Ask: Best Math Courses for CS? - <AUTHOR>

Having recently switched my major to CS, I've also decided this semester to minor in mathematics.  I already had most of the 1000 and 2000 level courses done because of my previous major in engineering.  My first upper level elective that I've chosen is Symbolic Computation; I'm also looking at taking Combinatorics next time it's offered, and I was recommended Theory of Probability.  What do you thinkof these?  And does the specialization / generalization ratio apply to math as well? <comment><USER2> Discrete Math (this often include combinatorics, and was required for my CS major), Set Theory, and Mathematical Logic. I'd also try to take some sort of abstract algebra course as well, just so you get used to dealing with axioms and proofs. Get really good at vectors and matrices if you wanna do any sort of computer graphics or games; this usually means linear algebra. Skip calculus & differential equations if you're not particularly into scientific computing, though they're mighty handy in physics, and occasionally get used in computer graphics.

I've found I really don't use all that much math while programming. You do need to know finite state automata (that's usually in Discrete). If you want to do any sort of language design or type theory, you should know your set theory well, since types are based on sets. That's basically all that I use with any sort of regularity...

<comment><AUTHOR> I am taking Discrete right now, it does include some combinatorics but there is a class that goes into them more in-depth. Already took Calc I, II, III, and Diff. Eq's as an AE major (kinda rusty though). Linear Algebra is required for the minor, so it's good that it may prove useful. Other than Discrete, do any courses typically emphasize set theory?

<comment><USER2> At my college, set theory was kinda the foundation for most of the advanced math courses. You got a basic introduction in Discrete, then there was a standalone Set Theory course (isn't there one at your university?), then you needed it for Mathematical Logic, Groups Rings & Fields (the abstract algebra course), and probably a few others.

<comment><AUTHOR> I found it, they hid it under the name "Introduction to Advanced Mathematics"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> My computer science and computer engineering major required a discrete math course (which mostly included combinatorics, set theory, and logic) and probability theory, plus calc 1-3, linear algebra, and diff eq. I also took number theory.

Out of all of them, I'd say the discrete math course was the most applicable.

It also sort of depends on what area of CS you're interested in. For example, probability / statistics for computer networks, number theory for cryptography, artificial intelligence uses lots of logic (and many others), graph/set theory for general algorithms, geometry for graphics etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> In addition to what's been mentioned, you should definitely take a solid Linear Algebra course. Besides the uses for computer graphics (vector stuff) and artificial intelligence applications (singular value decomposition et al), it is really philosophically useful to internalize the concept of transformations and how many non-obvious applications they have.

</comment><comment><USER5> You should try taking a logic course. Apparently it makes you think more clear and argue better. I regret not taken one and now it's too late as I am about to graduate. Oh and I think you can also prove things better, and see more tricky cases easier.

<comment><USER6> >> You should try taking a logic course. Apparently it makes you think more clear and argue better.

Prove it.</comment></comment>


YC Analysis: "37signals/DHH style" companies? - <AUTHOR>

Everyone has probably read about or seen DHH's talk by now, where he advocates attempting to create small/medium sized, sustainable companies with a simple, direct business model (sell something directly to your customers).
A lot of his examples are from 'real world' products (Italian restaurants, say), that clearly have very different economics from on line businesses.  The marginal cost of another bottle of Bardolino is not indifferent, even though the markup is also going to be good.  The marginal cost of another basecamp customer is very small.  Also, his Craigslist example was not particularly compelling for me.  Those guys dominated their market, but more because people flock to the site because everyone else does (network effects).  Their choice to keep things small/real seems like a very conscious one, but not necessarily something they could get away with if, say, they were kijiji and eBay were the owner of Craigslist.
So, my question: what other web or software companies make a living the 37signals way?  What are they key characteristics of their markets?  Obviously they can't be in a winner take all market dominated by network effects. <comment><USER2> Also keep in mind that DHH suggested building a product for a business, not consumers. Consumers are used to free, but businesses are more than willing to pay. In fact, a price tag is a way for businesses to justify their corporate use of the product.

