Google's New Office In Dublin - <AUTHOR> http://www.home-designing.com/2013/02/googles-new-office-in-dublin <comment><USER3> I've been thinking about how if you look at our culture as, well, a culture, then it's pretty sad how the places where most of us spend 8 hours a day are these miserable, depressing, stupidly ugly dungeons, with plastic fruit and noisy robots making battery-acid coffee. I imagine some future historian talking about the corporations of the second dark age to a horrified classroom. Then I have a cup of coffee and cheer up. Wouldn't mind working in this place.

<comment><USER4> It depends where the cup of coffee comes from.

I love the fact that their work environment is not limited to their desk and meeting rooms. You can select the environment that works the best for you, and that stimulates the qualities you require for a specific task (or just pick the one you like the most).

<comment><USER5> I agree... it seems like the fixed office could become a relic of the past. it used to be important that you were generally in your office... so people could find you or reach you on your extension, but with chat and email.. it seems less relevant.

<comment><USER6> More importantly, with the portable work stations available today. It used to be a big event to move desks. Now you can work in another floor, no need to take your bulky computer and all the cables and network configuration with you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What flashes through my mind when I see this type of corporate fetish, even it being Google, is that the future is much more likely to be version of Brave New World than 1984.

We consume not because we're told to, but because we want to. We become vehicles in an economic equation.

Something is unnerving about the fact so many of us feel privileged to have the ability to dedicate our lives to what is essentially an organization to make money. I know it stikes odd to think that's the only purpose of Google (it seems not to be) but it certainly is for a significant portion of the corporatocracy.

Those two factors combined (variables in an economic equation and we have blind faith in corporations) can undermine the basis of a free society whose goals go beyond the enrichment of a handful of shareholders.

<comment><USER8> Aren't individuals essentially organizations trying to make money? Perhaps we're not so different from corporations after all.

<comment><USER3> Everybody on Hacker News wants to make a wad of money so they can fuck off from corporate drudgery and play around -- there's an end goal, it's a rational process for most individuals, not a world-devouring cancer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some of the corporate speak on there is horrific. "We enable innovation" Ugh.

I'd probably shuffle off to a quiet, dimly lit corner somewhere with my headphones, and try to block out the intense primary colours and lack of sound insulation.

I must be getting old.

<comment><USER8> The picutres are sourced from here: [http://www.camenzindevolution.com/Works/Google/Google- Campus...](http://www.camenzindevolution.com/Works/Google/Google-Campus- Dublin)

So it's possible that the captions are added by the design firm rather than Google. (If you look at office pictures from <http://www.google.com/about/jobs/>, the tone of the surrounding copy seems different. Though perhaps still a little corporate :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Looks good, but do people really work on those "work pods" (for example, the red 'e' with the guy in a laptop)? Maybe a soft-skilled employee could (text writing, excel crunching, etc), but what about the developers at google? I couldn't let go some multi-monitor, confy chair setup to sit there...

<comment><USER11> I don't work at Google, but I've found that working from a different location in the office for some time helps me refocus during the day. So I sometimes just take my laptop, ssh to my desktop and go find a table/couch somewhere.

Also, multiple monitors are useful, but there are some programming tasks (like implementing an algorithm and writing some unit tests) where a laptop is fine.

<comment><USER12> He prob. means specifically the pods.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Kind of looks like they moved into an IKEA store.

<comment><USER14> I work in a factory. I wish my office looked like an IKEA store!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Negativity here, the pictures are horribly warped (possibly to capture more of the room in one shot) which gives a skewed perception of office sizes, and of course the people look staged. Could be actors, given the surreal-looking male/female distribution (or it's not a developer office). (not a sexist remark, just a comment on the poor male/female ratio in software development in general)

<comment><USER16> Indeed, the Dublin office is mostly sales (little or no eng) IIRC

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm pretty sure they've some Site Reliability Engineers over there too.

edit: As a fact I've got a couple of recruiters offering that position in Dublin.

<comment><USER17> Yep, but not in that building.

I prefer this one, though. It's cozy, and has engineer-oriented amenities like workshops. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why do googlers enjoy colorful environments when all of Google's web apps are so depressingly gray?

<comment><USER19> Presumably because the enterprises that Google sell to prefer the depressing grey.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Awesome design. They even built a stylised Trinity Library room if I'm not mistaken.

<comment><USER21> Ha, you are right!

(It's a photo on the right, under the musical keyboard and on top of the 'blue waves' photo)

See the original: [https://www.google.ie/search?q=trinity+library&um=1&...](https://www.google.ie/search?q=trinity+library&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&biw=1920&bih=953&sei=m28bUZa4FNOZhQfmxoGADA)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Read carefully young souls: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust>

<comment> nappy-doo Didn't get past the phone screen, eh?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> In case it isn't clear from the article, these pictures are actually from a number of different buildings. They're all together on the street, so it's still one "office", but only some of the pictures are from the newest building. We've been enjoying the rest for a while now :).

</comment><comment><USER24> In all the pictures I did not spot anyone holding an iPad.

</comment><comment><USER25> What I like best about promoting offices like these is not so much the decoration (although personally I like it, especially the library room), but the furthering of the idea that work can be accomplished anywhere -- not just at your desk.

I doubt there's much of a question as to whether the people at Google work hard and get a lot accomplished during their days. So you'd think that if such a productive company could accomplish that in a distributed (distributed meaning people working at places besides their desk) office, so could your more run-of-the-mill companies.

</comment><comment><USER26> I love the colors, but I can't wrap my brain around captions like "our bench marks are enabling highest efficiency with ultimate creativity". A desperate, naive part of me likes to think they are satire..

<comment><USER17> Ha.

If that was the engineering office, they would be. Since it's sales.. well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Google has always cool offices! I believe that's part of the his effort to attract the best talent. It seems a minor detail, but it connect with your emotions regarding being cool.

<comment><USER28> Talent goes to Mountain View, CA. Job openings outside of the United States only include babysitting the office with some added mundane tasks. Why? Because Google uses it's world network for dodging taxes.

<comment><USER21> What does other openings have to do with "world network for dodging taxes"?

Hint: not a lot. Other companies do it with having minimum offices or _none at all_

Several consultancies will happily open a "paper company" for you in Ireland or wherever you choose. No problem whatsoever

"Talent goes to Mountain View" [citation needed].

There are a lot of talent outside the US (V8 came from Germany, also Zurich, London and Dublin offices have technical openings, Australia, not to forget Belo Horizonte in Brazil) and inside the US (NY comes to mind)

Google's datacenters are spread across the world.

<comment><USER28> > What does other openings have to do with "world network for dodging taxes"?

Marketing.

> Several consultancies will happily open a "paper company" for you in Ireland > or wherever you choose. No problem whatsoever

Not every company is willing to spend this much on marketing.

> "Talent goes to Mountain View" [citation needed]

Read up on the story of Lars Bak.

