A Timing Attack In Action - <AUTHOR> http://verboselogging.com/2012/08/20/a-timing-attack-in-action

<comment><USER2> Something not mentioned here is that timing attacks have been proven effective even across the internet; you might think "Oh the jitter in TCP is going to overwhelm any leaked information," but you would be wrong.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do have the sentence "This difference is enough to measure, even on web applications." in the fourth paragraph. Should I highlight that a bit, bold maybe?

I'd also like a good reference for that, and my Google skills were failing me. Do you happen to have a link to something show that off?

<comment><USER3> <http://www.cs.rice.edu/~dwallach/pub/crosby-timing2009.pdf>

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you're comparing plain text passwords then you've already done something wrong. You'll find the hash construct mitigates against attacks like these due to its nature, especially with a per user salt.

</comment><comment><USER5> How does this work with hashed passwords?

Wouldn't any semblance of avalanche effect make this attack useless?

<comment><USER3> Hashing would make this technique less useful, but not necessarily useless. For instance, if there is no salt involved, and the hashing algorithm is known (or guessable), you can still make some use of the information leaked.

The difference is that you are not being leaked information about the password, but about the hash of the password. One problem with trying to brute force an authentication over the internet is that it is slow and potentially noticeable by the server admin (then you get cut off). If you exploited a timing attack from a comparison between raw md5's or sha1's of a password, then you can use the leaked information to focus your brute force. Basically, you could use a rainbow table to help you pick what passwords to try next, getting a lot more bang for your buck. In this way you can use the combination of offline brute forcing to generate possible hashes, and the timing attack to select which passwords to actually send.

Now an unknown salt would still ruin your day, just like it is designed to make life difficult for rainbow tables in the first place.

<comment><USER6> If your salt is 'short' you can still perform this attack.

Assume a timing oracle, which when queried with a plaintext password will return an integer which is the length in bytes of the matching hash prefix.

Choose a small prefix length (perhaps 3 or 4) and send distinct passwords to the oracle until you have more than one input password which produces the length you've chosen.

With this information you can perform an offline brute force of all possible salt values to reduce that set to only the salts which produce the correct matching prefixes when used with the passwords from the previous step.

Too many salts in this set? Test each one by generating a candidate password that has the same prefix as your test cases and then ask the oracle if it agrees that the prefixes match.

Once you know the salt, perform a dictionary attack against the partial hash you already know from guessing the salt to create a set of candidate passwords. If there are too many passwords to test them all, then generate a longer prefix. Either trying all the passwords or generating a prefix which is one byte longer than the last one is going to be a harder problem. Choose the easier of the two problems at each iteration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Your post was hard to read because of your background image [http://cf.verboselogging.com/assets/headshot-44822a75dfeaa89...](http://cf.verboselogging.com/assets/headshot-44822a75dfeaa891c3bb14b64f75f7fc.jpg)</comment>


But Where Do People Work in This Office? - <AUTHOR> http://www.mattblodgett.com/2015/01/but-where-do-people-work-in-this-office.html <comment><USER2> I was the engineering manager at my previous employer and we were reconfiguring our office layout. I talked to the engineers and with one exception each person wanted private offices. We set up one floor of the office with high cubicle walls, and a lot of sound isolation. So not exactly private offices, but really a pretty nice setup (with the best equipment and furniture available).

On a separate floor we had a bullpen with ops folks, people who were on the phone a lot, etc. One by one, each engineer gravitated towards the bullpen until no one spent more than perhaps 1 day per week in the dedicated office space. The part of the office that each engineer had claimed to want to work in became abandoned.

I think, in spite of the theoretical want for quiet space and isolation, there's a very human need at work to be in the middle of the action -- to hear what's going on, and to be connected to your colleagues. There were certain tasks and problems for which engineers would walk downstairs and make use of the dedicated space, but it was ultimately not where folks wanted to be on a daily basis.

<comment><USER3> People tend to enjoy private alcoves with a view on the action, which is kinda best of both worlds. Christopher Alexander describes that pattern in _A Pattern Language_.

<comment><USER4> I really don't understand why you hardly ever see 4 to 6 person glass-walled offices with doors around an open collaborative area with comfy seats and coffee tables. That seems like a great and still fairly cost-effective setup.

<comment><USER5> I worked at General Magic, one of the mid-90's "super startups" in silicon valley, and this is very close to how our workspace was structured. While we had cubes, they mostly had high walls except for where the opened to a common space. The common spaces had couches and whiteboards, perfect for collaboration. But when you just needed to focus and write code, there was enough quiet and privacy for that, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Generally software developers at any level are treated as the lowest level of person at companies, even when the company specializes in software. As a result, they are packed in wherever they fit.

The theory seems that developers benefit from feeling like a frathouse of some sort, where they play in most of their area, but otherwise cram together to study for a bit, so that they can go back to goofing off afterwards.

Developers are not treated as professionals. They are treated as animals; herded together to make them work, but otherwise just giving them big grassy fields.

<comment><USER7> My first reaction was that this was a bit over the top, but... on reflection, not really. Fog Creek's setup looks nice, but outside of that, I've rarely seen any company treat their developers like they treat their marketing folks, legal, financial and other areas. Financial/accountants aren't generally expected to sit in an open room with 15 other people with foosball games going on in their line of site.

Should we encourage "pair accounting" and have accountants share a laptop screen to get their work done?

There's an element of mentoring and support that can go on in those open environments - adhoc help, etc - but that _seems_ to be partially a cover for the fact that many people aren't all that good at what they do, and the better people need to help train (sorry, "lead") the less experienced folk.

My own experience in open plans, beyond the general noise, is that it's harder for people to admit they have a question, because it's visible to an entire group. Likewise, it's harder to call someone out for not pulling their weight in an open plan setting, without calling more attention to the interaction.

"private by default" seems to work well for OO developers, just not when it comes to their office space.

<comment><USER8> > Should we encourage "pair accounting" and have accountants share a laptop > screen to get their work done?

Have you ever seen finance people work? That happens all of the time.

<comment><USER9> Most "finance people" are indeed the very definition of clerical work.

Are the certified professional accountants treated the same way?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Check out Fog Creek's office: [http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/12/29.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/12/29.html)

> Gobs of well-lit perimeter offices. Every developer, tester, and program > manager is in a private office; all except two have direct windows to the > outside (the two that don't get plenty of daylight through two glass walls).

The longer I spend in this environment (coming up to five years) the less I like it. I like the idea of having large, interesting open spaces for more social activities including work, but most of the work I do lends itself well to being not surrounded by people having conversations or - in some cases - literally just messing around _all day_.

There's gotta be a balance.

<comment><USER11> Stack Exchange's office is very similar. Starting to feel like Joel is the only one who still believes in private offices.

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-74.006578,3a,75y,203...](https://email@example.com,-74.006578,3a,75y,203.61h,72.75t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sAVBuqvu0UUUAAAQIt- PqBw!2e0!3e2?hl=en-US)

<comment><USER12> [http://i.imgur.com/Kk0jP5o.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/Kk0jP5o.jpg)

Pretty interesting people working there, I see.

<comment><USER13> Indeed: [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-74.006614,3a,75y,190...](https://email@example.com,-74.006614,3a,75y,190.84h,77.2t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1savFPUDF8FIgAAAQIt- NLUQ!2e0!3e2?hl=en-US)

<comment><USER14> Are those... cells?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> People do the open office floor plan because it's efficient and economical, not because it's the the best for the workers.

We designed a ton of cubbies (like in your university library), 1 person private rooms, 2 person conference rooms, etc. in our office to accommodate for the fact that many people need to more privacy and quiet than just headphones. We also break up the main open plans to help quiet the noise and distraction.

We have about 45,000 sq. ft today, and will be adding another 45,000 sq. ft this year. When we do, there will be much less open floor plan. I do think there's a happy medium, with team rooms of 6 to 15 people, depending on role and requirements.

<comment><USER16> I think it's more accurate to say that it's because open office are _cheap_ (*up front). It's pretty clear that they reduce efficiency in many, if not most, cases, which can be very expensive.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I meant in the CFO kind of way. It's now clear it's not a long-term win.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Having worked in offices like these (in a call center, of all things), I really don't understand how the hell you could get any work done. We had people going home with migraines after two days in conditions like that Facebook photo, and that was just reading scripts into a phone headset for 8 hours. Actually producing anything like an intelligent thought in that kind of corporate tuna can is unthinkable to me.

"We have our own indoor artisanal cheese maker! ... but our actual workspace looks like it was cobbled together after a day of frantic Costco purchases." How about sparing the free Sun Chips and putting some walls in, eh?

<comment><USER18> Having spent a day at Atlassian's office in SOMA when contracting for them recently, if this sort of setup is done right (with the additional caveat of having an energetic staff) the effect is positively electrifying. The "Costco purchases" jab is overly broad, because this office had very nice motorized standing desks for everybody. Also, the complex was large enough that you could escape into some personal space without feeling like you were hiding.

On the other hand, Gannett attempted a setup like this, except it was out of cheapness (they wanted to lease office space in their Tysons HQ) and was carried out mindlessly. They mixed developers with technical support, managers, etc. thoughtlessly. And they installed "white noise" machines which made matters worse. Working in that place was almost impossible and I quit after a month.

<comment><USER19> As someone with flat feet, I certainly hope that they would have traditional sitting desks as well.