I'm constantly surprised when I see companies paying for a service that I get for free (Any premium chat/voice Vs. Gtalk). The thing is, businesses don't like to spend time looking into the best and most cost effective way to solve a problem - they like to throw money at it and make it go away. DHH suggests being that person who makes it go away.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are LOADS of companies like this. I run a few small ones myself that generate good revenue. Software-related is our www.sourceguardian.com site. Like most things we solved a problem for our own needs and then turned it into a product. We have a healthy income from this which isn't far from being 'passive income'. My suggestion would be to look at a problem that hasn't been solved, or hasn't been solved well. We pick niche markets for what we do and that works well for us. I know of many companies like this.

</comment><comment><USER4> The Craigslist comparison comes from:

1) The fact that in SF and NYC, they charge directly per listing in certain categories.

2) The fact that they didn't take VC funding.

3) The fact that they stayed small.

4) The fact that they didn't sell the company.

All of these would have been extremely easy to stray from, but instead they stuck to the core philosophy. What DHH was talking about was just that: a philosophy. Any company can stick by that philosophy, regardless of how it attracts customers or the specifics behind their product or service.

Asking the question "what other web or software companies make a living the 37signals way?" is kind of a weird question. The 37signals way is actually the _normal_ way to run a business. It just seems weird because the scale of the web has thus far screwed up everyone's minds to the point where everybody forgets the past.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem with that line of reasoning, in my opinion, is that "normal" businesses sell "normal" products. As a simple example, how much would you pay for a clone of reddit? Not much. The value of the site is entirely in its large community. Same thing for eBay, for the most part. Also, normal products always cost something. There are a ton of information goods that are free: Linux, Apache, all kinds of languages, compilers, editors, browsers - everything you need to run a business, almost, can be had for free these days.

In other words, things do work differently on line, _in some cases_. Understanding that, and understanding what happens why is crucial to being able to do a 'DHH style' company that doesn't get crushed by a big player, or undercut by a bit of open source software.

I highly recommend the book 'Information Rules': <http://www.amazon.com/dp/087584863X?tag=dedasys-20>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe existing DHH style companies are a good area to look for inspiration to build free alternatives with some premiums added afterwards... Like flickr added pro accounts for $25/year. Read Wired's "Why $0 is the future" <http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free>

Building less of an app also means it will be easier for others to come later and build what you made and give it away. Look at how it took 2 people at Google a few days to build HuddleChat which some said was too similar to 37signals' campfire.

<comment><USER6> this is true - but is huddle chat negatively impacting Campfire? Campfire customers are not running for the doors now that some other company has built a free alternative. Building less of an app that serves a real need and provides an elegant solution can also mean that customers love your product and stick with you. Alternatives will always exist, competition is a natural part of business, giving your product away for free is not the only way to deal with competitors.

<comment><USER7> Of course it isn't negatively affecting Camfire; they had it removed from the internet.

<comment><USER8> How many other chat/messaging competitors does campfire have?

I can guarantee you huddlechat was not the only one, so now that its gone campfire can go back to enjoying their monopoly of the chat/messaging market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Take a look at alot of the popular Mac software companies out there. Many of them make quite a living, like Panic, and Delicious Monster.

</comment><comment><USER10> One characteristic is that they all provide enterprise software. The end- consumer market is very difficult since internet-users are used to get everything for free.

<comment><USER11> The term "enterprise software" usually refers to software products sold to very large companies, or at least "small and medium businesses" which have 200-500 employees. David's examples were geared more toward the "Fortune 5,000,000" -- the much larger market of small businesses with a handful of employees.

The economics of the "Fortune 5,000,000" are very different than true enterprise software, as it avoids employing a direct sales force. Obviously 37signals wouldn't turn away a team from General Motors who wanted to use Basecamp, but they don't actively market their products to large companies.

You're right about the difficulty of charging for online products in the consumer market. DHH said that they were having trouble getting customers for their personal organization product, Backpack, even at $5 a month. After they repositioned Backpack to be used by small businesses, they were able to increase the price and sales still grew tremendously.

<comment><USER10> You are right. I used the term "enterprise software" only as a contrast to "consumer software". The "Fortune 5,000,000" is probably the best target market for a startup.