> There are a lot of talent outside the US (V8 came from Germany, also Zurich, > London and Dublin offices have technical openings, Australia, not to forget > Belo Horizonte in Brazil) and inside the US (NY comes to mind)

Openings that have been "open" for many years. If you get through you will be moved to Mountain View, CA.

<comment><USER21> "Not every company is willing to spend this much on marketing."

You are overestimating the size of Google's (internal) marketing, and don't know how marketing is structured for companies like Google, also you seem to not understand how multinational tax structures work, so I won't explain any further.

"If you get through you will be moved to Mountain View, CA"

That's not what happened to several people that work or have worked at Google that I have personal knowledge of.

Some will go to MV of course, depending on area of work.

Lars Bak? "In 2004, Bak joined Google to work on the Chrome browser. He did not return to the United States"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Bak_(computer_programmer)>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Wow, nice to see the variety, but most of it is really tacky and tasteless, in my humble opinion. This is going to look really dated in 10 to 20 years.

<comment><USER30> They remodel the offices pretty frequently. Sometimes ... _too_ often, I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> There's something dangerous in such working conditions. It ends up being the place you spend most of your 24 hour per day allowance. If you are single and friendless this is perfect. If you have a family and friends outside of your work life - that is a shame because you'll see them less and less. There is a price for an in office bar, pool table, free food and amazing decor... hmm...

<comment> brown9-2 You seem to blame the office decoration for people wanting to spend most of their day in the office rather than the person making the decision to spend most of their day in the office.

<comment><USER31> Its not the decoration, but the culture. And if your life is lacking on the social department you might be tempted to compensate by working to oblivion instead of doing something wrong about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> All the money obviously spent elsewhere. And then, open space -- not even cubicles.

So sad.

Well, Google's quite successful, so who am I to judge? But... not my cup of tea. And, somehow, it puts me in mind of the crap customer support for "end users". I guess, in my experience, the more internal distraction, the less outward focus and attention.

So far, gains through automation keep Google on a winning pace. But, I wonder...

</comment><comment><USER33> Wow, impressive. But, to be honest, some part of my mind can't stop thinking: what a gigantic loss of money!

<comment><USER34> Stuff them all in a basement, or a hangar, in a "space efficient open floor plan that encourages team collaboration and communication" (read - <USER2> micromanagement, and cost saving). Who needs all that comfort, they should be toiling away, not enjoying themselves...

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Looks like a department store. I can't see myself working there at all.

</comment><comment><USER36> Check out the ones in Tel Aviv tambien:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-offices-in-tel- aviv-2...](http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-offices-in-tel-aviv-2013-2)

</comment><comment><USER37> Getting used to all that diverse furniture, I'd knock my shins a fair few times.

</comment><comment><USER38> It seems they went all big plan offices, no small offices at Google?

</comment><comment><USER39> Google, how about using some of those office colors and tones in your web interfaces instead of stark white everywhere? You wouldn't paint your walls all white so why must everything you do in the browser be on a white page?

</comment><comment><USER40> Are open plan rooms norm for google?

<comment><USER8> It's a mix, at least in NYC. Some teams have their own rooms, but more than 50% are out in the open. (The allocation seems to be random.)

On the floor where I work, they've installed devices designed to generate noise that makes the office seem quieter. (Or so I'm told.) It seems to work pretty well; there are a lot of people on the floor but I don't feel the need to listen to music unless I am really in the mood for music. When everyone goes home, it kind of sounds like a gurgling stream. Apparent but not distracting.

I don't really understand how it works, but considering I prefer to work from the office than from home, they must be doing something right.

<comment><USER41> It's probably generating "white noise" which covers the other noises. For example: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUwEiMNhOCM>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Nice, another tax dodging office in Europe. Just like the office in Amsterdam. I guess it's needed for the whole tax dodging network.

<comment><USER14> This is quite possibly the least cost-effective way to dodge taxes. Most companies only need a tiny office.</comment></comment>


Game Theory and Why Diplomatic Transparency is a Good Thing - <AUTHOR> http://sfard.posterous.com/game-theory-and-why-diplomatic-transparency-i

<comment><USER2> The author misses the key point of WikiLeaks: Assange doesn't which to make diplomacy public: he empowers any member of an organization to denounce its contradiction. According to a alarming report by the Washington Post, the current US Intelligence community employs more then two millions people — some who disagree with it and are ready to take risks like Manning. Countries with limited, empowered civil servants don't have anything to fear.

For instance, no nuclear engineer will even leak secret launch codes: why sabotage a project that your support? They might leak information about secret deals with nations that he believes his government shouldn't secretly associate with.

The goal of WikiLeaks (and this is why I commented here and not on the post itself) is communities like Zappos, where every worker is independent, criticizes freely, but agrees enough with the direction to remain loyal. What this prevents is having frustrated people like Manning approached by actual enemies, and have a similar access used for harm.

<comment><USER3> The nuclear launch codes actually were leaked a while back. It turns out they were all zeroes, and always had been. The folks in charge of choosing the launch codes didn't agree with the policy decision to have launch codes, and the folks who made the policy decision (McNamara I think) weren't authorized to know what they were.

But you're probably right that that leak wasn't by a nuclear engineer, since I doubt any of them were authorized to know the launch codes either.

I'm pretty sure that none of this is still classified.

<comment><USER4> You're talking about the PAL codes[0] which were, indeed, 00000000 for a long time. That's entirely separate from another set of 'launch codes' that the Commander in Chief is never far from[1].

[0] [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Permissive_Ac...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link) [1] [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nuclear_footb...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nuclear_football)

<comment><USER3> Thank you for clarifying!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Startup School and the Instigation of Entrepreneurship - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/31/startup-school-instigation/ <comment><USER2> _we should develop and promote a more deliberate practice of discovering passions worth pursuing and problems worth solving in a less haphazard way_

Sounds like someone who is tiptoeing right up to the edge of recommending a liberal arts education and then shying away. ;)

I understand the reluctance. If I were back in the time of my own college days, I'd encourage people to go to college and study miscellaneous stuff – and hang around with miscellaneous other people – as a way of broadening their minds. These days, with tuition having grown at huge annual rates for years, and the cost of a four-year degree exceeding the cost of an entire house, it's getting harder and harder for me to do so with a straight face.

I guess one cheap alternative is for us to keep trying to start interesting, miscellaneous conversations on sites like this one.

<comment><USER3> "Sounds like someone who is tiptoeing right up to the edge of recommending a liberal arts education and then shying away. ;)"

Emphasis on a _liberal arts_ education, as opposed to a _humanities_ education. A true liberal arts education is about broad exposure but many people interpret the term to mean a simple avoidance of math and hard sciences, which is a huge shame.

<comment><USER2> Oh, absolutely.