<comment><USER20> A motorized standing desk can be adjusted (up and down) with the push of a button. Or you can just leave it down without even pushing any buttons :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Open floor plan offices are generally pretty unpleasant, but some of the negative effects can be mitigated.

I worked at Sun Micro a while ago (the place that is now Facebook), and we all had offices at the time. However, Sun had also started to create numerous drop-in work centers. One of them was in downtown SF, just south of market.

This was an "open" office with three largish rooms with cubicles and desks, and a smaller number of offices with doors that close (reservable or walk in).

Here's what made it work - one of the rooms was designated a "zone of silence", and it really was enforced. The two outer rooms had phones at each desk, the quiet room did not. Sales people and other workers who needed to make noise worked in the outer rooms, programmers and other heads down people worked in the quiet room.

Not surprisingly, there were plenty of people who wanted to break the rules. This generally happened when all the desks in the loud room were taken. Then you'd get people trying to take phone calls in the quiet room on their cell phones. Some felt that as long as they spoke in a relatively hushed tone of voice, it would be ok (though everyone could still hear their conversation). Others figured that the phone could ring, and they could start their conversation in the room, as long as they were actively walking outside the room as they talked.

What saved it was an office manager who simply wouldn't tolerate it. She would absolutely tell people that they couldn't do this, and that their right to work from the drop in center would be revoked if they continued to do it. She didn't care about their rank, or if they liked her.

I did have a couple of ugly moments about it. I very politely asked people on a couple of occasions not to use their phones in the designated quiet room (with signs everywhere about it), and more than once, they started in on how much more important their work was than mine.

But it was relatively rare, because the signage and vibe of the room really was pretty clear about it, and the office manager was very strict and just didn't have the kind of personality that was easily pushed around.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm currently working at a place where I have 4 locations I can work from:

1 - my office (shared with one other person)

2 - a team room, about 10 people right now

3 - an office across from my client, it's a "guest cube" in a cube farm

4 - from home

Plus the normal mix of conference rooms.

I find that in any given week, I'll rotate through about 3 of those pretty comfortably. My officemate also has a similar work schedule, so I'm alone in my office most of the time, so I use it for deep concentration. It's too isolated though to spend all my time there.

The team room is great if I need to collaborate, or get my energy up. It's also not too bad if I need to concentrate as everybody there is working.

The guest cube is where I go if I need to do document editing, presentations, client meetings...stuff that's so distracting I can't get any technical work done anyway.

And home, because well, who doesn't want to work from home every once in a while?

So far, it's the best workplace I've ever been, and this includes about 5 years of working from home, various client sites, cubes, personal offices, open floor plans. The best part is that it doesn't cost the company a fortune, but I get flexibility, privacy when I need it, collaboration when I need it, different work contexts etc.

I've been more productive in the few months I've been here than I've been anywhere else in my career.

<comment><USER23> I run officesnapshots.com, where the majority of the photos in the blog post are from, and what you have described is the exact direction office designs are heading. Europe has been moving this way for a while and the US is (finally) beginning to as well.

The idea is to offer a variety of places where employees can work and let them move between them freely depending on what needs to get done.

Need privacy? Work in this private room. Need to collaborate? There's a room for that too.

Much of the pushback from developers on Hacker News regarding open floorplans seems to be that their offices default to 'open office' rather than 'private office'. But given that many tech companies are founded by developers and technical people, and this hasn't changed yet, I suspect companies just aren't trying to optimize for individual developer productivity.

<comment><AUTHOR> The author thanks you. Your website (Office Snapshots) is awesome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why do people like working in coffee shops?

It's cramped. It's noisy. There's barely enough power outlets (if at all). Uncomfortable chairs. Annoying conversations. Hipster baristas.

Yet people all over the world cram into coffee shops like Starbucks, sucking up the free wifi with a grande half-calf mocha latte, churning out a report or answering e-mails, sometimes even on a conference call. Conditions that could border on sweatshop if it weren't for the food and drink. It seems completely unintuitive.

Are there benefits to this environment? Perhaps.

For one thing, you don't know anyone there; nobody is going to interrupt you, or tell loud inappropriate jokes while tossing a football, and you are so close to people you are forced to focus on what is right in front of you. You get the comfort of being near other humans without any requirement to ever interact with them. Then there's the convenience of easy access to food, a bathroom, and that miracle drug we're all dependent on. Add the internet and a table and chair and it's like some utopian Japanese vision of the future of all offices. The music is a nice bonus.

But there's one thing I think really makes the coffee shop an ideal place to work: no expectations.

You can come and go as you please. No assigned seats. No meetings. No interruptions. Nothing but your coffee and chair and table space and internet. Who cares if it's loud? Who cares if it's impractical to stay there? If you just need to get something done and break away from the commitment to a typical monotonous working life, this is your hideaway.

I think all offices should just be giant coffee shops.

</comment><comment><USER25> It depends on your responsibilities. If you are in devops, ops or support, open office is great for you.

If you are a coder, an engineer, or an architect, then open office is painful.

If you are a manager, then open office is embarrassing.

<comment><USER26> > devops

You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means.

(Coming from a contract 'devop')

There is no such thing. Either you code, and your code helps a company's devops requirements. Or you're in ops because you can't code. I need to collaborate less than devs do. My clients know for a fact that most of my work is done more productively at home in the quiet. Yes we need to talk, plan, work with others (sometimes) but who doesn't?

<comment><USER27> It turns out that devs are great at a lot of ops type tasks.

Basically what you get is developers' innate tendencies towards laziness and over-automation yield _really good_ ops solutions.

Where your typical sysadmin will be perfectly comfortable running a hodgepodge of shell scripts and byzantine commands through the terminal every time he wants a server push, your typical developer just wants the fucking code up on the server so he can get back to work he finds less objectionable.

This is absolutely how you want to approach ops. Just get the shit running with as little human interaction as possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Managers like bullpens because they are very cheap. They cram a lot of people into a small space. They don't require the maintence of door locks or even cube walls. People can be moved around very easily.

I think they also like that everyone can look over everyone else's shoulder very easily, which creates peer pressure to work. In my experience, the maangers that advocate this are often the ones that are really spending all their time in special break-out rooms or conference rooms.

<comment><USER29> I've always believed that the direct manager of a team should have to work in the same conditions as the team itself. I find it distasteful when the team members are crammed into cubicles or just open desks in some sort of bullpen while the manager has a spacious private office and becomes disconnected from the conditions that the rest of the workers experience.

If you feel the need to delineate different power levels in the company with different working spaces, that's fine, but it needs to be done intelligently. Let executives who only work with other executives have their own offices. If you must put the workers in an open bullpen, though, then their immediate manager should be a part of it as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's funny how most of these places hire the top cs grads and dont realize they're implemented an n^2 noise generation (audio and visual) algorithm for their developers, deoptimizing the very thing you hired them for: concentrated brain power.

Maybe the best thing to do is layout things like a microprocessor, where everyone gets their own isolated location (ram/register address), a place where people who need to be associated come together periodically (a local cache), and a meeting place for larger groups (an ALU) for bigger operations.

</comment><comment><USER31> Why does it have to be either or? Why not provide a variety of different work environments, encourage employees to find the one that best suits them, and work there? I think back to my days at the University. Sometimes a louder, open space was great so I'd head to the student union or the group floor of the library. Or maybe I needed some isolated quiet time, find a private room in the library so I could think. I've worked in places that had only open spaces, and it was very difficult to find any quiet, more private rooms. There are times that I like a more open environment, and I get work done there, but when there are no quiet places I can retreat to when I need it, then it can become very frustrating to get any work done. And no, don't tell me you provide me headphones to 'block out' the noise. Sometimes its quiet I want, not louder noises to block out the existing noises (not to mention the fact that it doesn't block out visual stimulation which can be equally distracting).

<comment><USER32> > Why does it have to be either or?

Thank you for writing that. It seems much this discussion is very black-or- white.

I work in an office with four desks, though typically only three are occupied. It's a nice mixture between not being alone, and not being too loud either.

In vacation time, when I'm the only one around, I do tend to feel a bit lonely after two days or so, even though I still do breaks, take lunch with other co- workers and so on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> We should have someone like Ben Horowitz who has been a line manager of engineers, CEO of a large company that cranks out code - both the pure "New technology" type code, as well as the "Lots of framework code" type engineering, comment on this. But, from memory, I think he said something like this:

"Engineering productivity, counterintuitively, appears to _increase_ as you move them out of private offices into contact with one another, both through cross-pollination of different ideas, as well as the energy inherent in working in a team environment. This graph of productivity, though, does have a maxima as density increases, until it begins to once again _decrease_ as the distractions become a dominating effect. With that said, not all engineers are alike, and there are some individuals that are far more effective in a quiet room, than those who benefit from the open office layout. The efficient engineering organization should make opportunities for both types of engineers to excel."

<comment><USER34> I am in agreement here with that - there are benefits to both types of spaces. I am surprised there are not more companies willing to just let people pick their workspace smartly, whether it is a private office or open office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I never thought I'd feel thankful for having high cubicle walls, but here we are.

<comment><USER36> I've been on both sides, cube vs open plan. I used to liken cubes to prisons, but now I look at them the same way a cat will look at a box that it tries to squeeze itself tightly into, because the cat wants to be there.

<comment><USER37> Yeah, I never realized how much I would miss having my own office with a door until I moved to an open floor plan.