Why? Targeting large enterprises (what the company I work for does) is also an extremely difficult market, but for other reasons than the consumer market. Selling to large enterprises requires professionel and experienced sales people with very good industrie contacts. You also might run into the "small company problem", i.e. you don't sell because you look too small and you don't have enough customer references. Not much fun!

<comment><AUTHOR> Reaching a bunch of relatively small, and perhaps not well-connected companies does, of course, present some obstacles of its own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Direct sale is an excellent model but I don't think it's a requirement. To me it underscores the main principle which is about reducing dependencies. Why convince two parties to do something (someone to visit your site, and an advertiser to run an ad targeting that visitor) when you can convince one.

I'd also add that the single most important thing I've found in creating a business like this is keeping your costs low. The same two businesses, with the same income and customers will have very different times during a downturn depending on their committed monthly burn rate. I know it sounds obvious, but its amazing to me how many businesses handicap themselves from day one with large spending commitments.

<comment><USER13> Exactly, direct sale = lower customer acquisition cost

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think the beauty of these types of sites is that we've probably haven't heard of many of them.

</comment><comment><USER15> I had one for a while--a shareware business that sold pop up blockers, before they were free, along with a privacy suite. Many shareware businesses fit the description. The Association of Shareware Professionals, which I used to belong to, has many members living this way. Their newsletter had an article series about how to run your shareware business from anywhere in the world.

To answer the article's question, the people who do winzip, pretty good solitaire, clipmate and desktop tower defense are probably good examples.

</comment><comment><USER16> the fortune 5,000,000 company I work at subscribes to GoToMeeting.com - .. desktop sharing.. teleconferencing for product demos and meetings

<comment><USER17> Second vote for gotomeeting. I use it a lot and have never had nothing but good feelings for it. Does what it does and does it well.

<comment><USER18> doesn't work on mac. :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> We want all of out apps to be non-media. I.e. Services without ads.

Bug.gd plans to do it by selling private P2P help desks directly.

We have another unrelated service launching soon that will directly charge users for anything above casual usage.

</comment><comment><USER20> FogBugz...

<comment><USER21> And Eric Sink's SourceGear. [1]

[1] <http://www.sourcegear.com/>

<comment><USER18> Was the footnote notation REALLY necessary?

<comment><USER22> Are footnotes the subroutines of literature?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> smugmug.com

</comment><comment><USER24> rememberthemilk.com kind of goes halfway, with a freemium model.

In some ways, that seems more sane to me than DHH's pay-only ideology.

<comment><USER17> >In some ways, that seems more sane to me than DHH's pay-only ideology.

Well, first off, there are free versions of all 37s's apps.

Second, RTM isn't profitable (yet/ever?). 37S is. That seems more sane to me.

<comment><USER25> That's probably because RTM builds their Paid plan from their Free plan, only offering marginal changes in features. 37signals focuses on the price and builds from there, offering a free version on the side.

<comment><USER17> I'd agree with that concept, yes. 37s's "free" is just enough to have users say: "Well it doesn't suck, and I could really use that X feature".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Every Mac software company works on this model.

<comment><USER13> By definition, every software works on that model.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think another aspect of this to consider is this:

Eventually, most things will be commoditized, but this happens slower for some things, and faster for others. How does the 'dhh style company' keep that at bay - or do they? How sustainable is the business in the face of cheaper competition?

<comment><USER17> >How sustainable is the business in the face of cheaper competition?

This is where branding and marketing come in. Ask Apple, BMW, Mercedes, Luis Vutton, etc etc.

These businesses all sell their products for much more than comparable products, and they do quite well. Why? Because there are two types of consumers that are sold by their marketing: those who appreciate high quality, and those that want to be seen as appreciating high quality.

You don't have to appeal to everyone.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right, good examples. But those are all physical products. Can you think of online brands that have that kind of power? I can think of some negative examples, like AOL, that most hackers wouldn't have been caught dead using.

...

Indeed, thinking about it a minute, a lot of my experience with 'branding' online is that small and independent is cool. How much cooler is it to have a @yourowndomain.com email address than @hotmail.com? Remember geocities? Another thing that was sort of the lowest common denominator.

Maybe Google has a positive brand at this point, but I pay for very few things there. I suppose I might pay a little bit more to them for some things in the future to have everything 'tied together', but that's getting away from 'branding'.

