How I Grew My Company from $100 to $400M - <AUTHOR> http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246690 <comment><USER2> On some level, I hate articles like this because of all the unanswered questions:

[1] What did you spend that initial $100 on? (Even the cheapest overseas programmer can't do jack for $100)

[2]You mention $400 million in revenue, but how much of that is profit?

[3] What exactly does Trace3 do (if it was so great, I would have heard of it on my own, or you would have explained it in the article, without me having to Google research it)

[4] If things are going so great, why are you writing articles for websites like entrepreneur.com? (oh yeah, you have another thing called POP you're promoting)

[5] You mentioned a "bold" client's advice. How did yo know this was advice worth listening to vs advice to be ignored?

I'll probably get voted down into oblivion, but IMO these kinds of articles say a lot and nothing at all.

<comment><USER3> The $100 must have been spent on phone calls to all the potential clients he asked to tell him why he should not proceed with his ideas. From reading the article, it sounds like this pre-company, ground-pounding, customer-finding is more like finding suckers who would be willing to pay him for his new product/service.

The amazing thing is the POPin product/service he is now selling to large corporations. From what I can tell, it's just software that lets people take surveys and vote on polls so the higher-ups can find out what other people in the company (and supposedly customers) think. Of course, there are mobile apps for it, so it's trendy.

What does it do? It "generates buy-in," and "leverages knowledge" in a "fun and interactive" way to "derive tangible business results." You know the "buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo" thing, where it's a valid sentence using the same word to mean 7 different things? You clearly could do the same thing with "buzzword."

"Buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword." And these millionaire corporate execs drink it up and hand over their money! For something they could do already, with existing software, existing employees (who are already paid to do this stuff), and people throughout the chain who should already be communicating back and forth, up and down.

It really makes one wonder if they're all just college frat buddies who, being so insulated from their companies' actual work, budgets, and successes or failures, readily agree to scratch each others' backs at the opportune times. "Oh hey, man, you got a new company selling a new mobile survey app we can use to poll our employees? Well, we could do that already for free, and that's what our managers and VPs are supposed to be doing already--but sure, here's $500,000 for one of your sessions. By the way, aren't you still on the board of the last company you founded? Would that company be interested in buying some XYZ from us? Great, that's what I thought. Good deal."

Their app doesn't do anything new or unique. Anyone could set up a web forum, a wiki, a bunch of online polls--for free. Managers should already be talking to their employees and communicating up and down the chain. Instead of just doing that, they pay this other company big bucks to use their mobile app to do it for them.

And then, after getting a few bigcorps to pay them, they put those bigcorps' logos on their web site, and write an "article" for an entrepreneur magazine, supposedly revealing some business wisdom. Then they link to those articles on their own web site, showing how smart and published their founders are. Then I suppose that sets them up to sell to the next level of suckers, the ones who wouldn't buy in at first.

I can't help but think that it's just like the old Scrooge McDuck comic, "Scrooge's Plain Old Soap." Donald starts his own soap company and sells the same soap in fancy packaging for more money--but it's still just soap. And that's all these guys are doing: repackaging existing stuff and selling it to the execs who have the corporate budgets to burn. Then those execs can point to how they "leveraged knowledge" and "derived tangible business results," and they can then "pivot" those "successes" into their next, higher-paying job.

All of this is not technology--it's salesmanship. He talks about finding "truth" and "value"\--but the truth is that he's providing very little added value, merely acting as a middleman repackaging what already exists, then finding people willing to pay extra for it. Barnum covered that a long time ago. Still works, and I guess it always will. But with tech and the Internet, you'd think it'd be harder to get away with that.

Makes one wonder, who are the real suckers? The people buying that stuff? Or the ones _not_ selling it?

<comment><USER4> Suckers are the ones not selling it which would be majority of the programming populace..

I have seen top guys code up a entire solution at $X per hr. People who support that solution are able to charge 2X or 3X and who know only 1/10 of it... All cause they know how to speak the language or the sales guy who spoke the language sold it at that level.

People who have access to money are always paying for convenience.. programmers feel guilty charging for such stuff as we are aware of all the free options and generally do it for free.

<comment><USER5> _People who have access to money are always paying for convenience.._

I'd paint that in big block letters on the side of the time machine I'd send back to younger self if I could.

"Why would anyone pay $100's for that when you can just do it for free (with only 3 days of googling and configuring)?" They pay for the bit in parenthesis, and I failed to even consider it.

<comment><USER6> ...and the higher powered they are, the more that time and context switching costs them

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The heroic solo entrepreneur aspect of this article really rubs me the wrong way. "How _I_ grew _my_ company"? Like one dude deserves all the credit and nobody else employed by the business had anything to do with that 300 million?

The advice to solicit feedback and pivot until you find the true value you offer your customers is fine. How about:

* Engineering and Product advising as to whether the requested features are feasible -- and if not, suggesting creative variants.

* Marketing running analysis and advising as to whether the new product direction is salable outside the small sample size accessible to one individual CEO.

* The little people who keep the lights on.

Probably entrepreneur.com knows their target demographic and I'm not in it. :\

</comment><comment><USER8> How do you get a company to pay 35k for a "concept", a product that doesn't exist yet and that you can't be 100 percent sure how long it will take to build?

I have some hustle and I know enough about sales to appreciate how little I know about sales, but asking a company to pay tens of thousands of dollars up- front for a product you haven't made yet is something I literally can't imagine. Why wouldn't the company laugh you out of the room? What's the upside for them to pay tens of thousands now, assuming huge amounts of risk, when they could just wait for you to build the product and then decide if it's worth buying? What's their upside?

<comment><USER9> I can actually answer this. The idea that started my company way back in the 1990s was an ok idea, but it was not fantastic. What was fantastic about it was it had a magic balance between complexity and intuitiveness. What happened when I told people about it is was the first 30 minutes they sat there totally confused, but at some point around the 30 to 45 minute mark they would have an eureka moment where everything would fall into place and they would get it. The effect of this was truely amazing - basically people would come to believe that they had thought of it themselves and of course at that point selling was not a problem - people literally gave me large amounts of money for free because of this effect.

I should mention that while I have had much better ideas since (as well as lots of worse ones), none have ever had that magic quality. All I can say is look for ideas that allow people to discover the eureka moment themselves after 30 minutes. Once you have this you almost can't fail to raise money.

<comment><USER3> How do you get them to sit there for 30-45 minutes while totally confused?

And can't you give some vague idea of what your...fantastic idea was?

<comment><USER9> You give an entertaining talk :)

I wanted to avoid going into details as it is unlikely to be of interest to anyone here, but the actual idea eventually ended up as U.S. patent 6,737,253 [1].

1\. [https://www.google.com/patents/US6737253](https://www.google.com/patents/US6737253)

<comment><USER3> So do you. :)

I see. Well, that is not my area of expertise, but it sounds interesting, even if I don't understand it. So you turned that idea into a product or service, and made a business of it? Did you sell it for research or forensic or medical or...? Sounds like a good story, though maybe one you'd have to be in the field to understand the details of.

<comment><USER9> I actually sold it twice to two different companies. The first time was when it was just an idea and when they passed on it (but after they had given me enough money to prove it) I sold it to the second company for 100x more. At no point did I ever have to give up any equity.

The rather ironic thing is I actually came up with a much better idea [1] to solve the same problem, but I was never able to make any money from it. I am far more proud of the later idea, but it did not have the same magic.

1\. [http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/10/344](http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/10/344)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Author has good advice, all come down be a good sales person and act quick. Business is business, don't tango around, enough foreplay is enough.

Though I question 1) whether he already have a very strong network connection to begin with, and 2) looking at some of the most successful companies today, many of them were free product.

<comment><USER3> Well, think about it: selling frobnobs to average consumers at a profit margin of 1% is difficult and risky. But if you can sell fribfrob-as-a-service to the corporate executives that run bigcorps that already successfully sell frobnobs to average consumers, pooling large sums of money together in corporate coffers, then you can do a lot less selling for a lot more profit.

It's like running a landscaping business: you don't go to the poor side of the tracks and offer to mow small lawns for 50 cents. You go to the people who live by the country club and offer to mow big lawns for $50.

<comment><USER10> I guess so. If your product is expensive (for example, running "big data analytic" it makes sense to target at big corporate users, whereas companies like DropBox were competing with other big SaaS or on-premise solutions and they had to gain popularity via average consumers by offering free service at the beginning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Okay, so you reach failure. Now what are some tips & guidelines for optimally assessing your failure?

</comment><comment><USER12> Title should be "...from $100M to $400M"

<comment><USER13> In the first paragraph the author states: 'I started a company called Trace3 with $100 and grew it to over $400 million in revenue'.

<comment><USER14> The article it's self is very useful, and I think the advice the guy gives is totally on the money. But to be fair, the article does not cover how to go from $100 to the first million. That's the really tough part. Going from 1 million to 10, and then to 100, and so forth isn't a walk in the park, but that first step is always the toughest.