I'm not sure I'm actually prepared to endorse school _myself_ as the solution to the passion "problem". (I was being literal when I said that I expected the _article_ to do so; however, I'm not convinced that I agree with the article ;). But if I were to do so I'm counting the hard sciences as part of any well- rounded education.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which movie came the closest in predicting 2020? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I'd say not only did Idiocracy predict 2017, it'll probably also continue to be relevant in 2020.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is my computer a time machine, or am I correct in thinking that 2020 hasn't arrived yet?</comment>


A New Cold War Has Begun (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/07/a-new-cold-war-has-begun/ <comment><USER2> Due to decades of Deng Xiaoping's One Child Policy, China is a slow motion demographic car crash that's impossible to stop. China will "get old before it gets rich", and the days of 6% growth aren't coming back.

I recommend anyone interested in geopolitics and the world over the next 30 years to watch this lecture: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AvNT3vyzr0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AvNT3vyzr0)

It's the best overview of the future wealth and strength of brutal Chinese dictatorship that I've come across.

<comment><USER3> Chinese birthrates would have fallen anyways due to increasing education and prosperity.

The one child policy only accelerated the decline. When it was lifted, birthrates hardly budged.

Every developed country is a slow motion demographic car crash. China is in a bad position, I'll grant, because the CCP's legitimacy depends upon demographic dividend-scale growth rates when the dividend has already peaked. Democratic countries have pressure release valves built into their political systems that China lacks.

<comment><USER4> I think it's easy to say their "legitimacy" or "stability" depends on high growth rates, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. I would love to hear even one genuine expert on the subject make the case for a revolution in even the 30 years following a drop from insane growth back to earth.

<comment><USER5> China growth rate during recovery was actually depressed compared to several developing nations. So even the basic premise doesn't fit the actual data.

Long term compare the People's Republic of China (China) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) after the war based on per capita GDP and the mainland is still catching up. The CPP maintained power after completely wrecking the countries economy, so a period of stagnation seems unlikely to be a major issue. More recently you can see how the CPP is placing Hong Kong's economy as a lower priority than increased control.

While dictatorships like China can fall surprisingly quickly, I doubt slower growth is that critical of an issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >Because, in a very different way than the old Soviet system, the Chinese system—the more authoritarian it gets—is over time more prone to crack up than America's.

I don't understand: what does the author think the difference is? I may have read the article without enough attention but I didn't get it.

If anything, I got the idea it's less likely to crack.

<comment><USER7> I don't think China is going anywhere for at least a generation.

If you dig into the collapse of most countries/empires/super powers, they collapse from either:

\- External pressures - foreign influence through military/conquering, investment, or mass immigration. With the exception of Taiwan, China has been effective in reducing or at least controlling all of those. And even that may be cracking where you see groups like WHO refusing to even say the word "Taiwan." With the US and Russia tied up with other things, military is less likely an issue to.

\- Internal pressures - social strife due to mass deprivation (starvation, poverty in general) or mass immigration/tribalism. Once again, China has been effective here. They've raised the standard of living and disappeared most of the major dissenters. They've even reduced tribalism by isolating and disappearing huge minorities. Good? Absolutely not. Effective? Unfortunately.

Even the "One Child" policy seems to have led to less strife than predicted. While there are some places that have 140 men for every 100 women, those are the official numbers. It appears that under the policy, huge swathes of people just didn't report daughters being born. There's a generation of women who simply don't exist.

Based on the investment strategy (both nationally and corporately), China has gone all in on Africa for years. If I had to place a bet, they may effectively run/own Africa in a decade or two. If not in person, on paper.

<comment><USER8> _> It appears that under the policy, huge swathes of people just didn't report daughters being born. There's a generation of women who simply don't exist._

How do they work/travel/pay without ID?

<comment><USER9> US and UK have no official national id system...

So I guess, in the same way people in US and UK do.

Also remember that illegal work is not uncommon in every western country as well

If you're paid cash, you pay in cash

If you live and work in a small rural village in continental China, where girls have been hidden and everybody knows it, who's coming to check if you have an id or not?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The low-tech economies of China and America are integrated, but what about the high-tech ones? Can American companies create sub-apps on WeChat like Chinese ones can?

As far as I know, US-Soviet trade was not comparable in scale to US-China trade. Did a lack of trade prolong the Cold War of the 20th century?

<comment><USER11> Trade with the USSR was very difficult. There was no use for it outside the USSR and it was forbidden to leave the country. So you couldn't just buy things from other countries.

When pepsi started selling in the USSR they traded pepsi for Stolichnaya vodka. Enentually they traded old military equipment. [0]

[0] [https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/soviet-union-pepsi- shi...](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/soviet-union-pepsi-ships)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why does everything has to be a war with the US?

<comment><USER13> It so happens that whenever a country amasses more wealth than the US, they are maligned and considered evil. It happened in the 80s with Japan, and it is now happening with China. Except this time, the United States is broke. The US will Balkanize before anything happens to China.

<comment><USER14> It's probably the concentration camps, organ harvesting, and various other human rights violations, rather than the accumulation of wealth.

[https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/asia/xinjiang-china- reeducati...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/asia/xinjiang-china-reeducation- camps-intl/index.html)

[https://nypost.com/2019/06/01/chinese-dissidents-are- being-e...](https://nypost.com/2019/06/01/chinese-dissidents-are-being- executed-for-their-organs-former-hospital-worker-says/)

[https://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2019/09/04/7570898...](https://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2019/09/04/757089868/fentanyl-as-a-dark-web-profit-center-from-chinese- labs-to-u-s-streets)

<comment><USER12> There are many countries that do such things, but the US selectively chose who are the ennemy du jour, and most are not tagged as such. In fact, some of them are friends with the US.

What's more, I recall the US in the last 2 decades:

\- went to a war by lying about WMD and against the entire world (at least the world represented by the UN) will, killing thousands

\- deployed mass surveillance of its own people, introduced bypasses to Habeas corpus and legalized torture using the Patriot Act

\- elected a man that is at the center of so many Clinton-size scandals in a row it became the new normal

Now, I don't even begin to claim I have a superior country, mine has done many terrible things.

But let's not pretend the US (or any other superpower's) behavior has anything to do with morality. It's either naive or dishonest.

However, labelling everything with "war" is, indeed, a very American thing to do.

<comment><USER14> Whataboutism, I simply stated ongoing actions by the CCP that probably influence people to view them as evil.

It's up for people to decide what they view as acceptable, the history of every country is for the most part transparent these days.

Laundry listing things other countries do (I disagree they come close to the atrocities committed by the CCP) is not a great defense.

I listed CURRENT atrocities being committed by the CCP right now, you picked from our entire history that we as Americans have already expressed outrage (WMD's, etc)

I even left out surveillance because all countries seem to be spying on their citizens, though the CCP goes a lot further with no accountability because it's a dictatorship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Note: this article is from 2019. Perhaps the title could be updated to reflect this.

<comment><USER16> I was wondering why we're resurfacing such an outdated article aside from its headline-grabbing title. The US-China relationship has evolved a lot, and it doesn't cover major developments like the Hong Kong protests, national security bill, and coronavirus response.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > With the waning of the liberal world order, a more normal historical era of > geopolitical rivalry has commenced, and trade tensions are merely > accompaniments to such rivalry.