<comment><USER17> As for brands with power, off the top of my head:

37 Signals

Salesforce

Flickr (picasa is free, and people still use flicker)

expedia/travelocity (not startups anymore mind you)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> blinksale.com followed a 37s path-- consulting firm that eventually gave up consulting, I believe.

<comment><USER28> Any informations if they're profitable?

<comment><USER27> I think they stopped consulting base on customer demand for BlinkSale... But I obviously don't know their costs. I'd wager they're profitable, or are sacrificing profit at the alter of growth in the near-term.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Github.com, Lighthouse, a lot of companies that make Mac software (think TextMate).

<comment><USER26> GitHub and Lighthouse are two examples of unproven products. 37signals makes millions of dollars a year, which is what makes them credible.

<comment><USER30> What makes you say they're proven or unproven? They've each got hundreds of users and I can say that they each have at least one paying customer (my company).

<comment><USER26> Hundreds of users, you say!

<comment><USER30> _Hundreds of users, you say!_

Oh, the sarcasm! Perhaps if you'd actually watched the talk before commenting on it, you'd have gotten the point and wouldn't be so unknowingly ironic. ;)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=168378>

<comment><USER26> Tell me right now that the talk establishes that GitHub and Lighthouse are financially successful (cash flow positive after investment) and I will:

* Apologize

* Watch the video

I don't think I'm going to have to do either.

The point I'm trying to make is, just because geeks love something (like, inexplicably, GitHub) doesn't mean it's necessarily a financial success. Also: hundreds of end-users? A tiny customer base.

<comment><USER30> It doesn't really matter much to me if you watch the video or not. I did want to take the opportunity, however, to give you a taste of your own medicine after this incident: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=135296>. ;)

All that aside, the whole point of the talk was that one can live very well off one's web application even if it's only moderately successful. I think the example he gave was 2,000 small business users at $40/month ~= $1,000,000/year in gross revenue. Or 400 users at the same rate if you don't mind only grossing $200,000 a year.

His argument was that you don't need to stress about investors, 12-hour days, and viral loops as long as you're willing to "settle" for a pleasant, financially viable, and capital efficient business with a niche of users who really appreciate your approach to solving their problems. That's the irony of making fun of an app in this thread for only having several hundred users.

You probably would enjoy the video; I certainly did.

(Incidentally, GitHub and Lighthouse didn't require massive capital investments [1] and I'm pretty sure that they're hosted "for free" on Engine Yard. Having a few hundred users would practically guarantee that they're cashflow positive.)

[1] [http://www.akitaonrails.com/2008/4/21/chatting-with-chris- wa...](http://www.akitaonrails.com/2008/4/21/chatting-with-chris-wanstrath- err-the-blog-github)

<comment><USER31> You could generally get 100 million free users for every 2000 40/month customers. Price curves, check them out!

Very, very, hard. See my 1% comment.

<comment><USER30> There's a big difference between courting small businesses (which is what DHH was talking about) and courting individual consumers (who are preconditioned not to spend money on webapps). Depending on the sector, people won't even use your app _unless_ you charge for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> dropsend.com - surviving in a particularly crowded market of sending big files over the web and charging for it when there are free services available. Though, they are backed by a HUGE marketing power of Carsonified.

</comment><comment><USER33> a few people mention it but it doesn't seem to get zeroed in on.

don't just build a solution, build an elegant solution. ideally one that is practically transparent to the people using it. I think people constantly forget that the vast majority of computer users wouldn't know the difference between the internet and their desktop much less between campfire and huddlechat.

</comment><comment><USER34> freshbooks.com

</comment><comment><USER35> lessaccounting.com

Key characteristic: a real problem being solved and customers willing to pay for a solution. In the case of lessaccounting, mom-and-pop shops (online and off) that don't use quickbooks or find quickbooks too complicated.

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems pretty new. We have information about things like smugmug or 37signals being profitable for a number of years...

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> How about all the many online shops that sell actual products, and others that fall below the radar, that sell everything from property advertising to job listings.