<comment><USER15> "The first billion is a helluva of a lot harder..." [http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-05/t-dot- boone-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-05/t-dot-boone- pickens-drake-doesnt-need-an-mba-to-make-a-billion-dollars)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> anybody think that maybe the $100 was the incorporation fee?</comment>


Google collects face data now. What it means and how to opt out - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/how-to/google-collects-face-data-now-what-it-means-and-how-to-opt-out/ <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20932987](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20932987)

<comment><USER3> I think flagging this as dupe is overkill. Lots of people would have missed it 3 months ago, and perhaps some new-year goals include becoming more privacy conscious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is the meat of the article:

> Do Google and the others store my facial data in the cloud? Sort of. > Although Google is quick to point out that face profiles are stored and > processed on the Nest Hub Max itself, it admits that it occasionally pulls > facial data to the cloud to help improve "product experience." Google > insists any facial data that winds up in the cloud is deleted after it's > finished processing it.

So I went digging around for a source to this claim, and found this[0]:

> Do Nest Hub Max's camera sensing features ever send video or images from my > home to Google? Yes, but only as part of the Face Match setup process, and > not after you've completed setup.

So this is a no to "occasionally" pulling facial data.

0: [https://store.google.com/us/category/google_nest_privacy](https://store.google.com/us/category/google_nest_privacy)

<comment><USER5> Nest is governed by Google's catch-all privacy policy. So the data they upload to the cloud can be used across the entire Google ecosystem. If you're using Google Photos, they already have tremendous amount of data on you, so this isn't anything particularly new.

This will, however, enable a new ad-targeting method where they can ensure the ads delivered are specific to the individual using an otherwise shared device.

Additionally, this "feature" can be combined with the always listening capabilities of Google spyware to definitively link your audio profile to your facial profile. This will enable Google to build an index of voice fingerprints, with facial profiles that can be used in the future in some capacity... like being able to isolate your voice in a room, once a camera detects your face, or vice versa.

This all can be spun as an "improved product experience".

edit-

there's no need to send video or an image to Google everytime, if there's a unique identifier mapped to your facial data. Only that will need to be sent up to Google and the statement you have quoted would technically be correct.

<comment><USER4> The cnet quote I still can't find a source for so I have no idea if Google even said they would use it for "product experience"; Regardless, that page I linked also states:

> In addition, we keep the video and images that power these features separate > from advertising and don't use them for ad personalization.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Other devices require some kind of trigger, such as touching the screen or > pressing a physical button, as with the iPhone ($900 at Amazon) when > activating FaceID.

I mean not really, getting a notification or an alarm activating will also wake the screen and FaceID will start scanning.

</comment><comment><USER6> If the user agreed with Google's conditions others who are entering the environment where the device is located might not.

I personally wouldn't feel at ease in a house with a 'smart' device that listens and sees everything all the time.

Those devices are a great way to keep some friends and family away.

<comment><USER7> At Christmas, I unplugged my parents Google Home Hub as a condition of my participation.

<comment><USER8> Did you tell them to all turn off their phones and remove their batteries, too?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If your business is selling data or access to customer eyeballs, anything and everything is fair game, unless there is some law or other obstacle in the way.

</comment><comment><USER10> So does the Playstation 4, if you have a camera attached. I'm sure there are other devices that do this as well. But that is all the more reason to be aware of it, and decide for yourself whether that is OK with you or not. Hopefully the concerns will remain an active topic of discussion so that device creators keep making it an easy-to-change setting to turn it off.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't see what the big deal is. If you don't like it, just don't have a face.

<comment><USER12> Since when is HN becoming Reddit

<comment><USER2> Since before it was HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13852](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13852)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Your face already exists in a plethora of databases anyway if you've existed the last 10+ years. I'm not saying you shouldn't be concerned but don't be mis-guided this is a recent development.

It's not. You as a human generate an immense amount of JSON data as you interact with the world until you die (and, possibly still after).

We're all just one big JSON object now :)

Cheers and happy new year, be tracked some more.

<comment><USER6> The recent development is that it now can happen in your home.

<comment><USER14> The recent development is that people started willingly install those devices in their own homes. There is "How i stopped worrying and learned to love the Big Brother" somewhere here.</comment></comment></comment>


Eight Key Problems Every Startup Should Anticipate - <AUTHOR> http://www.caycon.com/blog/2011/05/eight-key-problems-every-startup-should-anticipate/ <comment><USER2> #1 is a great example of why founders should be vested. The rest aren't really about startups as much as teams (dev or sales) in general, but obviously they're still relevant to startups, and further illustrate how important the hiring process is for startups.</comment>


Hacking Team, Computer Vulnerabilities, and the NSA - <AUTHOR> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/09/hacking_team_co.html <comment><USER2> Schneier didn't discuss what is IMO the biggest reason for NSA not to report vulnerabilities: it's "pissing into the wind", it's futile. When 10 vulnerabilities are reported and fixed, 11 new ones are quickly found. The vulnerabilities are overwhelming us.

Back around the year 2000 Microsoft was being beaten up for all the vulnerabilities in their software. So in 2002 Bill Gates announced "Trustworthy Computing".[1][2]

       Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates announced a
       major strategy shift across all its products,
       including its flagship Windows software,
       to emphasize security and privacy over new
       capabilities.

In 2014 Microsoft finally threw in the last towel, folding the group they formed into other units. They gave up. Microsoft lost not because they were incompetent, but because the problem is too big to attack in a conventional manner.

I don't know what the answer is, but we need to approach things very differently. To quote Dr. Peter Venkman: "the usual stuff isn't working".

[1] [http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/01/16/bill-gates- announces...](http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/01/16/bill-gates-announces- microsoft-strategy-shift-toward-security-privacy.html) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_computing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_computing)

<comment><USER3> This is why I have an issue with Project Zero. You will NEVER patch all the 0days. There are only a few bugs that I've seen that were so impactful (Heartbleed for example) that it made a massive impact to release and patch it. And as you implied, patching an 0day often publicizes a new vulnerable attack surface with new bugs to follow.

The real way to fix security issues isn't to find new exploits and expose them. It's to architect new ways to prevent whole families of exploits from being possible. I've only really seen Project Zero do one sort of recommendation in this way. Outside of that, I don't feel that them finding 0days and releasing them is actually a significant improvement on security because they aren't even close to plugging all of the holes (or even enough to really make a difference).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's a fourth reason NSA wouldn't have tipped off every vendor impacted by HT exploits: because they have no business breaking into commercial vulnerability research teams networks, grabbing their exploits, and burning them. It is in fact probably unlawful for them to do so (those actions having as they do an impact on US F-500 companies that use --- for better or worse --- tools from companies like HT to evaluate their own security).

This is a positive comment, not a normative one. I don't know how I feel about entities busting up companies like HT, but I do think I know that the world would be better off without companies like HT.

<comment><USER5> I salute your sentiment: the world would be better off without companies like HT.

 _It is in fact probably unlawful for them to do so_

I realize that the patriotic employees of the NSA work within a legal framework, and seemingly pride themselves on doing so. But they haven't bothered to share that framework with the rest of us. So my first response was to snicker to myself, and that's unfair to you.

Also, Hacking Team was Italian, not US, so would it really be illegal to slurp up all of HT's exploits? That is, if you want to stay within the bounds of the law, if not the bounds of ethical behavior.

<comment><USER4> I tried to acknowledge that HT is jurisdictionally complex; they are probably allowed, under the same charter that allows CIA to conduct HUMINT missions, to attack Italian security companies (modulo treaties, I guess). The issue though is that those attacks have direct impact on US companies, who (again) may rely on HT products for "zero day pentesting" (among other things).

<comment><USER6> > _they are probably allowed, under the same charter that allows CIA to > conduct HUMINT missions, to attack Italian security companies_

They are definitely _not allowed_ , under the _Constitution_ , to monitor everyone, but they do it anyway. You know this too.

So why do you discuss legislation as if it mattered to the NSA, when their actions show it clearly doesn't?

<comment><USER7> The NSA consists of many parts. Some people within it breaking the law does not mean that laws don't matter there.

<comment><USER6> Look, the NSA as an organization, as a whole, is blatantly violating the Constitution, which is supposedly the most sacrosanct law of the nation.

The fact that they don't care about what laws say doesn't get any clearer than that.

The fact that no one from NSA has gone to jail for the NSA violating the Constitution shows.. well, pretty much that the government doesn't bother punishing itself for violating its own laws.

To be fair, that _would_ be kind of silly, after all.

<comment><USER7> Has any court ruled NSA actions to be against the Constitution?

<comment><USER8> [http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/07/us-usa-security- ns...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/07/us-usa-security-nsa- idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507)

[http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/federal-judge-rules- against-n...](http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa)

[http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justice/nsa- surveillance-c...](http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justice/nsa-surveillance- court-ruling/)

<comment><USER7> The first one doesn't say anything about constitutional issues.

 _The appeals court did not rule on whether the surveillance violated the U.S. Constitution._

The second link has a ton of links. The first one is only referring to a preliminary injunction; i.e., it found that "there's a good chance the plaintiff will win", but did not find in favor of the plaintiff. As far as I can tell, all the other links there are about the same ruling.

The third link is talking about that same ruling, again:

 _A federal judge said Monday that he believes the government 's once-secret collection of domestic phone records is unconstitutional_

Emphasis on _believes_ ; that was not a judicial finding that the government violated the constitution.