Utterly impossible to concentrate on things w/out headphones.

<comment><USER38> I work in an open office, and everyone wears headphones for hours when they need to concentrate.

The thing is, these people are doing irreversible damage to their hearing. Listening to headphones at a volume that will drown out conversation is not a good thing.

Furthermore, I've never experienced as many migraines as I have before switching to an open office. I have to keep pills at my desk. Never had to do that before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I am currently working at Google as an intern and I'm probably going to be the contradicting opinion in this thread but I really appreciate the openspace office we have here. Maybe because it's my first "real" office job, but I do not find much of a problem working here. When I want to be on my own to think on stuff, I just put my headphones on (sometimes with music, sometimes without, since they are good at canceling noise anyway) and it's like being in my own isolated office. And if that is not enough, we have small cubicle-like mini-rooms where you can go and isolate yourself, most people use them to have phone conversations or do interviews, but nothing stops you from working in there with your laptop.

All in all, though, maybe it's my floor that is very quiet but there's not much distraction or annoying background noise as most people are busy working. When they are not working, they go somewhere else (the pub, the relax rooms, etc etc). If they want to have a work-related conversation that lasts more than 5-10 minutes, we have open areas with whiteboards separated from the desk area, or we have separate conference rooms you can use. Most of the time, I enjoy taking my headphones off and listening to a couple of coworkers making remarks on stuff (either work or non-work related), it helps me relieve stress and boredom much more than just staring at a wall or reading some articles online.

Ironically, the major source of annoyance in our floor recently has been the old AC system that sometimes starts making very loud noises and bothers everybody, but this is not the fault of the openspace office so it doesn't count :)

<comment><USER40> I liked them too, when I was an intern and the first few years of my real job.

But after I acquired more knowledge it became more stressing, because everyone was asking me stuff all the time. Also I had to listen to all the communication that was going on around me.

Headphones are but a crutch and a bad one too, since all I want is silence when working and no music or anything...

<comment><USER39> Mind I recommend earplugs if you want absolute quietness? Sometimes I do wear headphones on without anything playing, because they provide really good sound isolation. You could get specifically noise-canceling headphones for that.

Regarding getting asked all the time by other people, I would think that is more of an organization problem. Nothing stops me from pinging coworkers on irc or any other IM program for help or actually going to their office in person. As an advantage to openspace office, I can just raise my head, look at my coworker and ask "hey, do you have a second?". More often than not I get a "sure, give me a few minutes" if they are busy or they can just lean over or walk to my desk without wasting too much time. And if it's a more serious issue it's "Shall we move to a more private place?".

I honestly don't see a problem, nobody stops you from telling your coworkers to check the documentation regarding their question (if there is one, is it a common question? Maybe you should write something up since you are more knowledgeable on the matter and don't like being interrupted about it). But yeah, this is probably because I'm just an intern and I don't have experience on the matter, but I enjoy working like this.

<comment><USER41> The fact that you have to wear noise-canceling headphones (bought on your own dime, no less) to get work done is an indication that the space has failed in its primary purpose, which is to enable you to get your work done. A good office layout (or any good architecture, really) does not force the people who live in it to fight against the environment it creates.

<comment><USER39> You don't _have to_ , you can do it. And who said anything about buying it on your own dime? It depends on the company but I'm fairly sure any of the big companies with such open offices will provide them to you for free upon request.

I would say the benefits of getting your work done vs having complete and entire silence are not so easy to summarize. A lot of people in this thread seem to assume that an open space office is super noisy full of people talking where in my (very limited, I admit) experience there's hardly any noise other than the sound of people hammering on keyboards (and the AC). There are occasional conversations but those last a few seconds because, as I already said, if they were longer, people would move out of the way.

Maybe it depends on the company, people and office.

<comment><USER42> I am a SWE for Google and my area is super noisy. Construction, dogs barking (on our floor), phone calls, etc. My job requires me to work with a lot of PCBs, so I have to stay at my desk; I can't exactly curl up somewhere quiet.

I hate the noise level here. I haven't yet worked up the courage to expense a good pair of noise canceling headphones, but it may come to that.

<comment><USER43> Why are barking dogs tolerated in a software office? That's preposterous.

<comment><USER42> Google HQ is officially a "dog friendly" campus, and dogs are welcome in the engineering offices, where some bark. Some owners respond by taking their dogs outside immediately, but others just shush their pet, which of course resumes barking half a minute later.

Polite requests to take it away are met with "Oh, she's usually not like this, I don't know what's wrong, I'm sure she'll be quiet now..." And nobody wants to be "that guy" by telling the owners to take their dog and GTFO. So the dogs end up staying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Unfortunately corporate culture has shifted to the point that it's seen as incredibly wasteful to give people private offices. Literally the only technology company I know of which provides private offices for everyone is Fog Creek.

Moreover, even if a startups wants to give their engineers private offices, external forces make it challenging. VCs think it's unnecessary overhead, and even some developers are turned off by the prospect when recruiting (particularly new grads).

So far the solution we've found is to have a separate "sanctuary" room. It's located right next to our main office, but it's kept completely silent. All conversations have to be kept out in the open office or conference rooms. So far it's working pretty well—when you want to hunker down and work, there's space for that but we can also collaborate easily.

It's also interesting to see where people have set up their "desk" (ie. default location, with their monitor). The majority of the company gravitates towards the open office by default, but a few writers and one engineer default to the sanctuary. Perhaps the open office _is_ more attractive, even if it's less productive.

Personally, I put my desk in the sanctuary but end up spending most of my time in the open office.

</comment><comment><USER45> I _like_ this trend toward giant open plan offices - it gives us folks who work in our own quite offices a competitive advantage. :-)

</comment><comment><USER46> As much as it pains for me to say it, I do think small, quiet 1-2 person offices are great for thinking and getting real work done. I believe the IDEO offices in the Bay Area have a combination of a centralised area for discussions and collaboration, but a set of smaller offices for more focused work time. Something which would actually be quite nice to see more of ...

<comment><USER47> I don't understand, why does that pain you to say? That sounds like a great idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Is it a generation gap? Old programmer vs new? The open office trend may be the death of my 2 decade career in writing software.

I do not need a spacious office: a room with a door, a distinct lack of distracting windows, and a 4x6 desk and an overflow side table would be perfect. Closing a door means I can focus and block out traffic, noise and the general hubbub of an office.

</comment><comment><USER49> Has this guy even worked in any of these environments? I've worked at Facebook and it is surprisingly quiet. If people want to have meetings or talk, there are plenty of conference rooms to take advantage of. Worst case, the free Sennheisers in the tech vending machines takes care of any other noises that you might not like.

I personally work better in an open office environment. I work off the energy of others and it allows me to focus more than being alone in an office.

While I understand if people legitimately don't like an open office environment, this type of article seems like it is just trying to put down these companies with little knowledge about how loud it really is in these offices.

And if you don't like the environment at Facebook/Google/Twitter/etc, just move to another company. Let's not pretend that it is hard to get another job with one of those companies on your resume.

<comment><USER50> That's the problem with _large_ open plan offices. The only way for it to be workable for everyone is if everyone shuts up. I find it incredibly stifling.

My ideal environment is the team I'm working on in one big room, the music going, everyone jamming on the project together. Getting shit done. That's probably what Zuckerberg et al remember from when they started the company, and that's why they want to recreate it for 3,000 people.

Unfortunately, once you have more than 1 team in the room, it breaks down. You just shipped something awesome and want to shout about it? The other team gives you dirty looks and want you to just STFU because they're 3 days from shipping and in total crunch mode. Some people just like quiet all the time, they'll give you a dirty look when you get noisy.

Thus the big rooms of people end up being completely silent, it's the only way to make it work. They are terrible for collaboration. The only conversations happen in conference rooms, otherwise you disturb 100+ people.

In my mind small rooms, holding 4-10 people, are ideal. Each team gets a room. If the team likes it quiet, it will be quiet. If you want to bounce ideas around, you can do it without feeling like you are disturbing other teams. If you want to play music, you can play music. I think it's the feeling that the open plan offices are going for, but people haven't connected the productivity of open plan office with the actual size of the open room yet.

<comment><USER49> Facebook has 'War Rooms' for teams who are shipping a large release soon. They are smaller rooms that can fit 12-18 people. Most of the time they have separate desks but sometimes teams just commandeer a conference room.

This sounds a bit like your idea, though a few more people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady Those office all look nice - until you get to the place where work actually takes place. I don't care if the foosball table is in a nice room or if the kitchen is fancy. I spend 95% of my time at my desk. Focus some energy on making that area bearable.

</comment><comment><USER51> I look at those wide-open office spaces and get anxious. I need my lonely, quiet space to work.

</comment><comment><USER52> I have a semi-private office (two of us) in a ~15X15 office with a door, I would not give it up for anything in the world. openspaces are terrible for productivity. too many distractions.

</comment><comment><USER53> I used to work at Epic (the Health IT company), which is known for its interesting office design and giving its staff individual offices [1]. Now that I've been working for startups, I've worked in more bullpen-type offices.

A few things:

1) Having my own office did not mean that there weren't distractions. It's impractical to build sound-proof walls between offices and the guy across from me loved to try to sing opera for hours a day. I eventually moved offices to another part of campus for that reason.

2) Likewise, I've worked in open offices that were pretty monastic. Engineers are quiet, everyone is wired in and most people talk on Slack/HipChat. The only interruption was when the mailman would drop off the daily mail.