</comment><comment><USER36> virtualmin

</comment><comment><USER37> "37signals/DHH style" companies--in other words, not startups? This is interesting, because his advocacy of non-startups is an oblique way of saying "don't start startups". I wonder, did PG and others even know what the talk was gonna be about?

<comment><AUTHOR> This doesn't deserve to be at -5. Let's leave that kind of trashing of comments to other sites, unless it's something blatantly trollish.

<comment><USER38> It does. He seems to be implying that small companies (or companies with modest expectations) cannot be considered "startups" when, in fact, that's nearly always what they are.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that he's wrong. So vote him to -1. No need to keep going after that.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Windows 8 Scares Me -- and Should Scare You Too - <AUTHOR> http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2012/05/fear-and-loathing-and-windows-8.html

<comment><AUTHOR> TL;DR:

\--Windows 8 is not Windows, it's a new operating system with Windows 7 compatibility tacked onto it.

\--Although Windows 8 looks pretty and is great for tablet-style content consumption, I question its benefits for traditional PC productivity tasks.

\--Big OS transitions like this one traditionally cause users to reconsider their OS decision and potentially switch to something else.

\--Microsoft has worsened the risk that people will migrate away from Windows 8, by disabling some key features of Windows 7, and mishandling the consumer "preview" program.

\--However, people won't necessarily abandon Windows because it's not clear if they have a good alternative to it.

\--Apple could provide the best alternative if it chooses to. This might be Apple's best chance ever to stick a fork in Windows.

\--If Windows 8 is even moderately successful, it could weaken Google and the big web services companies. The trend toward bundling web services into the OS is potentially very disruptive to the web community, and they should be quite worried about it.

\--If you're a PC app developer, you should probably hold off on Metro because it's not clear how quickly its user base will grow.

<comment><USER3> Is it bad that none of these things really scare me?

<comment><USER4> Coming up next in this article series:

Why I am avoiding articles with headlines that end in "and you should, too" and why you should, too.

<comment><USER5> Or, "Why I Am Avoiding Articles That Start With 'Why'".

It seems these are the new "10 Ways/Reasons/Thoughts/etc. on...".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For almost every release of Windows it seems Microsoft has arbitrarily moved important and commonly used features around. Windows 8 is a larger _visual_ overhaul but really not a huge departure from the typical musical chair sort of changes you always get with Windows releases. People will probably just be confused for a while, get used to the new system, and Windows 9 will change it again somehow. That's how it's always been so it doesn't concern me. My guess is most people will just randomly click on things until they get back to a semi-familar Windows desktop. They will remember the steps required to get back there. Metro and all these other things will just be another annoying thing that pops up when the computer starts.

<comment><USER7> Windows' general look and feel disn't change much since Win 95, actually - <USER2> exception being the "settings" (preferences? Control panel?) menu, which changed every time. Win8 kinda changes the entire look and feel (although, just like the control panel, there is a fallback)

(fun fact: I ALWAYS click "switch back to the classic view" whenever I get to a windows machine)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If only Adobe and Autodesk supported linux I would make the full transition to Ubuntu. Ubuntu doesn't have the learning curve that Linux is known for anymore but still manages to let you have full control of your system when you need it.

There are so many open source options that I don't think it's worth jumping through the hoops microsoft lays out anymore. Office tools aren't windows specific anymore because of software like Google docs and libreOffice. Gimp has all of the features of photoshop although a little less intuitive. Qt creator is an excellent replacement for visual studio for c++ developers. Unix command lines make life so much easier. For the average user that only browses the internet and uses microsoft office I really don't think there is a reason to stick to windows other than for autodesk and adobe applications. Thousands of dollars can be saved by people if they just switched to linux.

<comment><USER9> This is true so long as you don't count the _latest_ version of Ubuntu. Unity is a train wreck because it makes the same set of false assumptions that Win 8 makes in terms there being one interface that will work for tablets, phones and PCs.

A year ago I would have agreed that Ubuntu was poised to take up the slack that a lackluster Windows 8 launch would create. Now they just come off as another vendor trying to copy the success of the iPad. As a person who used Ubuntu as his primary desktop for development, I've had to move to another distro (Lubuntu) because Unity/Gnome 3 actively enrages me. I'm not saying that to be dramatic, either. Every time I've tried to use that thing I feel like I have to wash it off my hands. I realize that this might not be as big of a deal to a completely new computer user, but how many of those are really left?