He didn't even order the government to stop:

 _However, he put off enforcing his order barring the government from collecting the information, pending an appeal by the government._

What happened on appeal? [http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/ED64DC482...](http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/ED64DC482F286F1785257EAF004F71E8/$file/14-5004-1570210.pdf), or a more readable summary here [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-28/u-s- appeal...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-28/u-s-appeals- court-sends-nsa-collection-challenge-back-to-judge) and [http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-phone-surveillance-ruling- reverse...](http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-phone-surveillance-ruling-reversed- court-sides-national-security-agency-klayman-v-2073190)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> While I wouldn't put it past the NSA – why would we assume the NSA had infiltrated Hacking Team?

<comment><USER10> I think it's a fairly safe bet that they did, and I'll explain why I believe this.

1\. The NSA has access to more info on both good crypto and broken crypto

2\. Hacking Team's software & infrastructure were clearly vulnerable, otherwise they wouldn't have been hacked

3\. Leaked docs show that NSA hacks everyone they possibly can, to get as much information as they possibly can.

It's really not a big leap to assume that NSA infiltrated Hacking Team's infrastructure, if anything I would think it's harder to believe they _wouldn 't have_.

So if some Joe Schmoe broke into Hacking Team's system, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that NSA did as well

But just so I can understand what you're saying, why do you think it's a big assumption?

Edit: Formating.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for this, I agree it makes sense that they would have, I was just a bit disappointed that Bruce didn't enumerate any of this in his post. In fairness, all of this stuff is probably "duh" to him, and his normal audience, but it's not so obvious to everyone.

Here's another thought: what if the NSA hacked Hacking Team, and they were also the ones to release all the data publicly.

Re: #3 – do you have any links to that info? (I'm not challenging you to prove what you said, I'm just curious, if you don't have anything readily available, I'll Google search like a good Internet commenter :))

<comment><USER10> I think it would be hard to go through everything, but off the top of my head:

[https://snowdenarchive.cjfe.org/greenstone/collect/snowden1/...](https://snowdenarchive.cjfe.org/greenstone/collect/snowden1/index/assoc/HASH0127/fe6ee959.dir/doc.pdf)

Quote:

           For the past decade, NSA has lead an
           aggressive, multi-pronged effort to break widely
           used Internet encryption technologies

Their Motto:

          "We penetrate targets' defences."

<comment><USER2> _" We penetrate targets' defences."_

That would more likely be a GCHQ or MI5 or MI6 motto than an NSA motto.

A quick bit of Googling finds that the "PTD" in the slides refers to GCHQ's Penetration Targeting Defences unit. So it's their motto. Which explains the spelling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you do not realize that we have always been monitored, usually without a legal vehicle, by government agancies, you are just too young. If you believe for one second that the NSA is more of a threat than the ultimate climate created by the aggregation of every set of data collected by ISPs, Cloud service providers, app makers, and social media, please start thinking and researching just a few more steps ahead. Attacks will be patched, the NSA will decrypt in real time until someone finds a way to embarras them. The natural growth of company driven data theft and distribution can only result in an environment with revoloutionary sceintific achievement and statistical analysis that poses unpresidented virtual and physical threats to individuals and groups. The simple fact is our users have been slowly trained to implement and act upon concepts and technology they do no understand. When a person that can hardly type can watch a video online with explicit instructions on how to hijack a cell phone, but easily use too much power and suspend service in an area, what do we really change when housese burn and heart attack victims die because they have no 911 service?

</comment><comment><USER12> Schneier apparently doesn't even know what the NSA stands for (National Security _Administration_?) and yet seems it's safe to assume that they had infiltrated Hacking Team, and then proceeds to make a whole bunch of judgements and follow-on assumptions based off that first baseless assumption all while pandering to his userbase.

Well done, Bruce.

<comment><USER13> I don't think a little typo ("Administration") weakens his argument. I think this post is more of a thought experiment than a serious analysis of what most likely happened.

Though I agree that over the past few years, Schneier's posts have been less substantial in analysis and contain more "thought experiments". I enjoyed his blog way more when it was restricted to the subject he has expertise in, i.e. cryptography.

<comment><USER12> I don't really think he was going the thought experiment route. He seems to genuinely believe what he writes. For example:

"The NSA was most likely able to penetrate Hacking Team's network and steal the same data. The agency probably did it years ago."

Nothing too ambiguous about that assertion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It would be interesting to know if the NSA has explicit special access or has infiltrated the bug reporting programs for important vendors. Are browser bugs or iphone bugs important enough that the NSA has some guy in Apple or Firefox feeding them bug reports on the side?

<comment><USER9> Bugzilla was recently owned by an unnamed, unknown source, giving that source access to many zero day browser exploits for what was apparently many months. So yes, someone is doing this.</comment></comment>


Inside the world of legalised prostitution in Germany - <AUTHOR> http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/welcome-to-paradise/ <comment><USER2> The reality is prostition helps many young girls in their early 20s escape poverty and set themselves up for life. They can easily earn 100-200k a year, and after 2-3 years buy a house and move onto other occupations or start a family. Ones that stay on beyond that do so out of desperation or laziness, a tiny minority are actually forced to stay in the industry against their will.

People who critize this need to understand the options for women from places of abject poverty are not great either.

<comment><USER3> This. I had a friend who got herself through a medicine degree in the UK via prostitution. Her parents' income was too high to get a grant and good loan but they couldn't help her because of the chains of debt. She told them she was working in Dominos branch.

She's a surgical reg now, happily married for over 10 years with two children so did ok out of it and wasn't harmed in any way and says she quite enjoyed it.

<comment><USER4> That's a pretty rare story though. It could have very easily ended up with her either dead or pushed to use drugs. Think of her as the lucky exception in a long long string of girls that tried the same thing and that ended up being eaten by 'the life'. I have not one but _two_ nieces that ended up like that and where once they were bright and healthy girls they are now shadows.

<comment><USER3> I think it depends how and who markets you. If you're not in control of it, then it's not going to end well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For me, it comes down to a really simple principle: Your body, your rules. Why should some people get to tell other people what they can or can't do with their own bodies? Our responsibility as a society is to figure out how to make it as safe as possible for the people who find them in the unfortunate situation where prostitution looks like the best option.

Edited to be gender neutral.

<comment><USER6> Yes - your body, your rules, but in the reality of sex trafficking legalizing prostitution doesn't always ensure that. And as for the women who choose it freely but only because they are in the "unfortunate situation" where it seems like the best option, maybe we could introduce basic income so that many of them would not have to consider this option in the first place. I would say that's our responsibility as a society.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "in the reality of sex trafficking legalizing prostitution doesn't always ensure that"

But isn't forced prostitution a problem whether we make it legal or illegal? Are there any studies that show whether forced prostitution/trafficking goes up or down with legalisation?

>> "And as for the women who choose it freely but only because they are in the "unfortunate situation" where it seems like the best option"

There are plenty of jobs people do because they are the only option. They are physically difficult, dangerous, and pay much less than prostitution. In the documentaries/articles I've read where this point is made it often comes out that the person could do another job but it pays less and they would rather do prostitution as it pays more. Although I do agree with your point about a basic income. I think that would solve a lot of societies problems. It would also be interesting to then see how many people stay in prostitution when they have no financial reason to do so.

<comment><USER6> >> Are there any studies that show whether forced prostitution/trafficking goes up or down with legalisation?

The Netherlands, where prostitution is legal and regulated, is still one of the top destinations of human trafficking:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands#Human_trafficking)

<comment> k-mcgrady But are the levels of trafficking made any better by outlawing prostitution? If legality has a minimal effect on trafficking the other benefits brought about by legalisation (regulation, safer working conditions etc.) might be worth legalisation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I can't remember a time when prostitution was illegal in Australia. It's hard to understand countries where it's not legal. Funny even that's it's an interesting topic.

<comment><USER8> You really can't understand why it would be illegal? Even if you are radically opposed it should be pretty damn easy to come up with a long list of reasons as to why someone else might wish it to be illegal.

<comment><USER9> Can you name a few that aren't just "sex is bad, so I'll legislate that" or "a woman shouldn't sleep around"?

<comment><USER6> From the article:

"Sex trafficking statistics are frustratingly incomplete, but a recent report estimated the number of victims in Europe at 270,000."

We accept this form of modern slavery?

"Denmark, which decriminalised prostitution in 1999 – the same year Sweden made the purchase of sex illegal - has four times the number of trafficking victims than its neighbour despite having around half the population."

There's a good argument against legalization.

<comment><USER10> > "Denmark, which decriminalised prostitution in 1999 – the same year Sweden > made the purchase of sex illegal - has four times the number of trafficking > victims than its neighbour despite having around half the population."

That's not very strong evidence. It could easily be that the sex industry in Denmark was thriving pre-1999 and floundering in Sweden (with policy choices & trafficking as results).

Better proof would be comparing the growth rates in trafficking between two countries with similar base rates, where one legalized and one didn't.

Intuitively, I hope you can understand why many people think legalization can be a great tool for combatting trafficking. By doing so, you move the sex trade out into the open and away from gangs/criminal syndicates and allow for regulations which can serve public health & anti-slavery purposes.