3) I think the worst thing about open offices are the logistics of staff that need to take phone calls. As a customer-facing programmer that does sales support and configuration assistance it's sub-optimal not having a dedicated space for phone calls. When the perfect storm arises of too many people needing to take calls, everything flies into anarchy where I'm forced to take a call in a common space and try to be quiet. A bullpen that has some separation and accommodation for those needs is ok. A bullpen that doesn't have that is not.

[1] [http://www.xconomy.com/wisconsin/2014/09/19/epic-hopes-wi- ca...](http://www.xconomy.com/wisconsin/2014/09/19/epic-hopes-wi-campus-can- help-in-talent-war-with-apple-facebook/)

</comment><comment><USER54> My company recently built out a schmancy new open plan office and moved a bunch of people from my team there. Based on what I've seen so far the answer is that people don't work in that office. They work from home, because that's the only place you can get any actual work done. They do come into the office one or two days a week, but only so that management doesn't feel like they wasted money on all those ping-pong and pool tables.

<comment><USER55> You company already seems quite progressive in accepting so much being done from home.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Wherever my next job is, I'll make sure to take a tour of the working environment. If it looks anything like these photos, I'll decline an offer.

<comment><USER57> That's a good idea:

" _But I just couldn 't stop thinking about one thing: the AT&T offices were dingy and dark, in some kind of a stone age office that smelled of 1930s bureaucracy. People were starting to look like mushrooms. There were torn Dilbert cartoons all over the cubicles. (Warning sign number one.) The furniture was falling apart. It was just nasty. But Viacom was in a nice, shiny, modern, bright office building that felt like lawyers' offices. It was clean and new and pleasant. I know I should have been thinking about something more substantial as I made my decision, but I just could not get over how_ unpleasant _it would be to spend my days working in the AT &T dungeon._"

— Joel Spolsky, _Whaddaya Mean, You Can 't Find Programmers?_, June 2000

[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000050.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000050.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> The author is incredulous that any of these companies get any work done. Yet. All of these companies are tremendously successful and produce great software. Obviously there is quite a bit of disconnect between what the author thinks and what happens in reality.

Personally I think it's because none of these places are about productivity. In fact I think it's the exact opposite. Take Google for instance. If you think about working on improving Google search what kinds of things do you think are important? Productivity? Or Creativity? My bet is on creativity which I think is where these kinds of workspaces excel.

You are in a room full of smart people who are all collaborating on the same set of problems. Innovative solutions are more likely to occur in that environment than closed off in a personal office. Personally, I like the trend of offering both kinds of workspaces. Private offices for when you just need some time to think. Public workspaces for collaboration and creativity. Conference rooms for meetings. Leave it up to the individual to determine when they need to work in each space.

<comment><USER59> > All of these companies are tremendously successful and produce great > software.

Well, they _were_. More recently (since the headcounts exploded and the open- office fad picked up) they've been coasting along with the S&P500 overall performance and upseting users.

> If you think about working on improving Google search

I thnk about concentrating to deeply analyzing lots of subtle data using advanced mathematics, not spitballing cool ideas.

> Productivity? Or Creativity?

Lots of creativity with no productivity: great idea that never launch, or launch with fatal flaws that never get fixed, and products that get shuttered.

> smart people who are all collaborating

Most humans can barely remember the identities of 100 people at once. How can they be "all collaborating" all day in the office.

Hmm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I've worked in a bunch of these kinds of spaces - all utterly distracting. Turns out I'm more productive in my own quiet space at home. If you are doing this to your workers, give 'em the option to work from home and save the rent.

</comment><comment><USER61> If those office layouts don't appeal to you, it's because those companies don't want to recruit you.

Deep-pocketed companies like Facebook (who surely have enough money to build any kind of office space) choose to build open layouts as a signal. They want to attract a certain kind of developer, and they probably have a platoon of operations researchers telling them they need to arrange their offices like this to get them.

If you like quiet private offices then you will not work at Facebook. But that's okay because Facebook doesn't want you anyway.

<comment><USER62> Nice theory but a lot of shittier companies use open plans as well.

<comment><USER61> Most companies (the ones who lease space, anyway) are at the mercy of the commercial real estate agencies they rent from. They don't always have the money to raze the whole space they rent and build a developer's utopia in its place.

I was referring specifically to companies who have the money to build any kind of office space, and choose to build sardine cans with arcades.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> As a remote worker, I sometimes work at my desk, I sometimes work at coffee shops, and I get a nice blend that way. Sometimes I log into IRC, sometimes I don't, and again, I'm able to find the balance which works for me personally.

Background noise is up to me. Interacting with co-workers is up to me (to a point, of course).

Some of my rent will be tax-deductible for me personally, none of it will be an expense for my employer.

Meanwhile, none of the existing research supports open-plan offices. Yet it's the norm in the industry.

</comment><comment><USER64> Scalability is a reason that many growing companies use open floors. When you are growing rapidly, you're often put in a situation where you need the most flexible possible floor plan, otherwise you have to move offices. Having way more offices than employees sitting empty waiting for the hiring to happen in the next few years feels too much like a waste of space. This makes the open office plan very seductive when making decisions about how to lay out the floors.

<comment><USER65> The problem with this argument is that aside from work space and meeting space, there aren't many other uses to which most places are going to allocate the surplus space. And furthermore, I've seen non-load-bearing partition walls in existing buildings go up just about as fast as I've seen cube farm put in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Personally, I think that most office designers take the concept of open offices too far. From what I've seen of several offices, as a Software Engineer, is that Open Office is meant to be entirely open. This means that the only dividers/partitions are for things like meeting rooms. The rest of the office is open, such as halls, cafeterias/break rooms, etc. This is what causes my hatred of open offices.

I am on the fence about cubicles/private offices, because I do like the fact that my team is close by and I can have a conversation by turning around and talking to them. The annoying noise for me is all the idle chatter from people in meeting rooms near by coming out of their meeting and deciding to carry on a conversation right outside the meeting room, or while walking back to their desk.

Ideally, I'd like an open office to mean that it's open for my team, where we are partition/sectioned together, but that there is a door or some way of keeping out all the ambient office noise/sights. I believe if I had this, I would be able to get a lot more work done as I'm not having to wear headphones to cut out the general clutter of distractions from my environment.

</comment><comment><USER67> My favorite space was the one we laid out for our startup back in the dotcom boom.

We had large cubicles that housed 4 developers each. We each had a corner, and there was a small conference table in the middle so we could just turn around and collaborate. It was a great mix of a shared environment and private, where it was easy to talk to the folks on your team, but also easy for everyone to just work quietly for much of the time.

<comment><USER68> This works better for me personally when there are a few high-walled cubes or offices opening into a shared area. I have Billy the Kid syndrome and really, REALLY hate having my back to the room or door.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> It's not about individual productivity - it's about team and company productivity.

I doubt anyone questions whether individual effectiveness suffers from an open layout. However open layouts have several benefits that more than compensate: \- Impromptu conversations are easy. The barrier to ask someone a question is lower - it's faster to get unblocked. \- Shared context. With conversations happening in the open, others will often overhear, sometimes learn, and often will choose to participate. \- Impromptu socialization leads to better morale. Someone drops by to chat socially, others join in, people build personal relationships. \- Function-specific spaces. The space saved by having a denser desk layout is allocated to having everything from kitchens to massage chair rooms to ping-pong tables. At the same cost per employee, an open space layout has more 'perks'.

I've worked in both offices and open spaces and I far prefer open spaces with a good etiquette about when to interrupt someone.

</comment><comment><USER70> And bathrooms. Why are there never enough bathrooms in tech companies?

<comment><USER71> Bathrooms are the limiting factor in most self-respecting venues. Yet as you state, there are never enough bathrooms, and I'd add they're never private enough. I do not want to hear or smell when other people are doing their business, and I certainly don't want them to hear or smell mine. Why aren't there more private bathrooms? Is it taboo to discuss bathrooms?

edit: But Where Do People Do Their Business In This Office?

<comment><USER72> Related: bathrooms tend to be all tile without much ambient cover noise, which just amplifies the sounds from the next stall. A big, noisy fan would solve a lot of the problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> 1\. These are clearly marketing pictures taken by professional photographers. Well done ones I might add. They are meant to demonstrate (perception/reality) what daily life of an any employee is. Not every big tech company is a composed of 99% engineers. Cassandra and HHVM were built there (or somewhere similar), yet people whose only evidence is a bunch of marketing pictures decide to question the design decisions of people with intimate knowledge about their company's organization.

2\. There is yet to be conclusive evidence that open offices work or don't work, and I don't expect this to change anytime soon. What _is_ clear to me is that the correlation between good code and office does not exist. Think of how much code has been written in kitchens, garages, vans, etc that may have changed the world...

<comment><USER22> > 2\. There is yet to be conclusive evidence that open offices work or don't > work

There's actually quite a few studies that show that they most definitely do not work.

Here's a meta-study that reviewed hundreds of specific studies [1] and the conclusion is inescapable.

Here's a survey of tens of thousands of workers [2]

And here's a New Yorker article collecting lots of this [3]. It includes a reference to a study that found actual measurable health detriment to open offices.

Arguing that issues with open offices are ambiguous is a bit like arguing that global climate change isn't happening.