Background on "liberal world (economic) order":

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

</comment><comment><USER18> >For several decades, China's breakneck development was seen positively in the United States, and the relatively enlightened authoritarianism of Deng Xiaoping and his successors was easily tolerated

It was seen positively because our ruling caste of self-regarding morons thought China was more likely to become a liberal democracy as they became more prosperous and integrated with the world economy. An obvious delusion, even at the time. By contrast, the Chinese looked at what happened to Russia and decided to stick with totalitarianism in their economic development.

<comment><USER19> I think things are far from obvious, at the time, retrospectively, or even now. It's still early times for the Chinese revolution and I think there's still a good chance of China becoming more democratic in the next half a century. Xi is literally a child of the revolution and when that generation is gone, the middle classes will have no connection to the old guard.

<comment><USER18> I think the best you can hope for from China is Singapore -a business oriented Mosleyan fascism. Considering the lack of British influence there: this seems ridiculously optimistic to me. China will be Chinese.

Western "Democracy" doesn't appear to be some universal desire of peoples; it's as far as can be told from observation a particularist ideology of Anglo and Franco Europeans. Russia's flirtation with "Democracy" (basically, being a US satellite) ended up being chaotic gansterism accompanied by mass death, and they reverted to their historical mean of being run by a strong man and seem to be happier and better off for it.

<comment><USER19> Korea, Taiwan and Japan seem pretty happy with it. India, mostly, too. Then of course many smaller countries like Mauritius, Botswana...

<comment><USER18> South Korea with its long history of democracy dating from the early 90s... Had a little help from giant US embassies and military bases in the middle of it for the last 70 years. Imagine if it weren't a US "ally" what it would look like. The idea that things are the way they are today because of some inevitable movement of history rather than submission to pressures from the world hegemon; pretty sure that idea won't survive historical scrutiny.

I suppose I could be wrong though! Our state department informs me that I am wrong!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Begun? You have to be tonedeaf or willfully ignoring the amount of IP that Chinese corporate spies have outright stolen from North America over the last few decades.

Let's be honest - we have strong cyber security considerations because of very few, but very known bad actors. China is near the top of that list and has been for awhile.

Nevermind all the other security considerations.</comment>


The best time to schedule an interview, look for a new job, start freelancing - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/career/87676/10-common-it-career-questions <comment><USER2> This is crazy:

 _"Go spend a dollar on a thank you card. It has to be a custom note, with a reference to something about the interview you enjoyed, something you appreciated, or something about the company. I think everybody sends an email, but adding that personal touch goes a long way."_

Maybe it's different in other countries, but in the UK if you did that, it would absolutely guarantee that the interviewer would consider you a bit deranged and certainly unemployable. Probably sectionable.

<comment><USER3> Are you serious? A written "thank you for the interview" note might be uncommon in the US but it's pretty much conventional interview wisdom. And if it is uncommon that's all the more reason to do it: you'll stand out.

Do you truly think a written thank you note would be a negative in the UK?

When I interview candidates for anything but relatively entry level positions I'll generally write off a candidate that doesn't bother to at least send a follow up email. The interview process is among the most personally significant forms of professional communication. If you're not thorough and don't take the initiative to follow up when interviewing, how are you going to behave when you have much less of a personal stake in the matter? (This is, by the way, also a good reason to make sure your resume/cv is as perfect if you can make it. If you don't bother to proofread your resume, what is your business communication going to look like?)

<comment><USER2> _Do you truly think a written thank you note would be a negative in the UK?_

As someone who interviews a lot, yes, definitely. It is wildly inappropriate. Pre-hiring, apart from the actual interviews obviously, every interaction with a candidate has to go through HR. If a candidate tracked me down and sent me a handwritten note I would probably tell Security to never let them back into the building!</comment></comment></comment>


"Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900" - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153190864139878 <comment><USER2> If you read the caption, the real issue here is a horrible abuse of the rent control law. When the renter signed their lease, the unit was covered by rent control, putting very tight restrictions on rent increases and evictions. However, the landlord then essentially destroyed the other unit in the building so that they could reclassify the building as a single-family home instead of a multi-unit building. Single-family homes are not covered by the rent control law.

This should obviously not be legal; if you're going to have a rent control, you can't let landlords take a unit that should have rent control and make it not rent controlled. At the very least, these kinds of changes shouldn't allow the landlord to escape an active rent control obligation to a current tenant.

<comment><USER3> OTOH, how much can you restrict the property owner? What if the other unit needed to be knocked down for a reason other than to get rid of rent control? Would it be OK for the law to tell the owner to fix it some other way? What if both units were destroyed in a natural disaster and a new structure had to be built from nothing? Is that still rent-controlled?

Also, is rent control even a good idea? In the short term, it obviously protects a renter from the market running away from them. In the long term it seems to create artificial conditions which eventually blow up in everyone's face. Imagine a plan where the current renters had a viable alternative. Now drop all rent control laws and let the market correct itself. Lower income renters move out, higher income families move in. Rent goes up higher. Newly moved in renters realize that they are paying 10x as much as the rest of the country, leave. Rent goes down. The market has corrected itself and all is well. What am I missing?

<comment><USER4> What you're missing is that housing is not a normal good.

Sure, there is a housing marketplace, which can provide some correction. But houses are also homes. People are born in them. People die in them. They love them, they cherish them, they fight for them. There's a lot of truth in the saying, "Home is where the heart is."

What you're missing in that scenario is the large number of people who are displaced not just from their fungible, replaceable housing unit, but their home, their neighborhood, their family, and perhaps their city and their job.

Note also there are substantial class issues in the sentence, "Lower income renters move out, higher income families move in." The notion that poor people should take it on the chin because rich people covet their homes is not politically neutral. One could just as well say that it's the rich people, more able to cope, that should bear the burden of market fluctuations.

So I don't think, "is rent control even a good idea" is the right question. It's more like, "Are there more effective ways than rent control to reduce the harm?"

<comment><USER5> You can use the same argument for any good or service. Tear something away from a person and you can absolutely traumatize them. It can be a teddy bear for a little kid, a car for an adolescent, your laptop, you get the idea.

You can't legislate life into some gentle state. It is what it is. You can, however, smooth out the bumps.

Unfortunately, rent control does the exact opposite. It creates stupidity like this. Where a landlord has to use a lawyer to increase the rent 4X, which is insane on a number of levels. That is one hell of a bump in the road.

Get rid of rent control and prices will be stable. Yes, they will be higher for some, lower for others, but they'll be stable.

<comment><USER6> _You can 't legislate life into some gentle state._

So you don't believe laws against crime?

 _You can use the same argument for any good or service._

None of the things you mentioned have the universality of a home, which strikes almost everyone, regardless of demographic. Those who aren't adversely affected by not having a home are notable for being extreme outliers. As wpietri said, housing is not a normal good.

<comment><USER7> A better way for him to have put it would have been: "Just like the Indiana state legislature can't by statute declare pi to be 3.14, San Francisco cannot repeal the law of supply and demand".