<comment><USER11> Perhaps there are many Swedish and Norwegian customers in Denmark?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wonder whether legislating a minimum rate paid for prostitution (e.g. 100 euros per hour), with violations criminal for the underpayer but not for the prostitute, would have resulted in a nicer-looking industry. In other words, whether it would have been practically possible to selectively legalize high- end sex work.

<comment><USER6> Or even better, pay them basic income - now women would no longer need to prostitute themselves out of desperation, and only the ones who really saw this as a lucrative career would choose it.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, pay basic income then prices for everything goes up and you are back at sqiare1.

<comment><USER6> Source?

<comment><USER13> Source of what? Economic Principles?

<comment><USER6> I'm asking for the source of your claim that implementing basic income would make no difference whatsoever.

Sure, some prices would rise. Basic income needs to be continuously calibrated relative to the cost of basic living. That said, I don't see any good reason to expect that the price of say food would rise beyond people's ability to buy. Western countries already produce way more food than is necessary, so supermarkets end up throwing a lot away. With increased demand there would be increased production of food, clothes, and other essential items.

Market forces would still be in effect, so rent prices would reach a new equilibrium. As long as there are more apartments than people, rents would stay at a level that people could afford (or the empty apartments would lower rents until people could afford to live there). If there are not enough apartments, more would be built in cheap locations to satisfy demand. Sure, basic income wouldn't make everyone able to live in New York, but that's not the goal.

<comment><USER13> No economic system is an island anymore. First, where do you get the supply of money to provide basic income to everyone? Seeing that most western countries and knee deep in debt, I guess you mean printing money then? Inflation would then go rampant, leading to rising prices, and rising commodity prices for everything that is not produced in the said country. Depending where you are that could have a very big impact on your daily purchasing power.

And then you'd have to raise prices again because your "basic income" is not basic anymore to sustain paying for rents, for stuff more than bare minimum. In other words, more debts.

That's a simplified explanation of what would be going on, but it gives a general idea of why it would not work so well in practice, and why it's not sustainable.

By the way in most countries you have a "basic income" already for people who have no resources whatsoever (not for everyone in society) - it's very limited but that's enough to buy food usually. The idea is nothing new.

<comment><USER6> Western countries are knee deep in public debt, but very rich when it comes to private wealth. We don't need to print money, we just need to increase taxes a bit, especially on the wealthiest 1 %. Inflation is an unfair tax as it targets middle class savers the most, instead of the rich who have most of their wealth in real estate, shares and bonds, etc.

Some prices would rise, but not enough to offset the benefits of basic income. Our economy has more than enough productivity and wealth to provide everyone with food and shelter. The majority of food production is largely automated and does not require a lot of cheap labor.

Your claim that basic income is not sustainable is unsubstantiated. Basic income is a great way to share the proceeds of automation and increased productivity among the many instead of just among the few.

<comment><USER13> Are you one of the Occupy Wall Street guys? :)

It's very easy for corporations or rich individuals to move away from places were tax increase too much. More unemployment, is that what you want? Because when such companies/people move, they don't spend their money locally anymore. Yeah, and they are free to move, unless you want to set up a totalitarian regime.

And the claim that taxing the very rich will save the government from its debt is hilarious, seeing that the US government, for example, has dozens of trillions of USD in debts and I have yet to hear about any company who has a trillion of net worth.

<comment><USER6> One of the Occupy Wall Street guys, like Obama? [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax- inver...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inversion- walgreens-avoid-executive-powers)

Sure, tax evasion is a problem, but the fact is taxes have been on a downward curve for decades now. Wealth and corporate tax evasion is a race to the bottom, and requires international cooperation. Should we just shrug and let inequality grow without bounds? We don't need to restrict people's freedom to move, but the EU and US could for example cooperate on introducing tariffs on companies that base their operations in tax havens. Of course, there is still a lot that could be achieved on a purely national level too.

The US public debt is at 18 trillion USD, whereas total private net worth is at least three times that amount: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States)

Sounds like it should be possible to reduce the public debt to a more manageable level.

<comment><USER13> Well you are obviously on another end of the political spectrum, I consider that taxes are way too high in many countries, and that governments should restrict the scope of what they do instead of increasing the tax burden on generations to come. Obviously this is not a very popular stance to have these days, but I am strongly convinced this is the best one if we are serious about our economic future.

<comment><USER6> While I am strongly convinced more redistribution is needed if we are serious about the well being of humanity. Economy should be a tool to serve humanity, not the other way around. Unless your head has been stuck in the sand, you might have noticed that pretty much all the increased profits generated since the 1970s have gone to the very few and rich.

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s- income-i...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income- inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/)

Even if you only care about economic growth and not about inequality, there is evidence that economic growth is held back by the current levels of inequality:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income- ine...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality- from-a-mainstream-source.html?abt=0002&abg=0)

Where is the evidence for the case that taxes are way too high? Growing public debt will also be a burden on generations to come.

<comment><USER13> > Unless your head has been stuck in the sand, you might have noticed that > pretty much all the increased profits generated since the 1970s have gone to > the very few and rich.

Unless you head has been stuck in the sand, worldwide poverty has decreased significantly since the 1970s and that's become the market has been more opened than before, not because governments have been overspending.

> Even if you only care about economic growth and not about inequality, there > is evidence that economic growth is held back by the current levels of > inequality

Bullshit. Inequality increase is obviously normal. Someone who starts with more capital will see their absolute income rising faster than someone with lower capital, so obviously "inequality" will rise no matter what. It would be very strange if it went the other way around. Besides, Inequality is bullshit because the level of life for almost everyone on Earth has increased generation after generation, and the poor have been getting less poor than they were, so for almost everyone it is a positive trend. Look at China, if you want an example of how hundred of millions of people benefit from a newly opened market to get out of poverty.

> Where is the evidence for the case that taxes are way too high? Growing > public debt will also be a burden on generations to come.

What evidence do you need? When 45% of you gross salary goes back to the government in taxes, that's the only evidence you need.

EDIT/ And, you know, if you want to help the poor, nobody prevents you from giving your savings and income to charity or to whoever you like. You know, you don't need the government to do that for you with added inefficiency and bureaucracy.

<comment><USER6> Yes, worldwide hunger has fallen by 17 percent since 1990 (a lot less than world economic and productivity growth in the same period), but there are still 842 million people who don't have enough to eat. We could pat ourselves on the back and say "well done", or we could consider the fact that we're settling for a lot less than what we are capable of - [http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats](http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats)

Inequality increase might be "normal" in our current political systems, but that doesn't make it desirable or inevitable. A progressive tax on wealth and income could prevent it from getting out of hand. Inequality is not bullshit, because first of all the extreme wealth in the hands of the rich could go a long way to feed and house the hungry and poor, and secondly wealth is power. Wealth can buy political power through lobbying and campaigning, ensuring that policies tend to shift ever in favour of the wealthy. Thus extreme inequality corresponds to extreme imbalances in power, undermining our democratic institutions.

On the first point, "you could approximately double the incomes of those living on less than $1.25 a day worldwide by transferring to them one-third of the consumption growth enjoyed by the world's richest 1 percent since 1990. Think of it as bringing the consumption levels of the global 1 percent back to where they were around 2003 or 2004, in return for wiping out global absolute poverty. Is that such an unreasonable tradeoff?" \- [http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-09/how-to- end-g...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-09/how-to-end-global- income-inequality#p1)

And while a lot of Chinese have moved from poverty to wage slavery, the economic narrative isn't really that rosy there either: [http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-30/chinas- incom...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-30/chinas-income- inequality-gap-widens-beyond-u-dot-s-dot-levels)

You claimed the fact that people had been lifted out of poverty since the 1970s was a sign that the economy was doing well. Why then is a 45 % tax such a problem, assuming the people paying it don't end up below the poverty level? Considering what governments provide in terms of infrastructure, safety, education, social security, and health care, is that so much to ask for? It seems only fair to pay back to society for the opportunities provided for us. Also from a utilitarian stand-point societies with less inequality have less crime and improved well-being (assuming the GDP per capita is not too low of course). Tax is a necessary part of a well functioning society, not a bogeyman. We should just make taxation more fair by not making the middle class pay a disproportionate share - the wealthy often pay a significantly lower tax percentage on their earnings due to income being taxed higher than capital gains.

High tax rates do not prevent economic growth, in fact the opposite seems to be the case: "During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed." \- [http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax- rates](http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates)

Tax rates are at an all-time low, inequality levels are soaring, and economic growth is poor. The gains from the high levels of productivity growth we've seen since the 1970s have been accumulating among a small elite. Doesn't seem very ideal to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > When Germany legalised prostitution in 2002 it triggered an apparently > unstoppable growth in the country's sex industry.

One needs to be careful when making judgements about what the causes were for this growth.

One need to keep in mind that Germany has several strong driving forces for change in our society and around us.

* economic collapse in former east europe

* change in political and economic systems

* open borders

* a lot of poor and desperate people in Germany and in neighbor countries.

* Many european countries further in the east are even worse in most ways: no jobs, no perspective, corruption, very little recovery, ...

* Germany had an economic recovery during the last decade and has been able to control the effects of the world-wide financial crisis on its economy.

* the Euro in Germany and west Europe remained stable. In those troubled country in the east, there is no Euro. Some smaller countries now joined the Eurozone.