As an aside (and I don't mean this to start a flamewar) Gimp is _not_ a suitable replacement for Photoshop. Gimp has all the same _functions_ as photoshop (and some more, in fact) but that user interface is so bad that it's not really a viable replacement. Sure, there are plenty of people who disagree with me, but I think you'll find most of them are engineers and not people who work with images for a living.

If you don't believe me, look at what happens when Adobe itself makes the _slightest change_ to _any_ of its products. Its user base is immediately infuriated and threatens to revolt.

 _EDIT: Fixed typo._

<comment><USER10> As a ~long time Linux user (2004), I love Unity. Gnome 2 was horrid as a default. On a fresh install, the first thing I had to do was to change their ridiculous taskbar settings to condense it down to one. Then I had to spend an hour changing settings to keep it from wasting taskbar space. Icons for programs makes sense, searching for apps makes sense. The only thing I'm not terribly keen on is the behavior of the global menu bar, but it does make sense in a way.

I've never seen the point in making things overly complicated. Changing things from release to release is complicated, but it's better than sticking with tired metaphors that made sense in 1995 but not today. Might I suggest this rage Unity/Gnome3 makes you feel might be because it's radically different, rather than because it's radically worse?

<comment><USER9> When I first read that you were a "long time linux user" that started with it in 2004, I chuckled, then I realized that 2004 was actually _six years ago_ (a totally legit "long time") and that _I am really old_. :)

I'll give you that the way Gnome 2 was set up by default in Ubuntu was pretty annoying. I also spent some time "moving in" after a fresh install. I did, however, find that I could get it just the way I wanted it before too long, something I've been unable to do with Unity.

Here's the thing: Ubuntu's primary user base (to this point) is PC users. I'm all for a bright future where Ubuntu runs on phones and tablets and toasters, but seriously, where are they? What problem does Unity solve for PC users that a more "traditional" desktop metaphor doesn't? I can't get past the fact that it's obtuse and annoying solely for the sake of novelty.

To each their own, though. The magic of Linux is that there are plenty of options. Windows users, sadly, don't have that luxury, which is what the original article was pointing out.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, 2004 was still kind of the "dark ages" of Linux: where the other OSes had moved on but Linux was still mainly sticking with the text-based install and "network drivers need to be downloaded" phase (in my experience).

I will give you that Unity suffers from a lack of customization (I'm willing to give Canonical the benefit of the doubt that it's still a WIP). Unity/Gnome3 is exactly what I've been trying to customize Gnome2 to be like for the past 6 years.

<comment><USER9> Oh, dear $DEITY, I remember that. Getting the wireless to work meant spending the whole weekend recompiling the kernel and crossing your fingers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm fairly certain this has been said before, but... What if Apple officially supported installing Mac OS X on a regular PC? I mean, it's already possible to do this ("hackintosh" or "OSx86"), but it requires some mucking around... if Apple added support for popular non-mac hardware and just let people buy and install it on any machine, wouldn't that become serious competition to Windows?

Because let's face it, a lot of people that stay away from Macintosh do so because of the price of the hardware...

Edit: Well that settles it for me, then. Thanks for the replies :)

<comment><USER12> Apple is a hardware company. They make money selling computers and other gadgets. Those computers and gadgets happen to run software, but that isn't what they make their money from (it's akin to a loss leader, even if it might not actually lose money).

Those customers you speak of, who stay away from the Macintosh because of the price; how much more money do you think Apple would make from them if they chose to buy a clone sold by another manufacturer? And how much money would they _cost_ Apple in effect by taking advantage of software development subsidised elsewhere?

Killing the clones was (from a business point of view) one of the smartest things Steve Jobs did when he returned to Apple, and I can't see that decision ever being reversed.