Rent control or not, the law of supply and demand still applies; it just expresses itself in more dysfunctional and unproductive ways.

 _That 's_ the problem with rent control. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the public policy goal of getting people affordable housing trumps the rights of property owners. But they can't disagree about how many digits are in pi, or about whether rent control works. It doesn't work. It harms everyone in the market except for a lucky subset of tenants.

<comment><USER8> "Rent control or not, the law of supply and demand still applies... or about whether rent control works. It doesn't work."

Without rent control, I'm pretty sure that a LOT more people would be pushed out of San Francisco. It seems to me that places like San Francisco, New York, and a few other places are not typical of what other areas experience. I know it's fashionable amongst the libertarian set to blame problems on regulation, but there is much more going on here than simple rent control.

<comment><USER9> The general response from economists seems to be that rent control suppresses growth in the supply of housing that could otherwise address the cost of housing.

<comment><USER10> Zoning suppresses growth in the supply of housing. Of course, that doesn't mean that zoning is bad by definition. Instead of artificially keeping building height low, you could mandate new buildings have at least so many stories.

San Francisco's problem seems to be that they can't possibly build enough housing to meet market demands without revising zoning restrictions in ways that would make current home owners angry.

<comment><USER7> Zoning _also_ suppresses growth in the supply of housing, but so does rent control. People don't build apartment buildings out of altruism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a perfect example of why rent control is a terrible system that leads to market inefficiencies and worse outcomes for a community. The law has made it more profitable for this landlord to remove housing stock and charge market rate for the remaining unit than to rent out both units in the building under rent control laws. Cities with low vacancy rates like SF need to rethink their approach to housing if they want to remain attractive places to live.

<comment><USER12> If not for rent control, my studio apartment would be over $3,000 a month. Everyday I thank rent control.

<comment><USER13> So what? Why do you think you should get to live somewhere highly desireable at a below market rate?

<comment><USER14> Many people think they should be able to live in a place they can afford with the reasonable expectation that it will be their home for the foreseeable future. Many benefits, to both the economy and society at large, come from ensuring the populace in general is able to find stable housing. While San Francisco's rent control may be too stringent for its own good, there are many reasons to support a more reasonable rent stabilization policy in a jurisdiction with unstable rental prices.

<comment><USER15> Rent control increases the pressure on the housing market by increasing the price of rent for non-rent controlled properties and reducing incentives to create more supply.

Brief overview from Krugman from 2000 but plenty more research out there on the topic. [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a- rent-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent- affair.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Here is the home: [http://www.trulia.com/homes/California/San_Francisco/sold/71...](http://www.trulia.com/homes/California/San_Francisco/sold/7118191-355-Bocana- St-San-Francisco-CA-94110)

Taxes are 11,043 with a value of 904,085. $2145 looks like an EXTREMELY low rent for a house of this size in San Francisco. (half of the rent is just property taxes.) The landlord was likely losing money keeping it rented at $2145 even if he owned it free and clear.

<comment><USER17> > 1 full bath, 1,900 sqft Single-Family Home

> a value of $904,085

I understand the nature of supply and demand and the appeal of living in an area full of like minded people, but as someone in a flyover state, this absolutely blows my mind.

<comment><USER18> Shoot, in the Midwest I have an apartment with about that much square footage, two full baths, and I think I'm getting ripped off at $1400/mo. Did I mention I moved in less than a year ago, and was the first resident in the building, so it's brand new?

I understand San Francisco is the home of technology, but get your stuff sorted out, seriously. Is it worth being in a city that absolutely hates you? A city that would do anything to make your lives miserable? I wonder what would happen if Apple and Google packed up and moved to, I dunno, Milwaukee?

<comment><USER19> I lived in Chicago before moving to SF a few years ago, and I can't imagine ever going back. There is an argument about jobs, people, and companies that's complex, but people pay so much for so little space because it really is that valuable. The weather is near perfect year round, the food/beer/wine is astounding, the landscape is glorious, and so on. Midwest winters, particularly as climate change is making them worse, would be enough to keep me here, but my quality of life has gone up in about every other way possible.

People pay the premium because it really is that good. If a big tech company decided to move to Milwaukee, every other tech company would just soak up all the people lost.

<comment><USER18> Is the weather, food/beer/wine, and landscape really that much better than Santa Cruz? Is it that much better than Raleigh? Or Austin? Or any other city that isn't San Francisco?

Besides the benefits you might get from SF, let's be realistic: the city doesn't want you. It doesn't want any of you. The only benefit you're getting is the people who moved there just like you, and the city doesn't want them, either. If they wanted you, they would let you build houses, or let you run buses without getting rocks thrown at you. They would welcome you and do what it takes to make your stay pleasant.

I don't live in SF, but I frequent HN so I hear all the stories. If half of what I hear here is true, you're a bunch of people living in a city where you have massively overstayed your welcome. And it seems like no one has realized it yet.

Please, tell me I'm wrong. Take a look at your rent, at your city policies, your Senator, and at the people around you (not the tech workers, but the other residents of SF), take a look at them and tell me I'm wrong. I don't want to be right, but that's the only impression I can get from stories like this.

<comment><USER20> I think the people "that don't want you" are a small, although vocal, minority of San Francisco. Most San Franciscans prefer gentrification and tech workers to slums and everything that entails. The silent majority, is just that- silent. There is construction happening all over the city now, I think people are starting to "get it"\- if you want lower rents, you have to build more hosing.

I've been in SF since I was 9 years old, so feel that I can comment as a near native.

<comment><USER18> What about the recent story here where the Mountain View politicians were saying they wouldn't build houses for Google employees because they didn't want Google employees voting in their city? And Dianne Feinstein is still your senator...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I just don't see the news here.

It's totally legal, and done all the time: it's why people lease houses rather than go month to month.

It's not a reflection of the market in SF. This happens everywhere a landlord who isn't getting on with their month-to-month tenants and want them out, for whatever reason. It happened to me in 2005. It's not a necessarily a reflection of anything outside of the personal situation of the poster, and their relationship with their landlord.

If this had happened anywhere but SF, there wouldn't be the flurry of hysterical outrage that's exploding on Twitter and Facebook: there would be crickets.

<comment><USER22> They converted the other unit in the building to storage (after hassling that tenant out).

I don't think it's anything like 'isn't getting on', the landlord wants to convert the building to some other use and simply doesn't care about the tenants, which isn't the same as finding them disagreeable or whatever (one imagines they might want to do something like sell it as a private home).

<comment><USER23> You really think they will keep it as storage? Once the remaining tenant is out they will renovate everything and rent both units again.

<comment><USER24> I feel for the renter, but shouldn't the landlord be able to do whatever they want with their property?

Rent is going way up because there aren't enough homes in sf for the amount of people who want to live there. The city is to blame for this problem. Why is sf such a flat city? There should be a lot more tall condo buildings but as I've read it seems the city blocks any structure over 4 stories.

Raising rent will cause lots of low income people in sf to have to move. That's not a good thing--but what is the answer here? How do other large cities deal with this problem?