We had the reunification of east and west germany. 20 million people had a drastic change in life, with their economy collapsing, authorities gone, the political system changed, jobs gone, ... Some recovery happened in the last decade, but that was very tough for many people and dampened by a lot of money from mostly western parts of Germany. All borders to neighbor countries are now wide open. All the east european countries went through even harder economic times. The financial crisis made it even worse. High unemployment in neighbor countries, especially for young people, while unemployment in Germany was going down. Many people moved to west europe for work. Legal or not. Eastern neighbors all joined the EU, which for example now means that people can move freely and work freely in other countries.

Thus it's not easy to compare it with other countries and it is not possible to think about prostitution independent from the other developments. The number of people in prostition is not just depending on the type of law. Germany has rich West Germany and an added East Germany. At its border it has countries with a lot of poor people, formely all communist. This difference in wealth, job opportunities, etc. creates enough opportunities which can be exploited. Thus we would have seen a lot increase in the sex business, whether we would have legalized it or not. Trying to control that with police and laws would have been very very difficult. There are open borders to all sides. Thinking that young women from eastern Europe would not been here, if laws were tougher is naive. We didn't open the borders to create new ones.

I think it was a smart move to prevent people from going underground. Still it makes sense to look if changes to the laws etc. are necessary after more than a decade.

<comment><USER15> As I know the border of Germany is pretty strict. I hear lots of horror stories from not only well educated people, but also people write books, makes music, etc. Even well known singers can't get visa to give their concert in Germany sometimes.

So how come unemployed people from poor neighbor countries can just go Germany and do prostution? It sounds realistic at first hear but thinking about the border officers in Germany, I think you kinda wanna think majority of the prostutes are not Germans.

<comment><USER14> What you hear is wrong. German border controls are mostly non existent. In a physical way. Drive over the border and you are in Germany. No fence. No controls. Border controls are down to a minimum.

Poland is next to us. No one in Poland needs a visa. There are no real border controls between Poland and us.

The Czech are next to us. No one needs a visa. No real border controls.

France is next to us. No real border controls. Nobody needs a visa. We even have the same currency.

Everybody in the EU (505 million people) can work move and work everywhere (mostly). Nobody needs a visa.

Even from countries where a visa is needed, moving to Germany and staying illegal is relatively easy.

And so on.

<comment><USER16> German road police bullies Czech and Polish drivers a lot. 'Random' road control means that entire content of car ends up on the road. And while German society is relatively open, you need fluent German language with NO ACCENT to be fully accepted, it is very far from US or UK.

<comment><USER14> > German road police bullies Czech and Polish drivers a lot. 'Random' road > control means that entire content of car ends up on the road.

Where I live, I have never seen that at all. Even then, if the police does not find anything, Czech and Polish drivers are perfectly fine to drive on German streets. Since they are in the EU, they can freely live and work in Germany - they just need to follow the usual German and EU laws.

That's also not important in this context. Prostitutes from east european countries can easily move into Germany. It also does not matter if they speak German or not. Most speak enough German to be able to work here in their business.

> And while German society is relatively open, you need fluent German language > with NO ACCENT to be fully accepted, it is very far from US or UK.

The is no requirement to have no foreign accent to live in Germany. The city where I live has around 13% population which doesn't have a German passport. That's the official numbers. Then add people who are living illegal and people who have passports from more than one country.

<comment><USER15> You must be a joke. Germany is where it's a casual thing to burn minorities alive. I'm not even talking about the holocaust;

2008: [http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/02/fire-f12.html](http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/02/fire-f12.html)

1993: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solingen_arson_attack_of_1993](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solingen_arson_attack_of_1993)

More: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Germany](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Germany)

And as a minority in Oakland, I feel like home and I know enough horror stories to avoid visiting Germany as long as I don't have a good reason.

<comment><USER16> This is just total bullshit. Germany has 80+ millions people and what you referred are very isolated accidents. German Turks are doing MUCH better than any minority in America.

And I am SICK of racist stereotypes about Germans. Yes their police does profiling and people from post-soviet get less promoted, but this also applies to East-Germans!

What I was talking about is not racism, but sort of conservatism.

<comment><USER17> Yeah I do not understand what is going on with HN today. Half of the comments here are showing Germans as some racists bastards with tight border controls - when the reality couldn't be further from the truth. And I am not even German.

<comment><USER15> are you europen, american or middle eastern?

<comment><USER17> Are these the 3 only options? Define "European"? Sweden, Greece, Russia and Turkey are all parts of Europe,but I imagine you would be a lot quicker to call someone from Turkey "middle eastern". Also, with this classification someone from Brazil or Mexico is also American, since they live in one of the Americas, and you seem to prefer continental or regional denominations rather than ones based on state.

But technicalities aside - I am from Poland. Country which has every reason to hate Germans the most. Yet my opinion of Germans is that they are incredibly polite, worried to be perceived as even a little bit racist, and the part about border crossings is completely made up. Even before the Schoengen zone was opened, if you were stopped at the German border, sure, they could disassemble half of your car - but then they would put everything back together exactly as it was, and they would apologise for taking your time. Compared to the Belorussian, Ukrainian or Russian borders, where you have to be careful to not get shot.

<comment><USER15> Turkey is the shittiest name to call Thrace, Anatolia and North Mesopotamia. Thrace is the european part, Anatolia is the asian part, and North Mesopotamia is the middle eastern part of this country. And majority is the influenced by persian & middle eastern culture rather than European.

I'm saying this as somebody grew up there. You have to ask the experience of those who actually experience the discrimination, not speaking on behalf of them. Where else in the world we have racists burning houses belong to minorities alive in 2010s? Even last year, a singer couldn't give a concert to the Turkish people there because she couldn't get a visa. If she gets visa, she may not pass the border since all the officers ask you "why are you in Germany?" and if you say you wanna travel they keep asking "travelling where?" "shopping what?" "studying what?" Now even celebs bring newspapers to show the officers to prove that they won't stay too long there!

It's a fact that being a middle eastern or being from a middle eastern influenced country let you face different attitude everywhere in the world. I'm saying this as an atheist guy who had to face it.

<comment><USER14> Isn't Turkey one of the more minority unfriendly and oppressive countries?

www.minorityrights.org/download.php?id=183

[http://usefoundation.org/view/869](http://usefoundation.org/view/869)

Some christians seem to have a hard time in Turkey:

[http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/christians-in-turkey- fearfu...](http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/christians-in-turkey-fearful- after-knife-wielding-men-terrorize-istanbul- church.aspx?pageID=238&nID=68399&NewsCatID=393)

[http://www.speroforum.com/a/YGCTQMTWMQ13/73995-Turkey- Christ...](http://www.speroforum.com/a/YGCTQMTWMQ13/73995-Turkey-Christian- churches-assaulted-and-vandalized#.U_xC_Uu57Hg)

[http://morningstarnews.org/2014/07/hostilities-at- catholic-c...](http://morningstarnews.org/2014/07/hostilities-at-catholic- church-in-istanbul-turkey-leave-parishioners-fearing-worse/)

[http://armenpress.am/eng/news/717094/christian-churches- atta...](http://armenpress.am/eng/news/717094/christian-churches-attacked-in- turkey.html)

<comment><USER15> Yes it is, and that's why I left there. By the way, I doubt it's as worse as countries where minorities are burnt alive in 2010s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> With any new industry there's bound to be bugs in the system. Most other industries have laws regulating them going back decades or even over a century. You're not gonna get it perfect from day 1.

<comment><USER19> Seems kind of funny to describe The Oldest Profession as a "new industry". Prostitution laws have a history much longer than one century.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I really think that everybody here should see the documentary "Dreamworld: The Biggest Brothel" that is made inside the largest brothel in Europe.

Here's the trailer: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shv1FAxToHM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shv1FAxToHM)

</comment><comment><USER21> After watching movie The Unknown Woman by Giuseppe Tormatore, I always associate prostitution as explotation of women, I just wish that there are happy girls enjoing its jobs. But there are also beasts seling their bodies to other beasts.

</comment><comment><USER22> Why was the title changed from the OPs original title, which much better characterized the story?

<comment><USER23> The title would normally be changed to "Welcome to Paradise", which is the article title. Due to the content, not sure if a mod will reduce it to just that...

<comment><USER22> Right, which is why I believe the original title was more informative than the updated title. (Original title being: "Welcome to Paradise: inside the world of legalised prostitution", which I believe could have only been made more accurate to the story by adding "in Germany")

IIRC, the reason for changing submission titles is to ensure clarity, and dissuade editorialization, however this submission was changed to a _less clear_ title.

<comment><USER24> We changed it to the doc title, but without the baity prefix.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Women get pregnant. Men do not. That means that, one way or another, men have to support women financially. Traditional marriage is one way, prostitution another.

However, in our culture there seems to be a bias that marriage is somehow better than prostitution. I find that odd.

Traditional monogamous marriage seems incredibly boring. The biggest problem with prostitution, I think, is STDs, because each prostitute has sex with so very many men.

I wish there was some sort of solution somewhere between traditional marriage and prostitution.

Maybe the reason why our culture has this bias in favor of monogamous marriage, is that the majority of the population is not easily bored?