<comment><USER13> Right. Compare the price Apple charges for a full version of OS X Lion ($29) to what Microsoft charges for a full version of Windows 7 (~$300 MSRP for the full monty, though you can get it for $250 at Amazon and other places), or the price Apple charges for Xcode ($5.00 or free, depending on the phase of the moon) compared to what Microsoft charges for Visual Studio Professional ($590 MSRP).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A long winded article that basically calls at issue Microsoft risk taking changes with Windows 8. I think OP would be happy if Windows 8, was just Windows 7.5 - change is scary.</comment>


Alarm Spreads in Brazil Over a Virus and a Surge in Malformed Infants - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/world/americas/alarm-spreads-in-brazil-over-a-virus-and-a-surge-in-malformed-infants.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10786492](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10786492)

<comment><AUTHOR> Dang, thanks.</comment></comment>


Google patent: Glue would stick pedestrian to self-driving car after collision - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/drive/ci_29905115/google-patent-protects-pedestrians-from-self-driving-cars <comment><USER2> Sounds like premise of a minigame in GTA or Saints Row games: Who can collect 10 pedestrians in shortest time!

</comment><comment><USER3> Suddenly, the phrase "like a bug on the windshield" gains new level of meaning

</comment><comment><USER4> "Get this person to the hospital ASAP!"

"We can't, he's still stuck to the car so we'll have to wait another half an hour."

Yeah, that really sounds like an excellent idea.

<comment><USER5> just drive the car to hospital..

<comment><USER6> The car is on fire.

<comment><USER5> presumably from a flaming pedestrian

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Getting a patent with no real intent of building a product should not be possible.</comment>


Look out Google: Disconnect says its no-track search tool is taking off - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2013/10/09/look-out-google-disconnect-says-its-no-track-search-tool-is-taking-off/ <comment><USER2> Duck Duck Go has become habitual for me, and it works great 99% of the time.</comment>


Mass random Negative seo? - <AUTHOR>

Hello, I have a website that been getting a bunch of random spam links pointing to one random blog post on my website. The links come from spammy guestbook pages and blog comments...like so
The links poitning to my website are found in comments and posts like so..
fgkdjsw gwbho gtrewoij tgrhwkjm tghjk wht thrwk thwoij thrbj trhgj trhgjm i43 rtighj
Every second randomly generated rubbish links to a different website. And after investigating the autoapprove guestbooks and blog a little I found out that who ever is creating these links are doing it on a big scale with tons more of these comments being posted with a bunch more random website being linked to on them. So far I havent received many of these links and my website has not been effected thus far. (In ahrefs i will occasionally notice a new spam link pop up thta been created... so link by link im getting more and more over time) The other websites I have found in the comments being linked to on ahrefs seem to have a lot more of these links being created over a much longer time period and are now dominating their link profile with tons of garbage... These websites are not even in the same niche as mine... there just random websites.. some are just garbage websites anyway and some are charities and legit websites.
Is some one doing mass negative seo randomly just to spite google or the internet? Or is it someone using automated software and just thinks I have given them a link in the comments or something on my blog post (I haven't)?
Or with many seo software nowadays spammers can add random links from the search results to make posts look more natural?
My website is 1 year old and doesn't have that many links anyway so these spam links will soon add up destroying my business...
(No no I didnt make them myself why would anyone?)
Someone is making these spam links... <comment><USER2> I have no idea why those links are being made, but you can take steps to try to stop them affecting your site:

First, register the website with Google Webmaster Tools (GWT) - [http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/](http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/)

Then use Google's disavow links tool to tell Google you don't want them to take any notice of the spammy links to your site.

The tool - [https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/disavow-links- main](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/disavow-links-main)

A help page about disavowing links - [https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en)

Note that you can add comments in to the disavow file, mention in there that you have no idea who set the links up or why.

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe it is someone working for a competitor trying to raise their links by getting everyone above them blacklisted by search engines?</comment>


Crew.co sold to Dribbble - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mikaelcho/we-just-sold-crew-to-dribbble-b69a360da30b <comment><USER2> Dribbble is owned by tiny.website and they own a good part of the design market. It seems the really want to corner the design market, given how many designers use Unsplash, the product that Crew made.</comment>


Cyber Monday sets new mobile sales record as iOS tops Android - <AUTHOR> http://sdt.bz/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=66434&page=1 <comment><USER2> I have never figured out why iOS converts at a much higher rate than android. Is it just a more affluent customer base?</comment>


What I learned from the first VC check I wrote - <AUTHOR> https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-did-i-learn-from-the-first-vc-check-i-ever-wrote-f93267f52fc7 <comment><USER2> Mark has some really great advice and insight, I've always found it to be useful - especially related to B2B sales. I've also pitched him before.