1 - [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119992592.ch6...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119992592.ch6/summary)

2 - [http://lubswww.leeds.ac.uk/fileadmin/webfiles/cstsd/Images/P...](http://lubswww.leeds.ac.uk/fileadmin/webfiles/cstsd/Images/PowerPoint_Presentations/Time_use_and_time_loss_- _DEGW_7Aug2010_-_FINAL.pdf)

3 - [http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-open- office-t...](http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-open-office-trap)

<comment><USER74> It's staggering to think, if you are right, how much more profitable Facebook or Twitter or Dropbox would be if they had productive office space, don't you think?

<comment><USER75> These companies have golden egg-laying geese products and 15% more or less productivity won't make a big difference in making or breaking the market for them. Think about it this way: did Google beat Altavista because its employees were 15% more productive?

Meanwhile, Microsoft, Google, etc. have whole huge divisions that don't make any money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> I think there's a balance to be struck.

I used to think that programmers complaining about open office spaces were just nitpicking... then I learned how to program. Open offices are a reason for headphones at best and a nightmare at worst.

That having been said, I've worked in spaces where everyone had their own private office. It was great for productivity, but I felt like I never got to know anyone. All communication was forced, which caused a lot of annoying and unnecessary meetings.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's probably somewhere in the middle.

<comment><USER77> Having worked in a variety of office environments over the last 15 years, my favorite has been shared, closed office space. My employee moved into a relatively small building which had 2-3 person offices in it. The devs were one, QC in another, sales in another. It worked quite well. We could close our door, but still collaborate when we needed to. We also had several meeting rooms if we needed to talk between teams.

I'm also not against the "pod"-style cubes (4 or so people in a large cube), assuming the pods aren't cramped on top of one another.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> I can't stand open plan offices, I can just about cope with a shared office as long as phone calls are very rare/none existent.

My current office [http://imgur.com/a/KmHEO](http://imgur.com/a/KmHEO) is about perfect, Apart from the computer I spent essentially nothing on it, the desk was off freecycle, the chair inherited from previous tenant etc.

It's warm and quiet and beyond that I'm not fussed about architectural masterpieces.

</comment><comment><USER79> They are kept in Bull Pens because they treat their employees as sterile commodities to be herded around.

You don't become WalMart/Facebook/Twitter by treating your employees well. You become big and profitable by cutting as many corners as you can and keeping revenue up. Publicly traded companies generally get into this-quarter frenzy that never leaves and kills any sort of long term viability as being a company of and for people.

<comment><USER80> >You become big and profitable by cutting as many corners as you can and keeping revenue up.

Then why would they be spending millions of dollars on the office perks and architecture? You're contradicting yourself, they're obviously spending a huge amount of money on the office.

<comment><USER81> Your assertion -- "they're obviously spending a huge amount of money on the office" \-- is compatible with the previous assertion. They're spending it on _the office_ , while employees are still treated as fungible cogs to be plugged into said expensive office.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> There's few if any private offices in trading. Even those who have them don't use them except for meetings.

As an introvert I can understand the need for quiet time, but part of what makes work 'fun' (and frankly tolerable) is the interaction with your teammates who are working on similarly challenging problems. I definitely miss the back and forth now that it's just me and my co-founder in a private office.

</comment><comment><USER83> I code in an open office. My solution: headphones, and three 27 inch monitors angled inward. It's not quite as good as walls, but it cuts out enough visual distraction that it works well enough. I've also got an adjustable-height desk that I leave at standing height, so there's not much going on above monitor height.

A big chunk of the benefit of having an office is keeping your visual field entirely work-related.

</comment><comment><USER84> Ha, this is where I work:

[http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/257809/image_update_b4...](http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/257809/image_update_b4cb6308c19d7173_1378406786_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)

That photo is quite old. There are about 80% more desks in that room now (around 1000 in total). It's pretty loud. I put up with it though because the job is otherwise pretty awesome.

</comment><comment><USER85> That Dropbox office was a big damper on my enthusiasm interviewing there. "Wow, this is the most beautiful office I've seen... but how do you all concentrate?" They had some answers, fwiw, and maybe I'd have adapted, though my experience of similar setups over a few months says no.

This is a real problem for recruiting if the recruitee is me.

</comment><comment><USER86> As I commented on the article: I used to work at DeveloperTown ([http://developertown.com](http://developertown.com)) in Indianapolis. Their "house" setup is both unique and awesome. Any article discussing office space for programmers and designers needs to reference them.

</comment><comment><USER87> Here is what I think about when someone says open office: [http://www.belarus.by/relimages/000914_392548.jpg](http://www.belarus.by/relimages/000914_392548.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER88> Am I the only one here that does not like too much silent offices? I like to feel my environment alive, I don't want silence, I want the low noise of smart people discussing, sharing and interacting.

<comment><USER89> I love that too - where I work I get it 9 - 9.30 and 17.30 - 18.00

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Is this some extension / perversion of the original XP principles? I feel like XP Explained talks a lot about office layout and how it can foster communication and teamwork.

</comment><comment><USER91> I put on headphones if I want quiet. What I really need to get away from is flowdock/hipchat/etc... invading my screen. That kills my flow worse than anything else.

</comment><comment><USER92> I am not sure if the author visited any of the offices in question, but they do have plenty of rooms/floors/isolated areas where people do work.

<comment><USER85> I've visited Twitter and Dropbox and am unconvinced that's enough: for best flow you need a personalized space.

</comment></comment><comment> l-jenkins We are set up in offices with 2-5 developers per room. Works out nicely. If work styles don't meld, you can request to move (given there is space).

</comment><comment><USER93> Would collaboration be hurt by spreading things out?

</comment><comment><USER94> I work in an open office and I love it, when this space was designed, we all hated it, we cried, we moaned and grunted about it. We left our nice comfy cozy private spaces and have to rub elbows with others. More than a year later, I will pick it any day over any other space, collaboration at it's best. For the first time I find myself enjoying to work more with others than to work alone. So whilst some may not like it, please do realize that there are those of us that love it.

</comment><comment><USER95> clearly the author does not understand how important both vanity and greed are to most people - especially decision makers. XD

</comment><comment><USER96> I don't see the problem. When I put on my headphones it's like I'm sitting in a private office.

<comment><USER97> People are different. I can't work with music, for the most part. Some can hardly work without it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> I wonder what do people who disagree with open floor plans think the desks should be like?

</comment><comment><USER99> Introverts prefer a quiet place to be able to focus and work, a lot.

</comment><comment><USER100> I've done some impressive work... From my bed.

</comment><comment><USER101> This resonates with me so much. I currently work in a 'creative' and 'collaborative' open office and I just don't enjoy it. It's loud, distracting, frustrating and worst of all, it makes me a hypocrite. I hate the noise, but I am just as much a part of the problem as everyone else. I talk to teammates and make jokes when other people are working, just as they do when I'm working. I can't keep count of how many times per day I'm deep in thought and then get startlingly pulled out of it when I notice my line-of-sight goes right through someone and they're looking at me.

I find myself coming up with reasons to work from home, where I am much more productive, much more comfortable and (I think) much more creative. I can take the time I need, I can think out loud, I can pace, I can drop to the floor and do some pushups (which I find helps reset my brain state and get a new line of thoughts flowing) without distracting other people.

A private or semi private office wouldn't fix all these issues, but it would go a long way in making me want to come into the office.</comment>


Sending post request on window unload event - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25282034/sending-post-request-on-window-unload-eventajax-request-vs-form-submit-vs-image

<comment><AUTHOR> are there any good solution to this problem beside from sendBeacon ?</comment>


Inventor-populism movie Flash of Genius - intermittent-wiper story - <AUTHOR> http://www.autoblog.com/2008/09/23/flash-of-genius-film-reveals-dirty-history-of-intermittent-wiper

<comment><AUTHOR> The movie adopts a populist slant. A more-accurate take on the intermittent- wiper story is over here:

[http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2008/04/we-have-met- enem...](http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2008/04/we-have-met-enemyand-he- is-us.html)

 _I'm sure you've head of Robert Kearns, "the windshield wiper guy". Kearns will tell anyone who will listen how he has been screwed out of his invention by the big car companies. Unfortunately, the reverse is true. According to the Washington Post, Kearns was offered almost $30 million for his investment (some sources say close to $50 million) in the 1970's, only to turn it down, insisting that the car companies buy his invention directly from him. After years of tedious litigation, and losing nearly everything (wife, health, home), Kearns has finally won far less than the original offer, most of which went to lawyer's fees.

It is very unfortunate, as Kearns perpetuates the myth of the big corporation being out to "get" the little guy. Worse yet, inventors such as Kearns convince many corporations to adopt an "NIH" (Not Invented Here) policy with regard to outside inventions.

The tragedy of Kearns is that he has fought so long for what he believed are the rights of the little guy -- while his battle has actually harmed the chances of solo inventors in the future. Please don't do us any more "favors", Mr. Kearns!

A good friend of mine recently took a job as corporate patent counsel for a large sporting goods company. He has tried, mostly in vain, to get outside ideas submitted by solo inventors considered by the company.