<comment><USER25> > shouldn't the landlord be able to do whatever they want with their property?

Not under current SF rent control laws. The issue here is how the landlord is skirting around the law by making space unusable.

<comment><USER24> It is the law, but to utilize their property how they see fit they have to use a loop hole.

The city is basically making land owners give section 8 rent welfare to tenants, in a bid to keep the city affordable to long time residents during a housing shortage. You'd hope that the city would open up building more high rise housing (high end) to open up more space for the lower end of the community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Build more houses. None of this shit would happen if SF would just build more houses.

<comment><USER27> Ironically, rent control is exactly why there is so little housing available in SF. Iirc, only 30% of the voting population owns property. So how is it that the rest of us (70%) don't vote to build more? Well, because 3/4 renters are under rent control, and essentially don't care. So only 70%/4 < 30% of people are motivated to push the market towards more housing. The rest profit handsomely from increased home prices due to high demand. This is the real tragedy of rent control in San Francisco IMO.

Edit: source: [http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-San-Francisco- apartm...](http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-San-Francisco-apartments- are-under-rent-control)

<comment><USER28> Funny thing is that rent control is one of these issues that is non controversial among economists, from the most Keynesians to the most libertarians, they all agree that it's a bad idea. In fact, socialist economist from Sweden Assar Lindbeck said: "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.".

Rent control is usually pushed by ruthless politicians to buy votes and end up being catastrophic for the cities victim of such policies.

<comment><USER29> Yep, even Paul Krugman thinks rent control is a bad idea: [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a- rent-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent- affair.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Landlord finds loophole to end rent control on a unit. Shocker.

To those who say it's unfair to the landlord to force rent control on them I say two things:

1\. Yes it is. There are cases when legally allowed rents are below the taxes the landlord needs to pay. If the government really thinks affordable housing is a public good, let the government build or buy apartment buildings and offer it rather than having forced income distribution essentially; and

2\. To the landlords: it's not so funny when the shoe's on the other foot is it? I'm talking of course about Prop 13. This allows long term owners to pay basically nothing in property taxes with those taxes only resetting when the property is sold.

So the state of California screwed up in creating rent control and Prop 13. Great. Repeal them both.

The problem with massive rent control is it creates a dysfunctional market and a huge disincentive to rent out or build new housing supply [1].

New York City ended issuing new rent control leases in 1973. There are very few left. NYC has a functional housing market (in comparison). There are affordable places to live 30 minutes from Manhattan thanks to pretty good infrastructure.

SF specifically and South Bay in general are basically an object lesson in NIMBYism gone insane.

Honestly, the sooner the startup figures out that the only thing the Valley has got going for it is the weather because everything else sucks, the better.

[1]: [http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/San- Francisc...](http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/San-Francisco- rent-control-contributes-to-housing-6010287.php)

<comment><USER31> > There are cases when legally allowed rents are below the taxes the landlord > needs to pay.

This does not happen in California. Prop 13 ensures it. Property taxes pretty much never increase. One of the ways that they do is when a property changes hands.

Either this landlord purchased the property with the intent of kicking out the tenants whose rent he _knew_ would be less than the re-assessed property tax, or he's being a dickbag and is throwing out a tenant because he feels that he deserves more money from his long-term investment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > The few of us who still remain in San Francisco have no choice but to live > in sub-par conditions like mold, windows that don't shut, rodents and > countless other issues because there is no other choice, because the rents > are so high you can't move so you don't.

Yes. But the solution isn't more rent controls. That just increases the gap in price between market-rate apartments and rent-controlled apartments. This makes it even harder to move, and it further increases the incentives for landlords not to maintain their rent-controlled apartments or pull stunts like this.

The solution is to add supply to meet demand. We should be furious at the forces that have kept supply in SF so absurdly low.

<comment><USER33> The rent control creates the mold and stuck windows. That's the point.

Supply is the answer. You cannot increase the number of people living in a city without increasing housing stock.

Build, build, build. It is the only answer.

<comment><USER31> I totally agree that SF needs to build like crazy. Every new residential construction that goes up fills me with a little joy. :)

> The rent control creates the mold and stuck windows. That's the point.

Bullshit.

1) Friends down the block from me live in a tall "market rate" tower that is in substantially poorer condition than the rent-controlled building that I call home.

2) In SF, stuck windows and mold are must-repair items for landlords, regardless of rent control status. If you as a tenant can't get satisfaction from your landlord, do the repair yourself and present him with a bill. The law guarantees that you'll be reimbursed in circumstances like these.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> YC sings the praises of San Fransisco, and they're right about the culture and the startup scene there. But things like this, and the cost of living overall, make me hesitate to start something out there.

<comment><USER35> Me too, I have yet to graduate from college but things like that make me feel that I should stay in Waterloo (Canada).

<comment><USER36> <waves from Austin>

<comment><USER37> </waves from Austin>

<thumbsup city="Austin"/>

<thumbsup city="Seattle"/>

<comment><USER38> portland is also quite nice....

<comment><USER39> shhhh! It's a secret

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> So, there's no mention of the tenant's salary in this story. Does rent control in SF or the US in general not stipulate that rent control is also a function of the tenant's ability to pay? Here, in The Netherlands, this is an important criterion in determining what the maximum increase is in rent for a given property [1].

My general understanding of the law in The Netherlands based on having rented once during university is that it heavily favours tenants. The bottomline is that no one is allowed to end up on the street, with the main exception being if the landlord is in dire financial straits. Apart from that, the law sides with the tenant. This even goes to the extent that fixed-term contracts are more or less useless, because if a tenant doesn't want to leave, they don't have to.

Is it considered reasonable in SF that the tenant will be able to find alternative accommodation within 60 days?

[1] [http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/huurwoning/huurverho...](http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/huurwoning/huurverhoging) (Laws on rental increase in The Netherlands in Dutch)

[2] [https://www.jurofoon.nl/huren/huurovereenkomst-voor- bepaalde...](https://www.jurofoon.nl/huren/huurovereenkomst-voor-bepaalde- tijd.asp) (Fixed-term contract rules for housing in Dutch)

<comment><USER15> if only SF rent control was linked to the income of the renter! Plenty of well paid engineers and execs living in significantly below market apartments when they could easily afford market-priced housing.

If the aim is to create affordable housing for low income earners, rent control is not the solution.

<comment><USER31> Most new places (and some old places in desirable areas) in SF are going for ~$3000->$4000/month.

In order to cover $3000/month rent, average power, internet access, and $400/week spending cash, you need to gross _$100k /year_.

If you pull in less than that, then you run out of money and get evicted. Notice that no provision has been made for savings.

I know of a great many programmers working for successful Bay Area companies who would just _barely_ have enough money to pay market rents on their apartment.

<comment><USER15> Here's the thing - imagine what it's like if you're making median income in the city of $75k. Or if you're one of the thousands of service workers who are earning sub-$50k yet people on $100k+ also get access to $1000pm apartments.