That being said, I'd love to see a retrospective on the check they cut to uBeam. I believe you learn more from your mistakes than from your wins; he surely learned a bit from that investment.

</comment><comment><USER3> > What Invoca allows the call center is even more power than that. We allow > them to know whether you spent time on their website (or competitor's > websites) prior to the call and we allow them in real-time to know much more > than the key words of a Google search because in real-time we evaluate the > query in the call for the sales rep and use AI to help predict what your > needs are or were (after the call).

Creepy af.

Question to investors and VCs: Assuming that all decisions are based on calculations of financial risk vs reward statistics, from where would you expect signals that something is a bad idea to show up in your decision making meetings and slides? For example, assume you were an investor in 17th century Europe and a business you were considering was essentially the african slave trade. If you were, let's assume, participating today in something equivalent, how would you expect indications that something is probably "financially profitable but should not be done" to show up in the processes, documents and decision making that happens in your firm as it works today?</comment>


Facebook's plan for radical transparency was too radical - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90412518/facebooks-plan-for-radical-transparency-was-too-radical <comment><USER2> Maybe it was just lip service and their heart was never in it. Facebook makes money by making it possible to advertise to specific individuals based on the psychographic profiles they create (including people who aren't even on Facebook). Getting called before Congress and being angrily shouted at by lawmakers isn't fun but I suspect Facebook would sooner allow itself to go out of business than to allow the process by which they make the sausage to become public because it's the difference between looking for a new job and looking for someplace to hide.</comment>


Using Amazon S3 to host a static copy of your site - <AUTHOR> http://www.cykod.com/blog/post/2009-09-using-s3-to-host-a-static-copy-of-your-site

<comment><USER2> Why did you skip the final step? You were like 90 seconds away from having it deployed on CloudFront, and thus quickly served anywhere in the world on a real Content Delivery Network.

It would have taken something on the order of one right-click in your S3 organizer of choice, followed by a CNAME record.

S3 has about 300-800ms latency on average. CloudFront's latency is 46ms. (exactly, every single time, 46ms. It's spooky).

So close... and yet so far!

<comment><USER3> Additionally, Cloudfront is cheaper than S3!

<comment><USER4> Unless I'm missing the sarcasm, you still pay for your S3 usage when you're using CloudFront.

<comment><USER5> As I understand it not every request will hit S3, only cache misses on the edge servers.

"Amazon CloudFront uses Amazon S3 as the origin server to store the original, definitive versions of your files. Normal fees will apply for Amazon S3 usage, including "origin fetches" – data transferred from Amazon S3 to edge locations."

<comment><USER2> All together, it comes in as a little less than double the cost of S3 alone. Here are a my observed numbers (for cost and performance, respectively):

[http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/2009/01/cloudfront- cos...](http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/2009/01/cloudfront-costs- compared-to-s3.html)

[http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/2008/11/cloudfront- per...](http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/2008/11/cloudfront-performance- numbers.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Do it for free using Google's App Engine and dry drop <http://drydrop.binaryage.com/> Here is my test blog running using that setup: blog.innovationpower.ca

<comment><USER7> What a hilarious abuse of the nice folks at GitHub and GAE! I guess it's the natural progression of those GitHub blogs that have been cropping up...

I'm not saying I won't try it--but I'll feel bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Note that from the article they never acutally _ran_ the site off of s3. They copied everything over but the big traffic spike never came.

IMHO, CloudFront would have been a smarter option, we've found that S3 has very volatile latency when serving files directly to end users over HTTP.

</comment><comment><USER9> better: use some ec2 instances (stock, or custom) and run squid front-proxy. It's just as easy to configure and you get cache sweeping and so on for free.

<comment><USER10> The advantage is price. If you're running two medium ec2 instances you're going to pay $288/month before bandwidth.

5GB of S3 storage is $0.75/month before bandwidth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why not just host the site on a scalable platform (Rackspace Cloud, MediaTemple, etc.) to begin with?</comment>