His biggest obstacle? Not management... Not the engineers... The inventors themselves! Many inventors who have very good ideas fall into the same trap of mistrust and vacillation. If the company expresses an interest in the invention, the inventor immediately thinks that the company is going to "screw" him. Eventually, management gets frustrated and drops the idea._</comment>


Banging Your Head Against an AngularJS Issue? Try This - <AUTHOR> http://nathanleclaire.com/blog/2014/01/31/banging-your-head-against-an-angularjs-issue-try-this/ <comment><USER2> So this guy discovered $scope.$apply 3 days ago? It's very old news.</comment>


Uber Freight - <AUTHOR> https://freight.uber.com/ <comment><USER2> Well, at least they got their US Federal Motor Carrier broker registration and insurance:

        Date: 09/14/2016
        USDOT Number: 2926893
        Legal Name: UBER FREIGHT LLC

They're not trying to pull their usual "we're a special snowflake beyond regulation" stunt.

Trucking is vulnerable to Uber. "More than 1 million smallish companies own 90 percent of all trucks, each owning about three trucks on average." That lets Uber be the master and the truckers the slaves, as with their taxi service.

Cargomatic claims 1,811,000 miles traveled. They launched in 2014, so that's under a million miles a year. That's nothing. The average delivery truck travels 12,000 miles a year, so, from their own numbers, Cargomatic represents about 80 trucks, total. They may be run over by Uber.

The biggest freight broker is C.H. Robinson Worldwide, net revenue about $2.2bn. They also organize ocean freight and air freight, which Uber isn't likely to get into because the players there are not small.

Freight brokerage is so fragmented that Uber could roll up the industry.

<comment><USER3> Big boat shipping is not going to go automated anytime soon. Boat staff are a relative rounding error in costs from my estimates. There are only 39k of those boats in the world, and they are not going to be electric any time soon unless there is a revolution in battery tech that makes it economical.

Port automation on the other hand, is an opportunity I'm guessing.

<comment><USER4> Probably 90% of port jobs are automated away compared to 50 years ago.

<comment><USER2> Yes. For an extreme example, here's Rotterdam's container port. Zero people in the quay area.[1] This is sped up, but entirely real. Not only are the vehicles driverless, so are the cranes. A few people in a control tower oversee that operation.

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

<comment><USER4> Amazing

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This may be an unpopular opinion on HN, but after going through all the comments, and reflecting back on the general ethos of 2016, it's worth saying anyway:

I received the Black Swan by Nassim Taleb for Christmas, and there is a lot of "disruption leads to winner take all" talk in the book. I don't necessarily disagree with Taleb, but it's amazing that our lives are dominated by only a handful of companies (I'm willing to bet 90% of our daily time will be attributed to using a product made by either Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook). Now, the aforementioned companies generally do require scale, so my assertion is a bit hyperbolic, but in Uber's case... does freight really NEED scale? I've never needed to order freight, so I can't speak from experience here, but it seems like the social cost to having Uber win all may be far greater than the benefits in efficiency. I can imagine a future where we arrive at a new Era of Barons and legislation is passed to break them up (ala Rockefeller, Vanderbilt...etc.).

Last but not least, we seem to be push for "Universal Income" as a means to assuage the pain caused by the Winner Take All economy, but I don't think that's fair to a lot of America. I think we should solve the problem in it's root before we talk about Universal Income- I don't mean to sound negative, but it just seems like a convenient cop out to the problems at hand.

<comment><USER6> We don't live in a society where we get to design the future after considering all positive and negative sides. It's been tried, and results were disastrous.

Instead, we live in a society which is shaped by comleting self-interests. You're asking of freight NEEDS scale - for whose benefit? Ubers? Yes. His small scale competitors? No. Customers? We'll have to wait and see their verdict. All of us together? We don't have enough interests in common for this virtual entity to have any real meaning.

<comment><USER7> There's a long, long way between the free-market utopia people seem to believe currently exists and Uber's "set prices at half of the cost of providing the service & set VC money on fire until we have a monopoly" approach.

<comment><USER6> You're describing these two concepts as if they were different things. Why?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I do not live in the US. So would love some help understanding what could possibly happen here:

-Do people own trucks or is it corporations/shipping-companies.

\- What happens to all the various forms of taxes (are there any?) which come into picture during long distance transporation

\- Is there a concept of toll tax on the roads. Who would be providing those?

\- How do you ensure legality of contents and prevent illegal transportation of goods here?

\- The USP of Uber is the being able to get the required service in a couple of minutes.Will this be applicable here?

\- Uber has always been in grey areas when it comes to personal vehicles being used commercially to drive single passengers. Transporting goods would cause the same issues on a larger scale right?

On the website: It kind of sucks that you need to give an email id to get even basic information on what this is about[1].

[https://www.uber.com/a/truckdriver](https://www.uber.com/a/truckdriver)

<comment><USER9> Nearly everything in the U.S. is on a truck at some point in its transit. Most companies that make those items don't own their own trucks.

Of the roughly 3 million trucks on the road, 10% are owner operators (a person who owns his or her own truck and drives it).

Those owner operators mostly drive around the country like chickens with their heads cut off trying to source loads to transport. The owner operators will work with freight brokers (middle men) who either scour load boards or have relationships with companies that need things shipped. Some of the owner operators have a significant other at home who does the sourcing of loads for them. Deadheading, driving to or from somewhere without a paid load, kills these drivers. These drivers make on average $50+k per year.

The pre-Uber taxi scene looked a lot like this national truck load scene does today. I imagine that's why Uber sees opportunity here. In the taxi scenario you have the supply (taxis) and demand (passengers). In the freight scene they'd have to link up the supply (owner operators) and demand (any company that has truck loads of freight to ship).

Disclaimer: this is a simplification of logistics, ignores 'less than load' freight, multi-modal, and fleet operations.

Source: I founded and ran a freight logistics startup in the 2000's. Developed a web app to try and do what I said Uber could above. It was designed poorly from an empathy standpoint of both parties and most importantly it was pre- iPhone/apps. We were a successful brokerage/consultancy but failed as a startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Most likely related to their acquisition of Otto. Establish a trucking service so that they are ready for autonomous trucking.

</comment><comment><USER11> Amazon is also building an 'Uber for trucking' app according to [http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-building-uber-for- truc...](http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-building-uber-for-trucking- app-2016-12)

</comment><comment><USER12> In China, "Uber for trucking" services have off over the last year or two. The largest player, Huochebang, has registered more than 2 million drivers and is doing ~100,000 orders per day. They don't charge anything for using the platform and make money by selling other services to drivers.

<comment><USER13> Might I ask what some of these services are? This sounds intriguing.

<comment><USER14> "Unlike Uber, which takes a cut from every ride, Huochebang makes money primarily from selling toll cards, taking a cut from the card top-ups, and helping truckers with financing."

From this article

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/china- s-u...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/china-s-uber-for- trucks-huochebang-fetches-1-billion-valuation)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wonder if truckers will actually sign up for this, especially when it's 100% obvious that this will evolve into autonomous trucking shop.

Maybe the people who sign up will be similar to the type of people who sign up as Uber drivers--not your typical truck drivers..

<comment><USER16> You need a CDL to drive a truck, so the barrier is higher than driving for Uber.

<comment><USER17> Technically you can go rent a uhaul without CDL. There is a hole in the regulation that could allow people to drive smaller trucks without CDL. You are mostly restricted from towing a certain gross amount weight, which may make the mathematics not work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There is a fundamental problem with uber freight : availability of trucks. In case of the uber taxi, most of US population owns the car and drivers working for uber already had a license.

for uber frieght : trucks are owned by companies, who will not work with uber, u need a special license to drive truck: these drivers will not work with uber.

who will work for uber freight?

<comment><USER19> > The way most shipping works for most companies today is by going through a > brokerage firm, which makes calls to trucking companies and arranges the > best deals for its customers. The broker takes a commission of between 15 > and 20%. To start, the Uber Freight marketplace will eliminate that > middleman and offer shippers real-time pricing of what it will cost to move > their goods based on supply and demand.

Source: [http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-to-launch-uberfreight- fo...](http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-to-launch-uberfreight-for-long- haul-trucking-2016-10)

<comment><USER20> By "eliminate that middleman" do they mean "become that middleman"?

<comment><USER19> Yes. Uber Freight is basically a freight brokerage that's being operated at break-even levels:

> UberFreight, which would not control the trucks it relies upon to move > customers' freight, is building in only a 5-percent average margin for its > net revenue per transaction, according to another person familiar with the > matter. On average, net revenue, defined as the revenue a broker generates > after its cost of purchased transportation, is around three times that for > established brokers. UberFreight's other costs would then be subtracted from > its net revenue threshold, leaving the brokerage business either to operate > at break-even levels or be a loss leader for the San Francisco-based parent.

Source: [http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20161212--uberfreight- ste...](http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20161212--uberfreight-steps-up- efforts-to-expand-into-brokerage-sector/)

<comment><USER21> So if I'm understanding it properly, they are offering drastically lower prices by cutting out the broker and passing on the savings, but still need the truckers and the truckers will be forced to use them because that's where the jobs will be (not sure if they'll see any pay boost or if it will just be customers seeing savings).

Once Uber gets autonomous trucks everywhere they cut out the drivers and add that revenue to their margins while still under cutting everyone else.

Is that the gist of their strategy?

<comment><USER3> I think Uber realizes if someone else has autonomous tech first, that company will cut out the drivers and they will all be out of jobs. So either way, it doesn't really matter who does it first.

And it's also why Uber is probably running towards getting autonomous tech developed, because ultimately its a fight for it's survival.

In the mean time, they will run transport markets that need people to run it until that tech comes. And it could take 5 years to 20 years for all we know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Freight auctions connecting truck owners&drivers with shippers are quite common in Europe. Surely USA has had this kind of thing before right? Who's the incumbent?