<comment><USER26> > _Maybe the reason why our culture has this bias in favor of monogamous > marriage, is that the majority of the population is not easily bored?_

Then again, you see the proliferation of divorces and many married people end up having lovers on the side. So I'd say our culture is getting increasingly easy-bored.

I think the main reason for this bias is that marriages in the past were primarily an economic construct, merging the wealth of two families, where the married couple were only the vehicle for binding the contract. This, plus of course the economic benefits of spawning and raising kids. You can see this today in parts of the world where people still do arranged marriages.

Compared to prostitution, this would be like the difference between a cozy corporate job and freelancing in an unstable market. In the first case, you get insurance, health benefits, stable and predictable salary, and you expect to be employed for long time - so you and your family can make long-term plans. In the second case, you don't get any of that, and your main concern is whether you'll earn enough money now to last through an unpredictably-long period of time where there won't be any work for you to do - so you can't plan ahead at all.</comment></comment>


Just Sayin'. - <AUTHOR>

Is hacker news becoming boring and slightly creepy? <comment><USER2> you are for sure

<comment><AUTHOR> no, not at all</comment></comment>


Creating a Fibonacci Generator in Assembly - <AUTHOR> https://blog.seso.io/posts/creating-a-fibonacci-generator-in-assembly/ <comment><USER2> In Forth language would be:

      : fib 2dup + ;

2dup word duplicates n and n-1 elements and put it on the top of the stack.

\+ word takes n and n-1 elements from the stack and sum them. The result goes on top of the stack.

Just start with 1 and 1 at the top of stack.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's some very concise code golf! It would be interesting in seeing how Forth compiles this under the hood.

<comment><USER3> Normally Forth is interpreted. Compiled Forth code is unlikely to look particularly clean or elegant.

(If you like languages with a very high density of functionality to symbol count, you should look at APL and its successor J)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As someone with considerable experience in using x86 Asm (over a decade), it's always nice to see more articles on it, but there are a few things I found odd about this one.

 _The basis of the algorithm to use was decided to be a space-optimised method using a dynamic programming approach. This effectively means using an array on the stack to hold our values while giving O(n) time and space complexity._

That isn't "space-optimised" at all --- when I think of a Fibonacci example I think of O(1) space. Unless it was chosen specifically to demonstrate array indexing (in which case it would be better to use an algorithm that actually requires an array, like sorting), the choice of algorithm is unusual. The same applies to finding the length of argv[1] before doing the equivalent of an atoi() on it --- if you're going to read the bytes of the string through, might as well accumulate and convert, and oddly enough the length appears to be unused too.

The unexplained and useless nop is also puzzling. Why is it there? What is it for? The same goes for the many other instructions which aren't actually contributing to the calculation, and initially made me think it was compiler output when I first glanced over the code. Writing a program that performs the given task is relatively straightforward even in Asm, but your solution is unnecessarily complex.

 _Making things easier to understand using function calls_

I consider this a premature abstraction. A comment or even label will do just fine to delimit the blocks of functionality, as your "functions" are called only once. Your task has 3 parts [basically atoi(), fib(), itoa()+output] so you will have 3 blocks of code. It cannot be any simpler than that. Better is "making things easier to understand by avoiding unnecessary code".

Here is how I would write the first 2 blocks; I wrote this without testing at all so it could have errors, but it is really quite simple:

            mov esi, [esp+8]  ; get argv[1]
            xor eax, eax      ; clear the upper bits
            xor ecx, ecx      ; will hold converted value
        atoiloop:
            lodsb             ; get a character
            cmp al, '0'
            jb fibinit
            cmp al, '9'
            ja fibinit
            imul ecx, ecx, 10
            lea ecx, [ecx+eax-'0']
            jmps atoiloop
        fibinit:
            jecxz invalid       ; can't do fib(0)
            xor eax, eax
            inc eax             ; eax = 1
            cdq                 ; edx = 0
        fibloop:
            xadd eax, edx
            loop fibloop
            ; now eax and edx will contain fib(n) and fib(n-1)

Observe that I chose the specific registers for a reason: esi/al will be used by lodsb, ecx by the looping instructions, and edx for xadd. This is one of the things that compilers are not very good at, and also why carefully written Asm can easily beat them.

If you want to learn more Asm I recommend any assembler besides GAS, and looking at some examples from advanced users: [http://www.hugi.scene.org/compo/compoold.htm](http://www.hugi.scene.org/compo/compoold.htm) The demoscene in its smaller-size competitions has lots of particularly knowledgeable users too.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's some awesome feedback. Thanks so much. As I'm teaching myself asm I'm learning as I go. I'll incorporate it all into a revised version soon.

<comment><USER5> Quick suggestion to massively improve your writing for general consumption: strip out the passive voice where not absolutely necessary, e.g., "was decided". Not only is the active voice "I/we decided" generally much more interesting to read, it usually forces you to adopt a sentence structure with fewer words (easier to read). Your writing later in the article is much more engaging as you start to use the active voice.

And thanks for the article, I love reading interesting excursions in low level programming!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for reading, and thanks for the feedback! That's a good tip on the passive/active voice. I did actually think about standardising that but let it (unfortunately) slide as I thought I would go from my initial thinking to more instructional but that's probably not as effective and engaging to the reader the whole way through. Will remember that tip for my next post! Thanks again!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> FWIW, the article mentions a possible followup "using ... MMX, XMM or SIMD". (To clarify, XMM is SSE.) SIMD is noted last as though it's the newest development, when that would arguably be is at least AVX, and AVX-512 to be specific.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for that. I didn't intend for it to be a chronological list but will add AVX to it. Cheers.

<comment><USER6> Oh, okay, my bad!

And wow, fibonacci using hand-rolled AVX :) that would definitely be a sight to see.

...although, I should explicitly point out, AVX is a set of vector streaming/processing instructions. Fibonacci is inherently a single-step operation, with no lookahead.

Okay, so I googled "fibonacci avx". The results were quite a mess but some careful wading found me [http://www.insideloop.io/blog/2014/10/14/arrays-part- iii-vec...](http://www.insideloop.io/blog/2014/10/14/arrays-part-iii- vectorization/), which states: " _A a consequence, the following code that computes the sequence of Fibonacci can't get vectorized._ "

So, forgive my own (bullish!) naivete. AVX, and _possibly_ SIMD, SSE, etc _may not_ be applicable to/usable for Fibonacci computation.

<comment><USER4> Vector instructions are certainly usable for scalar computation, although it doesn't make much sense --- you basically just use one piece of one vector and throw away all the other results.

Fibonacci is a toy example but illustrates where the vector instructions _do_ become useful: if you want to compute the n'th term of various Fibonacci-like sequences with different starting conditions but the same recurrence, then you could do them in parallel using those instructions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> every programmer needs to do this at some point in their life. it is too easy to take take modern languages for granted. but i'm a little disappointed that you dogged `make`. i think the programming landscape would be a lot more effective if people took the time to learn about what already exists (not just make but autoconf/automake/configure) instead of reinventing the wheel every three years.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for reading and thanks for the feedback. It wasn't my intention to 'dog' make, I just felt that for an entry level post that introducing the make syntax may detract from the focus on assembly (although make is an integral part of gas asm) and add extra complexity and length to the (already very long) article. Anything more complex, such as multiple .s files would definitely warrant a description of make. Thanks again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8>
      movl $1, %eax	movl	$1	%eax	copy 0 into register eax
      movl $0, %ebx	movl	$0	%ebx	copy 1 into register ebx

Surely the explanations are flipped?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep. It's a typo. Thanks for the feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think you might be missing the NULL that terminates argv in your stack diagram.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for that. I've amended the diagram accordingly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's also a problem in 7 Billion Humans or Human Resource Machine (I forgot which - they are both great anyway), fun programming games that also use a kind of assembly language.</comment>


Why mathematicians make great comedy writers - <AUTHOR> http://www.chortle.co.uk/features/2013/09/29/18747/why_mathematicians_make_great_comedy_writers <comment><USER2> I performed stand up comedy for over a year and I can relate to this (but I've got a computer science background). I was a one-liner instead of a story teller (even though I wished I was a story teller). Here's how my background in computer science helped:

* Getting a joke to work best often requires A/B testing

* I tried to choose my best jokes objectively. I'd watch my videos and keep track of the jokes that got the laughs consistently. I then wrote a program to sort jokes by the best ratio.

* There are lots of rules (though they are fuzzy). This kind of reminds me of programming language syntax. Like you should attempt to make the punchline the last part of the sentence. Start with your funniest joke, end with your second funniest (this rule might be reversed, I can't remember).

* Try to be as concise as possible. Usually if you can cut out words your joke will be more effective. This reminds me of removing DRY violations in code.

* Some jokes are _really_ technical. They'd consistently get a laugh if every word was said in the exact tone and order they're supposed to, but if anything about the joke changed, it wouldn't "compile".

* Like programming, it'll probably take 10 years to get good at it (see [http://norvig.com/21-days.html](http://norvig.com/21-days.html) )

* Sometimes you'd think of a tag for an already existing joke. A tag is a joke that only makes sense in the context of the immediately preceding joke. This is like adding a feature to a legacy code base. It often requires refactoring and maintenance.

I like the way Marc Maron put it: One liners are the Math majors of comedy. Story tellers are the English majors.