Doesn't make sense if we're trying to achieve equality (I still don't know what it's really trying to achieve - some kind of nativism)

There is an argument that removing rent control would actually reduce the price of rent through San Francisco but it would take a few years to stabilize.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> This person should be grateful they were able to live in a place in such high demand so cheaply due to unfair rent control laws. If a 4x increase in rent is bearable by the market then it's not a sign of landlord greed, it's a sign of a broken system. I'm sure if this person was offered the opportunity to make an extra 5k a month with little to no change in effort on their part they would do so and be offended if people labelled them as "greedy." I support some form of rent control but if you are in a situation where there is that large of a gap between market rates and tenant rent then things are fucked -- you are basically creating a privileged class: those who managed to lock up rent controlled space as tenants.

<comment><USER42> > If a 4x increase in rent is bearable by the market then it's not a sign of > landlord greed, it's a sign of a broken system.

It's not bearable by the market. $2145 is low but market rate is nowhere near $8900 for a place like this; not even half that. This is clearly an attempt to force the tenant out with an inflated rate.

I'm not going to comment on either sides rights here but this rate is not simply "what the market will bear".

<comment><USER43> Can we really even say what "market rate" is anymore?

<comment><USER42> Good question, but the maps and figures released by the rental companies usually put it in the $3000-some range, plus or minus depending on area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The reason this article is trending at the top of HN is the reason this person is going through this. The idea that great start-ups must exist on an 47 sq mile piece of land with utterly mediocre weather (the literal definition of mediocre, that is - one many of us love, myself included) in perfect coexistence with a quaint aging population below the poverty line, drug addicts, and the last generation that sought to live there in the last boom is patently absurd.

Why so many globally reaching, internet based, in every home in the world companies think that they absolutely must be positioned in the mecca of startupdom is why I just can't take my own career seriously for too long. There's no reason we all need to be on that tiny peninsula! If you need to be there for "reach to investors", "proximity to the startup culture", guess what, your product probably sucks. If it were any good, you could do it from anywhere, without having to sit on the great lords of tech investment's front door begging every day.

You want to disrupt something? Why not start with disrupting the idea that being part of "start-up culture" is required to be successful.

<comment><USER45> I think people go to San Francisco for the 20-30 year old girls, not the aging population or drug addicts.

<comment><USER46> Nobody moves to San Francisco looking for girls.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Contrary to popular belief, there are other places to live than San Francisco. Almost all of them are more affordable. If you don't want to pay absurd cost of living, move. There are in fact jobs in other parts of the world.

</comment><comment><USER48> Rent control seems monumentally stupid.

In Australia, the government owns houses and rents them out to people cheaply. The owners of the house are compensated when the house is bought.

It seems insane that owners of a property should be expected to keep rent artificially low to help poor people.

This is the government's job.

But then, in America, you guys don't trust the government to do anything like house, educate and heal people.

Go figure.

<comment><USER49> > But then, in America, you guys don't trust the government to do anything > like house, educate and heal people.

Or fight wars or manage finances. Because there is strong precedence that the government is pretty bad at these things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> This was almost certainly illegal.

Removing dwelling units in SF (as they did to the downstairs neighbor's flat) almost always requires a public hearing. See [http://www.sf- planning.org/index.aspx?page=2816](http://www.sf- planning.org/index.aspx?page=2816)

(via [https://twitter.com/markasaurus/status/577252542419062784](https://twitter.com/markasaurus/status/577252542419062784) )

</comment><comment><USER51> "(2) Effective May 5, 2015, the security deposit amount required shall increase to $12,500 per month."

Is this a typo? I have never heard of a monthly security deposit.

<comment><USER52> I think it is just a scary way of stating that you must have $12,500 deposited with the owner for the entire month you are leasing. It just rolls over each month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> They want to sell the house. This is their way of kicking people out without explicitly doing so.

</comment><comment><USER54> While this is inconvenient for the tenant, it's not unfair. Rent control is unfair. Now, with the proceeds, the landlord might invest in new flats which will mean more housing for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER55> "the security deposit [...] shall increase to $12,500 per month"

Can someone explain what this means? I've never had to pay a security deposit _per month_. That must be a copy + paste error?

<comment><USER56> The numbers are just there to make it impossible to pay. They want the tenant out so they can sell the house.

<comment><USER55> I get that. But the concept of a security _deposit_ is that you get it back when you leave, so long as you haven't damaged the place. Having to pay an additional security deposit each month doesn't make logistical or logical sense. Do they hand you a check for $1M when you leave after ten years? Does the number of damageable surfaces in the apartment increase each month?

<comment><USER56> Not necessarily. I've had security deposits where only a certain percentage is refunded after any necessary deductions. Depends on what they signed in the lease. But still, it was never designed to actually be collected, just a number to scare someone away. Not much more to look into it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Is that legal? In NYC, there are laws in place to limit the amount a landlord can raise rent.

<comment><USER58> Yes, it is almost certainly legal.

The other option landlords always have is to withdraw the unit from the market. You can Ellis Act anyone you want; the price you pay is $18k per person or so plus waiting 366 days, and a stained title. You can still renovate then TIC the building though, and you'll find plenty of takers.

ps -- having been in a legal fight with an sf landlord, the fact of the matter is despite all the pretty bullshit sf claims, there are vanishingly few actual tenant protections that work against a malicious landlord. At best, you can leave and sue after the fact, but be prepared to spend years on a fight.

@harry: an ellis act eviction, or other no-fault evictions, permanently prevents the building from utilizing the 2-unit lottery bypass to condo the building, so it will have to remain a TIC. TICs have a variety of negative implications, including complicating mortgages. The lottery, which is still necessary for larger units, is suspended until 2024.

see eg [http://www.andysirkin.com/HTMLArticle.cfm?Article=158](http://www.andysirkin.com/HTMLArticle.cfm?Article=158)

and

[http://www.andysirkin.com/HTMLArticle.cfm?Article=219](http://www.andysirkin.com/HTMLArticle.cfm?Article=219)

<comment><USER59> What do you mean by "stained title"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I'm coming very late to this (540 comments and counting), but I do want to make one point about the term "NIMBY". While it's a reasonable observation about housing politics, it does invite potentially false equivalence. A kind of equivalence is built into the term itself - "not in my backyard" means everyone recognizes something is needed, but nobody wants it near them. In this case, everyone wants to live in the low density section of a high density area.

Still, this term encompasses everyone from bernal heights hippies who want to keep density at 18,311/sq mi to atherton billionaires who want to keep it at 1,400. It includes noe valley "activists" who don't want to tear down 100 year old houses and mountain view city council members who voted to allow massive new corporate construction bringing tens (hundreds?) of thousands of new workers to their region but specifically banned new residential construction near those places of business.

All in all, yeah, I hear you on the noe/bernal/mission activists. They are a bit nimbytastic, no doubt. But to me, the actions of the anti-housing forces in some peninsula towns are such an order of magnitude worse (and are causing many of the problems you see in SF) that simply applying the NIMBY label to both without further analysis is an exercise in false equivalence.