<comment><USER23> Thousands of small players.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Interesting. How will they regulate shipping illegal goods? Moving people and food is fine, but this adds a layer of grey to the already blurry line uber are skirting.

<comment><USER25> This generally isn't an issue as a carrier unless it can be shown that the carrier was aware (or should have been aware) of the cargo.

FWIW, I've dealt with firearms being accidentally shipped to Canada. They were on a freight dock in Toronto before anyone realized. We (the carrier) were levied a fine and we shipped them back to the US without further incident. Being that it was self-reported, they didn't even send someone out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> RIP all the "Uber for freight" and "Uber for trucking" startups

<comment><USER27> except Otto which Uber acquired and presumably will be rolled into this at some point... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_(company)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_\(company\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Why not just go and acquire an Austin based startup called uShip? [https://www.uship.com/](https://www.uship.com/)

Uber has a boatload of cash. Why reinvent a wheel? uShip has a funding of $44.71M in several rounds according to crunchbase. Uber sure has a vast collection fine-tuned maps, but freight routes are different from inner city routes.

<comment><USER29> Uber's in the negative. Have they ever turned a profit?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> While I'm not sure how well this fits into Uber's business model (I feel like freight and taxi services are very different industries), the idea of automating trucking is great. It's a far easier technical problem, the logistics are simpler, and it's a $700 billion industry just in the United States. After acquiring Otto this year it's good to see them pursuing this aggressively. Although I'm not a big fan of Uber as a whole, there is a huge amount of money to be made in automated trucking and Uber has a good chance of taking the lead there. I feel like this is where we'll see the real competition for automated driving in the coming years.

<comment><USER31> How is it a far easier technical problem with simpler logistics?

<comment><USER30> Driving on highways is far easier than driving in cities because it's a more controlled environment. There aren't supposed to be pedestrians, bikers, traffic lights, and it's generally a more constrained problem. Logistically, you can just have truckers drive in cities, get out at certain waypoints, and then have truckers take over again at waypoints (mostly located just outside cities).

I'm not saying it's an easy problem, but it's a much easier problem. You also don't have to be as concerned with public perception, as you aren't asking a consumer to get inside of it.

<comment><USER32> yes and no, it is easier to do it. but large trucks are a bigger hazard on the road the a small car, they can break the middle barrier, can do a lot more damage on the road. the fines for the drivers and the companies are allot stricter.

they have to get it 100% all the time or they cannot put it on the road. One glitch and you have a 25t missile on the highway. Imagine the chaos that can cause, and imagine the liability of the company operating that truck.

while it is easier in ideal conditions, it is not easy in real world.

<comment><USER33> Believe it or not, making sure the truck fails safe and keeping it under control are far easier problems for a computer to solve than predicting if a pedestrian will jump in front of a car.

But I'm not sure it makes any difference. You aren't "supposed" to find pedestrians in a road, but you'll certainly find them, and the truck must be able to deal with them.

<comment><USER34> At interstate highway speeds, there is no dodging an unexpected pedestrian who jumps out into the road. Swerving creates greater danger - an overturned truck is likely to cause other severe accidents. Pretty much all a truck driver can do is apply moderate braking, lay on the horn, and stay in their lane.

<comment><USER32> [http://i.imgur.com/kU4KNX4.mp4](http://i.imgur.com/kU4KNX4.mp4)

there are other examples where trucks avoided certain deaths for car drivers in that they served left or right. and escaped car or pedestrians.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Interested to see how Transfix will stand up to this: [https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/transfix](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/transfix)

</comment><comment><USER36> kind of related question:

why are trains, especially freight, not being automated?

seems like a far simpler problem than autonomous cars, no?

<comment><USER37> Trains are already highly automated. The largest trains have only a few workers on board so eliminating them won't cut costs much. But the new positive train control systems do lay the foundation for some level of further automation.

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

<comment><USER36> seems like a lot of costly accidents all point to human error of the "driver". falling asleep, speeding, etc.

just seems very odd that no one from the big ones - Siemens, Bombardier, etc would go after that. Not even in Japan or China, both train heaven.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> So I know of only one competitor in this space (I don't know very much about startups that do freight hauling) -- UShip.

Wonder if this has even registered on their radar

</comment><comment><USER39> I'd be curious to hear some use cases for Uber Freight. I am guessing it is not targeted for individuals wanting alternatives for UPS or FedEx.

<comment><USER40> I have a friend who owns a restaurant equipment import business. He employs a driver to deliver ovens, refrigerators, display cases, etc. to restaurants and grocery stores around the country. He could fire his driver and hire an Uber truck on demand instead, and if he got a blast of orders, he could hire a few trucks instead of having to wait on one driver.

I have another friend who is a truck dispatcher. Her entire job is telling truckers where to go and when to be there. Trucking companies don't need to employ dispatchers any more, Uber's algorithms handle her entire job.

My uncle drove trucks delivering dairy to grocery stores. Since he was a member of the dairy trucker's union, that was the only thing he was allowed to deliver. If there was no dairy to deliver but lots of bread, sorry, that's for the members of the bread trucker's union. The whole trucking industry is carved into these niche unions which are really frustrating to deal with.

When I was a student, I worked for a construction company that had a decrepit old truck they used to deliver some of their prefab pieces, like sets of windows and doors. It broke down a lot and only one guy in the shop had the license and knew how to drive it. Now they can get rid of the truck and just hire Uber whenever they need some bigger stuff delivered.

<comment><USER39> Awesome. All makes total sense. I think the dispatcher example is spot on and very common with haulers. Unfortunately for her, her job could indeed be eaten by technology.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Autonomous driving seems like a good OpenAI project.

Letting one company control the autonomous driving market seems pretty bad for competition.

<comment><USER30> There's a lot of competition in the autonomous driving space: Uber, Delphi, Cruise, Waymo, Ford, Volvo, Zoox, Varden Labs, Auro Robotics, Navya, Nuro.ai, Baidu, Tesla, Faraday Future, Mercedes, Nissan, Toyota, Yutong, and there are others (including some in stealth mode that would rather not be mentioned).

Udacity also has a course just for making a self-driving car, and you get to use a real car.

[https://www.udacity.com/course/self-driving-car-engineer- nan...](https://www.udacity.com/course/self-driving-car-engineer-nanodegree-- nd013)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Old idea. I used www.uship.com many years ago (5?). Worked well. I was able to ship two pallets from the west coast to the east coast, door to door. Costs: close to nothing. I think it was something in the range 250 to 380 US dollar.

<comment><USER43> Search engine was an old idea too until Google came along. If Uber can provide a better service, customers would switch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I would like to read a book about how Uber is managed. They are extremelly competent on creating good services in difficult business areas. They are hungry for new markets and keeps innovating.

<comment><USER45> > I would like to read a book about how Uber is managed.

[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003V8B5XO/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003V8B5XO/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I think they're doing factoring too, since the driver application says that the payment to the driver is made right after delivery.

</comment><comment><USER47> This to me have always been their endgame after they realized the value was in the logistics data rather than the actual drives.

</comment><comment><USER48> A stepping stone to the unemployment of half the families in my small town. Yet, so long as narcissist STEM technocrats have money for their coffee shops the world will continue blindly "progressing".

</comment><comment><USER49> I look forward to the breathless praise from tech news, with lots of fluff about automation and driver-less lorries.

I suspect that as they have to deal with real companies, with lawyers that do due diligence things won't be so smooth.

Delivery is business critical to most companies, so Uber are going to have to make a pretty strong pitch to get business.

I'm not sure who they are pitching at, companies that do lots of hauling will have decent relationships with haulage broker/companies directly. They'll do credit and guarantees.

The other thing is that I'm strongly suspicious of Uber business practice, as they appear they'll do anything to make a quick buck. (drop drivers, jack up prices, lie, cheat and generally break the law)

That's not something that I want when shipping business critical stuff. "oh sorry, the surge price on the haulage has changed, conference season you know..." or "we've dropped that subcontractor, we're sorry your pallet appear to have been lost"

<comment><USER50> There are a number of small businesses who occasionally need LTL freight, a few times a year perhaps. I do believe that market is poorly served and is ripe for disruption. The number of "logistics 2.0" tech-focused startups lately seems to confirm that others share my belief.

For those companies if your vendor doesn't have an existing relationship with a freight broker familiar with things you're in for a huge waste of time and a confusing mess where you feel you're likely being ripped off.

If you could instead spend 5 minutes typing some stuff into Uber and clicking go it wins that market segment every time.

We were this company until we got a bit larger and now have a relationship with a broker. But even now it's a little antiquated.

> That's not something that I want when shipping business critical stuff. "oh > sorry, the surge price on the haulage has changed, conference season you > know..."

This already happens, as anyone shipping throughout the year will attest to. Rates are a lesser form of airline pricing.

> or "we've dropped that subcontractor, we're sorry your pallet appear to have > been lost"

Trivial non-problem that again already exists in the market. This has happened, and it's just as rare as you'd expect it to be.

> They'll do credit and guarantees

Why wouldn't Uber? Considering their performance here in the consumer space I would expect them to be easier to work with here than current brokers who rely on that $200 to feed their kids that week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> can somebody tell me the need to use react in such a simple website? I'm not being snarky, just curious.

