast majority of the world doesnt have that kind of luxury"

This is a perverse way of framing the difference between developed countries and the rest of the world. It's a privilege to _not_ be able to afford servants, as they would in many non-Western countries with greater inequality?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Meh the writer isn't gonna get this narrative to stick.

Most people's practical experiences right now are that many technologies developed in SV are making it possible for them to survive quarantine. From video chat and other communications, to social media, to delivery platforms, to all sorts of systems that companies are quickly adopting to adapt to the new operating environment around them.

I'm all for the critical self-reflection of tech and journalists being hard on leaders. But this in particular is reaching for a story.

</comment><comment><USER8> Part of a counterpoint: [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/04/th...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/04/the- decline-of-the-innovation-state-is-killing-us.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> That article is utter trash of a smear piece - it isn't worthy of any word mincing. In contrast to normal advice I would say don't read it - it isn't worth your time. His demands are like grabbing a Med School Dean by the shoulders and shaking them while asking why they don't have a vaccine ready. That isn't their job and is literally demanding the impossible. It betrays a deep ignorance or attempted manipulation of expected ignorance among the audience that Silicon Valley are literal wizards. There are legitimate questions about shifting in industry and what lasting role start ups could play in a post Covid world but this is not that article. There is nothing reasonable to discuss.

</comment><comment><USER10> There is no "myth of Silicon Valley innovation": SV is only a tiny fraction of innovation in the USA and a very specialized fraction at that.</comment>


Why Musk put his $100,000 Tesla in the inaugural Falcon Heavy flight - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/937041986304983040?lang=en <comment><USER2> Why is the price of a roadster relevant? Why is it in the title?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> tl,dr: twitter exchange between someone online and elon musk

@highqualitysh1t My only thought on this is "Why?"

@elonmusk Replying to @highqualitysh1t I love the thought of a car drifting apparently endlessly through space and perhaps being discovered by an alien race millions of years in the future

</comment><comment><USER3> I call bullshit. The car is a product.</comment>


How Apple minimizes its corporate tax burden - <AUTHOR> http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/29/how-apple-minimizes-its-corporate-tax-burden/

<comment><USER2> Previous discussion of this issue on HN, in a very active thread with many comments, based on another news source:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3903694>

(By the way, HN Search was a fail in finding this article, so I found it by looking for recent active threads.)

</comment><comment><USER3> I love how they're spinning it into a positive: "minimizing corporate burden" vs "cheating everyone else who is a full taxpayer to the US Government". You could argue both sides, I guess. It's just interesting to see it happen.

<comment><USER4> I may or may not agree with what they're doing, but the current tax rules make it possible to do so. You can't really blame a company for playing by the rules.</comment></comment>


Harvard creates self-assembling DNA nanostructures from tiny DNA 'Lego bricks' - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/142337-harvard-creates-self-assembling-dna-nanostructures-from-tiny-dna-lego-bricks <comment><USER2> Neat but gimmicky.</comment>