<comment><AUTHOR> "Getting a joke to work best often requires A/B testing" \- So true! We all do that in real life without realizing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I remember an interview with Tom Lehrer in which he said that writing lyrics is like solving a puzzle - I can see the similarity.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly! Writing something that is both meaningful and interesting is like solving a puzzle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Clever humor, a product of wit, mental sharpness which usually comes with the ability to make correlations quickly and creatively.

Mathematicians are trained to understand systems and manipulate it with the confines of certain rules - which is not unlike taking social system, beliefs, etc, and applying logic creatively and insightfully to create witty humor!

<comment><AUTHOR> "Clever humor, a product of wit, mental sharpness which usually comes with the ability to make correlations quickly and creatively." \- That's a good way to put it. Couldn't agree more!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't think the current generation of Simpsons writers would be the best group of writers to put this comparison to, but rather to the writers of shows like Futurama (which as I'm sure many devotees will know, consisted of a staff of mathematicians that actually developed proofs for plot continuity and one- offs).

Though, I don't think mathematicians really is the ideal here (hell, I'd even go one further and put magicians ahead of mathematicians). I prefer Conan O'Brien's observation that comedy is most similar to music and how musicians often make good comedians (and why stand-up comedy is inundated with musical comedians [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_comedians](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_comedians)). Because comedy is about character, point of view, timing and rhythm more than it is about formula.

There are plenty of comedians out in the world that make a living having read their share of formulaic stand-up books, tell their lazy formulaic jokes, get their easy laughs, collect a paycheck and burn out into obscurity or languish in D-List infamy. Or more relevantly, write mediocre episodes of an animated sitcom that stopped being funny 12 seasons ago aimed at a fan-base that watches out of habit.

Mathematics can provide the latter, but the former takes an approach that goes beyond the mathematical. That isn't to say that great mathematics can't produce great material, but like the mathematics of the Eulers, the Pythagorians, the Euclids, The Turings, and so many others, it takes subverting the problem at a slightly different angle.

<comment><USER2> > comedy is most similar to music ... why stand-up comedy is inundated with > musical comedians > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_comedians](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_comedians)

No no no, you've got it all wrong. Comedy is most similar to acting! Look, I found a bigger list than you: [http://www.listal.com/actors/comedian/all](http://www.listal.com/actors/comedian/all)

Re: musicians. Perhaps that's just because this skill can be _directly_ used on stage. Your entire set can be musical. I can't bring a laptop on stage and program as an entire set. Rather, I've never seen anyone do that. Also, musicians probably already have stage experience.

> Mathematics can provide the latter, but the former takes an approach that > goes beyond the mathematical. That isn't to say that great mathematics can't > produce great material, but like the mathematics of the Eulers, the > Pythagorians, the Euclids, The Turings, and so many others, it takes > subverting the problem at a slightly different angle.

What are you basing this off of? If you look at the top tier stand up comedians, they all have a variety of backgrounds.

<comment><USER6> > Rather, I've never seen anyone do that. Also, musicians probably already > have stage experience.

I've seen this guy do it for music: [http://www.computersings.com/](http://www.computersings.com/)

The live experience is actually that he turns up, puts his laptop down and walks away...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yeah, I find plot construction in fiction writing to be very similar to doing software development. There's a general high level outline that you start with, then as you follow the story the complexity increases as you have to tie in disparate story lines.

<comment><AUTHOR> The same logic can be applied to a variety of other fields as well. Many formulations within mathematics, signal processing, machine learning, AI, etc follow this. Higher level problems in real life usually have to deal with unknown terrains and the techniques need to adapt to that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting book: [http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Humor-Study-Logic- ebook/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Humor-Study-Logic- ebook/dp/B0042JU7F8/)

Mathematics and Humor: A Study of the Logic of Humor by Paulos, John Allen

<comment><USER9> Great book. Tiny audience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd probably put it down to mathematics and comedy writing both being high-IQ activities.

<comment><USER9> I wish that were true.

I've performed stand-up comedy for nine years. I have an MA in mathematics from UCLA. And have been programming since I was a kid. My humor is definitely more on the clever side ([http://richardkiss.com/](http://richardkiss.com/)).

Unfortunately, stand-up comedy is mostly dominated these by people trying to show how cool and selfish they are. All too often the punch line is a variant of "I'm an edgy and anti-social loser", aka the "I'm a piece of shit" school of comedy (a phrase I coined a few years back).

This is often coupled with a careless (carefree?) towards knowledge and fact, and discussion of mundane or trashy details about the comic's life that requires an audacious quantity of (undeserved) confidence to pull off, lest the audience realize they're being hoodwinked into listening to narcissistic drivel.

When most comics are not clever, the audience who show up are the kind of audiences who are not interested in clever humor. Clever people go to a comedy show and realize it's not aimed at them. This makes it even more difficult to try to do clever humor that requires the audience to think. Unless you're famous (and bring your own audience), live performances tend to be mass- market/lowest-common-denominator.

I find this very frustrating. I wish I could figure out a way to create a business model for comics whose style is not the dominant mode.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is a notable book called Laughter by French philosopher Bergson. Its argument is that comical effects are reducible to something mechanical (mathematical) (mis)applied on some living thing.

This could be a better explanation than what I read here and in the article.

<comment><USER12> If you're interested in the subject, see _Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind_ by Hurley, Dennett, and someone else. They critique Bergson (and many others) and conclude something interesting but which I can't remember because I'm traveling and don't have the book handy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> PhD turned to comedy. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FTY3LyJgog](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FTY3LyJgog)</comment>


Street Mathematics - <AUTHOR> http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_05.html

<comment><USER2> Let's say there's a kid who plays tennis for hours every day. Tennis is how he plans on making a living, and he already makes a little money at it. He hits a great one-handed backhand. When he's in school, he has a one-hour tennis class every day where the coach makes him hit a two-handed backhand because that's what they teach at school. You test the kid and wouldn't you know it, he's a lot more consistent with the one-handed backhand than with the two-handed backhand. Now, would you take this as evidence that there are any particular difficulties in teaching a two-handed backhand as compared to a one-handed one? Maybe you would conclude that the two-handed backhand is intrinsically more difficult to learn because the reduced reach requires better court positioning and footwork, which are less concretely related to the task of hitting the ball over the net.

Or maybe you just conclude that the kid practices one skill for hours every day and the other skill briefly and sporadically.

There's really no need to construct a reason based in armchair cognitive psychology to explain why kids are better at a method they practice a hundred times a day than at methods they might practice a few hundred times a year, assuming they go to school regularly and do math problems every day while they're there.</comment>


Show HN: CrushPaper – Helping students and writers save quotations - <AUTHOR> http://www.crushpaper.com/

<comment><USER2> such a cool tool. Super useful for any writer. Thank your for building this. I have hunted it on Product Hunt ([http://www.producthunt.com/posts/crush- paper](http://www.producthunt.com/posts/crush-paper)) and hope the hunter community likes it as well so that it makes the PH front page.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the kind words and thank you for hunting it on Product Hunt!

I have to admit I am a bit disappointed this didn't get more feedback here on HN.

<comment><USER2> yes, I am very surprise as well. It is such a helpful tool and you are not even charging for it. Maybe you should post again in a few days.</comment></comment></comment>


Sorry, your return is too high for us - <AUTHOR> http://epchan.blogspot.com/2011/07/sorry-your-return-is-too-high-for-us.html

<comment><USER2> The post is ludicrous on so many levels....

1) When people get returns in the 5% a month range, let alone double digits, they usually shut out external investors.

2) Consistent 1-2% monthly returns are frequently a sign of fraud.

3) If you find something on your own that looks too good to be true, 95% of the time it is. If someone else is asking for your money that is too good to be true, you lost that remaining 5%.

4) It is theoretically possible that someone found this once in a million (billion?) possibility and just can't find money for it. But it's more likely that they're either fraudulent, misreading their data, or just a looney tune.

<comment><USER3> I know a couple fund guys, and one in particular runs a really aggressive fund. His example sort of presents an exception to what you're saying, but it mostly doesn't for reasons you'll see in a moment.

I can't really discuss his strategies for producing double-digit-per-month returns, but suffice it to say, the money involved doesn't "scale". Further, it's to the fund's advantage from an institutional as well as an individual perspective to not "outgrow" their ability to maximize their returns on extant capital.

Their incentives are structured on returns and not money under management. They're also a purely private fund, it's almost entirely friends/family/registered investors that are somebody's cousin, etc.

They don't really need more money.

They just need nobody to notice how they're making their money.

Edit:

Worth noting as well that they're not part of the wall street scene nor are they based out of the greater new york area. They aren't into the marketing/sales side of running a fund, they're mostly programmer/quant/trader types that are in it for the numbers game.

<comment><USER4> most HFTs can usually get very favorable leverage terms because they don't hold naked overnight positions (either they are hedged or just flatten at the end of the day), artificially boosting return numbers.