<comment><USER52> It's doubtfully about need. Why did they use it? Probably because they have a solid workflow already based on a React tool chain - so why not? In that case you could similarly ask, why go out of their way to create a static page if they use React for everything else and it's how their programmers are used to thinking? You can use whatever you want as long as it gets the job done. It's about comfort zones and preference.

<comment><USER53> > Probably because they have a solid workflow already based on a React tool > chain - so why not?

Can confirm, lot of Uber's web infrastructure is modeled around React

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> 503 Service Unavailable

<comment><USER39> Fine for me from California.

<comment><USER54> And back up and running here. Hrmmm...</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: How to create your own "old style windows" web app - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rddE1jKPgWk <comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone, I made this video showing how to use FOS to create an web app that looks like old windows software

</comment><comment><USER2> I don't know how to feel about this but it's definitely interesting

<comment><AUTHOR> you should check out my website then, I made it look like windows 95. =)</comment></comment>


Apple deepens enterprise push with Deloitte partnership - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-enterprise-idUSKCN11Y2L5 <comment><USER2> 4 years ago, when I was working in Deloitte, it was impossibile to think about using Apple products, half of the software wouldnt work! Good to see some change, are visio and project compatibile now?</comment>


'We want cash' Drug agents seize $209mn in random profiling of 5,200 travelers - <AUTHOR> http://www.mo4ch.com/we-want-cash-drug-agents-seize-209mn-in-random-profiling-of-5200-travelers-report/ <comment><USER2> Previous discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12268122](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12268122)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's long been known by people who play the drug game that the authorities only care about lining their own pockets.

This is an anecdotal story, but could be "New Yorker level" vetted if someone tried.

About 20 years ago my friend John was living in Salt Lake City, Utah -- where he grew up -- and had rented a house in CA for the sole purpose of growing pot in. He spent almost 5 years bringing about 50-100lbs of high potency pot into Utah in his Prius 2-3 times per month, making countless trips back and forth, before his first contact with the authorities.

They pulled him over about a block away from his house and told him they had been watching him and knew what he had in the car -- about 50lbs of pot in duffel bags. He was arrested and charged with... wait for it... failing to pay taxes on the marijuana. He was out of jail within 6 hours.

His lawyer told him he had three choices: pay the taxes, to the tune of about $350k, or fight it, or plead guilty. He wrote a check for $350k and never heard from the authorities again. He continued to do this for another 10 years and was never bothered again. Strictly pot.

You may wonder how he was able to write that check without raising eyebrows. A few of his clients were business owners who had him on the payroll (taxes and all) to pay for their regular supply of pot. Plus he was "an independent artist" and filed 1099-Ts every quarter via his accountant. Through these methods he made plenty of money on paper, and obviously lived very cheaply (in an apartment). He has still never had a real job and retired at 35, with no record what so ever.

<comment><USER4> American police currently behave as a paramilitary, occupying mafia just slightly less terrible than anarchy.

<comment><USER3> I hope no one is wondering why the DEA made the unconscionable act of not re- classifying marijuana as a Schedule II drug.

There are so many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people whose livelihood is tried up in arresting people for drug crimes that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Think about all those DEA agents making $100k a year plus their pensions, all those judges and public defenders, all those private prisons full of people doing possession charges. All those local cops employed to keep an eye on them during probation.

It's absolutely disgusting and ruins peoples' lives on a daily basis, but totally expected behavior in a society that only cares about money (aka capitalism).

I am sort of surprised there isn't a lot more backlash against the DEA for this horrible move last week, but then again, the pro-pot legalization movement isn't all that impressive either. The most annoying thing about marijuana is fucking idiot stoners representing the brand.

edit: and don't even get me started on the huge amount of needless deaths in northern Mexico directly caused by the War on Drugs. Go read 2666 if you want a sliver of an idea of how bad it is there. But hey, to the average American, they are brown people so they don't care. Disgusting.

<comment> saiya-jin > The most annoying thing about marijuana is fucking idiot stoners > representing the brand.

this so much - most people associate pot with braindead pathetic existences in the fringe of society, who are the loudest of the crowd. i've met senior software engineers, doctors, managers of all levels and so on doing it recreationally, for decades and having a normal life. those using alcohol for similar relaxing effect after hard day ended up in worse state, and it costed them much, much more in long term

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's virtually no chance, with this much shady money getting confiscated, that some fraction isn't getting skimmed off the top into the pockets of the individual, relatively lowly paid, officers. It's inevitable, even if you had the most incorruptible individuals imaginable, the temptation is too great.

</comment><comment><USER6> "Civil forfeiture" they call this, where the local Police Department essentially steals your stuff, and the burden is on you to prove why you should get it back. Of course you'd assume the local PD couldn't possibly be allowed to keep it themselves, surely it is remitted into some state or federal government fund.

Well, enter the "Equitable Sharing" program, which was halted/curtailed in 2015 when there was a furore about it, but has apparently resumed[1]. This is where the actual local PD that seized your money really does get to keep 80% of it themselves, with only 20% going to the feds.

But for some reason the locals aren't allowed to spend this money on op-ex (salaries etc) so they often spend it on crazy equipment which they can obtain via the Department of Defense's 1033 Program[2][3] which allows PDs to buy excess military equipment like weaponized vehicles, armored personnel carriers, grenade launchers, and helicopters -- obviously contributing to the increasing militarization of police[4].

Conflict of interest much? More confiscation of citizen funds == more toys for the boys at the PD.

All funded by money and assets seized from citizens on highly questionable grounds, with no real semblance of due process. Not great.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/28/the-f...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/28/the- feds-have-resumed-a-controversial-program-that-lets-cops-take-stuff-and-keep- it/)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_program)

[3] [http://www.businessinsider.com.au/aclu-report-on-police- mili...](http://www.businessinsider.com.au/aclu-report-on-police- militarization-2014-8)

[4] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/10/11/as...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/10/11/asset- seizures-fuel-police-spending/)

</comment><comment><USER7> And people say China is corrupt...

</comment><comment><USER8> The United States has fast become the land where a wall informed individual should never set foot, if he/she values his/her belongings, freedom and life.

<comment><USER9> I lived in the US for 5 years - I went there as an exchange student when I was 17, finished high school then went to university. One day, just before completing my CS & Math degree, I was arrested, imprisoned and (after 3 months of being bounced around various detention facilities in 3 different states, without any explanation) I was deported for violating my student visa (because I had to work to pay tuition).

Have not set foot there since 2012 and don't intend to, even though my wife really wants to visit NYC. Frankly, right now I feel I would be safer visiting North Korea or Syria or Yemen, than the US. I'm absolutely terrified by just about anything that has to do with the USofA.

I have also come to distrust Americans more than any other group of people.

[For context, I'm a white, middle-class entrepreneur / software engineer, originally from east Europe, now living in the UK]

<comment><USER8> Please, Please, please, pretty please-with-extra-sugar-and-rainbow-sprinkles- and-chocolate-chips on top, do not visit North Korea, Yemen, Syria or even Dubai or Abu Dhabi either.

<comment><USER9> Already been to Dubai and Abu Dhabi multiple times, for both pleasure and business. Have taken my family a few times too. We love it there (although I am not at all oblivious to the way they treat Asian workers).

And for Yemen - I have been dying to visit Sana'a, such a deeply beautiful place. And I'm devastated that this seems like an impossible dream now, after the US/Saudi invasion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> and contrast what happened to the secretary that took ~$800,000 worth of information from their company ([http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/the- dea-paid-an-amtr...](http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/the-dea-paid-an- amtrak-secretary-854460-for-free-passenger-lists/375895/)) with what happened to Sergey Aleynikov ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov))

</comment><comment><USER11> A young gentleman whose name escapes me had develop an app to fight parking tickets (in NY, SF & the UK), and more recently work on housing assistance (in the UK). His work is often dubbed "robo-lawyer".

Given the scale, would it make sense to have a similar work done for civil forfeiture?

</comment><comment><USER12> John Oliver did a story on something very similar: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks)

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming- po...](https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police- practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse)

</comment><comment><USER13> What you'd expect from the US Government / the world's most powerful protection racket

</comment><comment><USER14> This is alarming and a massive overstep. However why would anyone ever travel with sums like that on them? I don't get it at all. I know that the US is a society that uses cash a lot more than mine, but carry sums like that seems utterly crazy.

<comment><USER15> Because you don't want to be at the mercy of a bank? When your money sits in a bank account, anybody who wants to take it, or seize it, simply has to contact the bank with appropriate legal authority, and _poof_ \- your money is gone, with no recourse whatsoever. At least when you have the physical cash, they have to deal with you personally.

Of course, as we see here, that's becoming more common.

<comment><USER14> Maybe banks are less easy to trust where you are. I have concerns about what happens with my records, but no concerns over my money going away. All banks in New Zealand have a pretty good health rating.

<comment><USER15> People feel that way about their banks until the first time money is taken out of their account without their permission. Certainly very possible in the United States.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This "land of the free" sounds very much like Russia to me. In fact, I would rather live in Russia to be honest.</comment>


Where Is Pizza Most Expensive (and Cheapest) in America? - <AUTHOR> https://priceonomics.com/where-is-pizza-the-most-expensive-and-cheapest-in/ <comment><USER2> Hoboken, New Jersey may have the most pizza per capita of any city in the United States. You can try most of the pizza spectrum there, and aside from the franchises it's real pizza -- made on premises.</comment>