There was a similar conversation regarding fred wilson's fund obtaining very strong returns because they limited the AUM.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Past performance is no guarantee of future results. If only more people had consciously avoided deals that looked too good to be true, Bernie Madoff never would have happened.</comment>


NPR: Newark Police Camera System Allows Residents to Surveil City - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2018/05/26/614387170/newark-police-camera-system-relies-on-residents-stirring-privacy-concerns <comment><USER2> This is interesting since it takes the legal status of non-privacy while being in public to the logical extreme. The fact people find it weird just shows the problem with the law more clearly.</comment>


Head of MIT Media Lab faces crisis that tears at lab he helped elevate - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/08/23/mit/MmMvichvMG1bpIMq7HLGdL/story.html <comment><USER2> This is silly. Evil people get away with hiding their true nature all the time. Should everyone who associated with Epstein before his true nature was revealed quit their jobs and live out the rest of their lives as penitent ascetics?

<comment><AUTHOR> Epstein was an admitted, convicted sex offender against underaged victims when Ito's association with him began.

Also, I don't think Mohammed bin Salman's psychopathy has been particularly well hidden at any point.

<comment><USER2> I reread the article and checked Epstein's Wikipedia entry, and you're right. I wasn't aware that (the revelation of) his crimes came in two separate phases (first molesting underage sex workers, then sex trafficking). I still don't like the idea of guilt by association, but yeah, it was obvious that Epstein was a scumbag when Ito first became friends with him.</comment></comment></comment>


Gurgel Itaipu - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurgel_Itaipu <comment><USER2> I'm always saddened to remember the fall of Gurgel. Had they achieved their goals, Brazilian economy could've benefited immensely.

<comment><USER3> Didn't they only exist because Brazil was mostly closed to imports at the time?

<comment><USER4> Gurgel had existed for a long time making small cars, off-roads and dune buggies. Other small manufacturers existed and still do.

They wanted to build cheap cars and take advantage of a lower tax rate for small cars. When they were the most successful, a strike of the customs officials broke their supply of parts from Argentina. Then the federal government and the state government of Ceará reneged on their financing deals. This might have been because of lobbying from the big 4 (Fiat, GM, VW, and Ford), but I don't know if this has been proved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In German, "Gurgel" translates to _gargle_ (imperative singular) or _throat_ (used colloquially, as e. g. in "grab them by the throat").

I wonder what other brands translate to ridiculous, non-brand-y words in other languages.

<comment><USER6> The Chevrolet "Nova" has a different name in Latin countries. In Spanish "No va" means "not going", obviously something you don't want from a car.

The Mitsubishi "Pajero" is called "Montero" in Spanish speaking countries. Again in Spanish, "Pajero" means "wanker".

<comment><USER7> > in Latin countries

If you mean "in Spanish-speaking countries", alright. In Portuguese "nova" just means "new", just as French's "nouveau" or Italian's "nuova".

<comment><USER8> The joke still work - maybe not in french tho. In lot of languages variations (like dialects) "nova" can be heard or played as "it does not work".

<comment><USER9> > In lot of languages variations (like dialects) "nova" can be heard or played > as "it does not work".

I'm skeptical of that. "go" isn't really idiomatic for "work" in English, and in Romance languages, you're going to use the local variant of "marcher" (literally "to walk") or "to function" to refer to technology working, so I suspect using the literal translation of "to go" is going to be a very strained idiomatic relationship at best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Looks like you could replicate that with a golf cart, some sheet metal, and a press brake.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is probably posted here because of some similarities with Tesla's Cybertruck (namely, the square angles in an electric car).

<comment><USER11> Wonder if it was for ease of manufacturing (less need to form the metal sheets) or for styllistic reasons.

The Citicar / Comuta is similar: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citicar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citicar)

<comment><AUTHOR> In Gurgel's case I think it was both. On the one hand, it was styllistic, because all their cars had that look, from minicars to trucks. Even their logo looked as blocky as their cars. See for example the X15: [https://i.imgur.com/vLiH8I1.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/vLiH8I1.jpg)

On the other hand, they were made from fiberglass or "plasteel" (a composite of fiberglass and steel), and I'm not sure how mouldable that material is.</comment></comment></comment>


LinkedIn's I.P.O.: Party Like It's 1999? - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2011/05/linkedin-ipo-party-like-its-1999.html

<comment><USER2> Can it be a bubble if everybody's called it from the start? I happen to think we're probably in one, but there's a part of me that questions if there are so many doubters, how can the bubble expand? In the 1990s in the first dot com bubble, there weren't as many vocal and prominent doubters as there are now. The media bought into the hype. Now they're all calling it a bubble.</comment>


Ask HN: Carnegie Mellon or Stanford - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to decide which of the two to go for undergrad. No real difference in the cost. So, for doing computer-related major (CS or something like Symbolic Systems @ Stanford interests me too), which is better? I've heard good things about both universities.<p>P.S. I did see another thread about choosing a college but most of the comments seemed to be specific to the submitter's circumstances (i.e. Tufts vs. Cornell) <comment><USER2> Both are GREAT schools and consider yourself lucky to have a choice. I did my masters at CMU (and have lived in Pittsburgh for 4 years) but for the past 8+ years have been in the bay area.

The cost of living is very very cheap in Pitt, no doubt. Personally, I like having four different seasons - so weather was not a big deal for me. If you want consistent weather and clear blue skies, palo alto, it is. YMMV.

In CMU, you are very close to a whole lot of other big cities and universities - so travelling is lot easier.

So all that said, now to the important part: the important decision will be based on what your interests are. CMU is very strong in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence fields of study. Similarly, Stanford has its big specialties as well. So if you already know that you might major in Computer Science, try looking at the profiles and research interests of the computer science faculty at each school. Give yourself as much flexibility as possible here, because what you think/know now will be lot different in 2 years, 4 years and 6 years from now.

If you are entrepreneurial and you want to do a start up, then just close the circuit and take the shortest path - the bay area.

Or if you still want to do that, but take the road less taken, come here via CMU.

In anycase, read Robert Frost's "Road less travelled" poem. :)

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, that's a tough call. Congrats to you for having the choice of which to go to.

I'd probably recommend Stanford overall. It's very highly ranked. Though if you're looking for CS academic work, you might go with Carnegie Mellon.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it's a tough decision. But I don't think rankings really matter.

Do you mean that CS _classes_ are better at CMU? How so?

EDIT: I claimed that "Gatech was ranked as #1 in CS but everyone I speak to tells me CMU and Stanford are definitely better (just look at the alumni of these two as opposed to gatech)." It is not. Its undergraduate program is ranked #6 and its graduate program is ranked #9 by the U.S. News & World Report. [http://grad- schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/com/s...](http://grad- schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/com/search)

<comment><USER3> This is just an anecdotal recommendation, I don't have any data to support this. During my time as a research assistant at GT I seem to recall hearing more from/about CMU people than Stanford.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It might be too early to decide, but if you take the entrepreneurial route, stanford is the better choice given its affinity to the valley. cmu is possibly a better choice for academia if you enjoy paper & proposal writing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm probably more entrepreneurial than theoretical. But I'd likely be so deep in debt when I get of college, that I'd have to work for a while before doing a startup.

Anyway, I think the quality of students matters quite a bit. Does CMU attract the more academic kind and Stanford the more startupy kind? Are you saying that the CS research done at Stanford is not as good?

<comment><USER5> _Are you saying that the CS research done at Stanford is not as good?_

At the undergraduate level I don't think this matters much. Aside from the goodness of the CS department, which I consider equal at these two schools, you should think about the total college experience. IMO Stanford has better weather, a better campus, better looking students, better non-CS departments, better surrounding environment, etc.

<comment><USER6> Definitely consider the strength of non-CS depts as an important factor. That said, I think CMU has some pretty decent non-engineering schools in too (e.g. theatre).

But what do I know, I went to state school :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Stanford wins because of the weather

</comment><comment><USER8> I went to CMU (BS ECE 96) and now live in the Bay Area. The weather in Palo Alto cannot be beat.

I get the sense that CMU will work you a bit harder.

</comment><comment><USER9> A friend was studying in Pittsburgh but he hated living there and left because the city was culturally closer to "middle America" and the "bible belt" (no offense intended.) He is foreign from a large cosmopolitan city, though. It probably matters where you'd feel more comfortable.</comment>


Ask HN: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - <AUTHOR>

After an initial (and failed) attempt at reading ZTMM I've spent the morning reading more about Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality and Philosophy in general.
I will freely admit to being somewhat ignorant in terms of philosophy but would love to broaden my horizons and have been told that ZAMM is a good introduction.
What I would like to know is are they any good accompaniments to the book or other writings that would ease my journey into the world of philosophy? <comment><USER2> ZAMM is a terrible introduction to philosophy. Fun story, bullshit philosophy. I'm not actually sure whether the author believes this "metaphysics of quality" stuff or whether he's just putting it into the mouth of the character.

If you want to learn about philosophy, start with Russell:

[http://www.amazon.com/History-Western-Philosophy-Bertrand- Ru...](http://www.amazon.com/History-Western-Philosophy-Bertrand- Russell/dp/0671201581)

<comment><AUTHOR> Would you recommend avoiding ZAMM altogether for now?

Thanks for the link, it'd be rude not to buy a used copy at that price!

<comment><USER2> Read ZAMM if you like, but just treat it as a novel rather than as a serious work of philosophy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here is a link to a comment that I made in another thread that might be helpful; <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2799727></comment>