</comment><comment><USER61> It's an incredible statement on the depth of the bay area talent pool and VC money network that so much tech concentrates in such a tiny place (and thus drives up the rent, as in the article). Nowhere else in the world can compete.

It's not for lack of trying. Louisiana, for example, will pay 35% of a programmers salary indefinitely[1]; other states and cities have similar programs. That's serious competition. But the talent/money vortex of the bay area is not just winning, it's actually _getting stronger_.

The other areas with real companies, like Austin, Seattle, and New York, still feel like also-rans compared to SF and the valley. If you want to raise money, it's still the place to go.

It's just incredible to think about. Is there any other field where there's just one geographical place that's just so far ahead of anywhere else? Especially fields like biotech, where geography isn't directly related to the business?

[1]: [http://gnoinc.org/about/digital-media- incentive/](http://gnoinc.org/about/digital-media-incentive/)

</comment><comment><USER62> This would be an excellent time to:

1\. Contact a tenants-rights attorney.

2\. Familiarize yourself with housing law and mediation.

In San Francisco, the latter is covered under the San Francisco Rent board: [http://sfrb.org/](http://sfrb.org/)

The former can be located via the San Francisco Tenants' Union: [http://www.sftu.org/](http://www.sftu.org/)

</comment><comment><USER63> I find it interesting that we can, with almost 95%+ success, determine who on these threads owns Real Estate in San Francisco, versus those who don't.

There are admittedly some comments that are in the margins, but the number of false positives/negatives is probably pretty close to zero.

In particular, those who rant about the evils of uncontrolled rental markets are 99% likely to not own real estate in San Francisco.

Therefore, those commentors aren't commenting on the objective good or bad of such issues, so much as they are just explaining what their personal situation is. As soon as those people who cried the evils of uncontrolled rental markets came into possession of San Francisco property, they would immediately change their tune.

Should we place any value in ethical principles which are so immediately seen to be self-serving?

<comment><USER64> How can you verify your assumptions about whether or not a commenter owns real estate?

For example, do I own real estate in San Francisco? I think your chances of getting that right are pretty close to 50%.

<comment><USER63> You haven't made any comments about Real Estate ownership, so I can't make any guesses.

I really like Warren Buffet's perspective, the rules one believes are right, should be created _without you knowing what your circumstance will be_. That is, if you are trying to determine what is right, or not, about rent controls, you should create without knowing whether you will be renter, or an owner.

I've never met a real estate owner in San Francisco who was rabidly opposed to uncontrolled rent markets - so, with 99% certainly (I'm sure there are some edge cases), anybody who is highly opposed to uncontrolled rent markets is, with a high level of certainty, not a real estate owner in San Francisco.

<comment><USER64> I agree with you that we should agree to a set of rules without knowing our circumstances.

But the rest of your argument doesn't make sense. You've never met an SF real estate owner with a certain opinion, so you know something about most of them? There are at least 10,000 SF real estate owners. Have you talked to more than 0.1% of them? And even if you had, how would that help with your original claim that you can identify whether commenters in this thread were SF real estate owners or not?

<comment><USER63> The meta point that I was trying to make, and I think is really important, not only in this context, but in a vast number of contentious threads, in HN and other arenas, is so often when we are voicing what we propose is a moral, or ethical position, is no more than a declaration of what our particular situation happens to be at that time.

Someone living in a rent-controlled apartment will be a strong believer in rent control. Someone owning real estate will be opposed to rent control. What I find fascinating is that the _same person_ with the same knowledge, background, and education might hold two diametrically opposite positions.

<comment><USER64> Mostly agreed about your meta point. I think you're omitting the possibility that someone might be opposed to something that benefits them.

But in the non-meta discussion, all I'm saying is that you don't know which commenters are in which situation, and especially not with 95% certainty, like you claimed. Some of the commenters might oppose rent control, even though they benefit from it. Other commenters might strongly support rent control in San Francisco, even though they live in Wyoming. We just don't know.

<comment><USER63> So - I grant you that I don't have epistemological knowledge of these commentors positions. And yes, you're right, for people that don't have any skin in the game (people outside the bay area) - it's much more difficult to understand what their position is.

I guess my only hope is that when people voice a very strong opinion on this topic (or, for that matter, any topic) - that they might consider whether they are holding that position with a "veil of ignorance", or whether they are just projecting from their own situation.

<comment><USER64> Agreed, good sir or madam!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Look at this from another perspective. Being a landlord is great. You sign a piece of paper making you the owner of a property. Then other people do actual work and pay you just for having your name on that piece of paper.

If we lived in a perfect (or even just a "better") society, this would be fine. But the problem is that we live in a society with different classes. If your parents owned a home or two, you probably will as well. If your parents didn't, you probably won't either.

In reality, "rent" is just another way to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Rent Control is an attempt to mitigate the damage. Personally, I think it's a terrible band-aid that exists because we aren't willing to face the real issues at hand.

</comment><comment><USER66> ... and another reason to hire remote. Helps reduce this kind of nonsense from happening.

</comment><comment><USER67> There seems to be a lot of discussion in this topic around the idea that "IF San Francisco did away with rent control, THEN the market would correct the problem."

Given that SF hasn't had rent control since 1980 (it only applies to buildings constructed before that), and the market has thus had 25 years to correct, which of the following is true:

1\. There is no housing problem 2\. Removing rent control didn't make a difference.

I'm actually curious to know the opinion of people blaming rent control...

(edit: typo)

</comment><comment><USER68> This sort of thing has been building up for a long time. This is mainly due to the Greed of the SF tenants to who prevent developers from building more units with local politics NIMBY. By constricting the supply artificially it prevents new buildings from going up. Also, the mayor is to blame as well, for incentivizing more companies to come to SF making the situation even worse.

</comment><comment><USER69> The typical false-wise answer to the housing crisis is something like "build more housing, supply & demand, read an Econ 101 textbook, DUH."

The reality is more complex.

The _real_ Economics 101 answer is: You can't know the effect of more supply on prices without knowing the _demand curve_. No one truly knows that, but consider this. The current market price is basically what a startup employee can support on their salary without kids, much savings, etc. If there's a large supply of people willing to move into SF for jobs like this and pay that price, but unable to pay more, then _that whole worldwide supply needs to be exhausted before the market price comes down._ That could take years or even decades depending on how the startup boom goes.

In the meantime, the macroeconomic effects of widespread losses in housing for blue collar, service industry workers, the middle class, artists, etc. can have very undesirable long term effects on a city. There is good reason for city governments to consider managing this growth.

</comment><comment><USER70> Hopefully the rising prices will encourage investment and lead to a greater supply of housing options in the future. The fact that this kind of thing is happening probably means the rent control laws have been too strict in the past.

</comment><comment><USER71> [Meta] Why has this dropped off the first page? It currently #32 and has 443 points, 447 comments and was posted 4 hours ago - there aren't any other stories more popular than this on the first page.

</comment><comment><USER72> Slightly OT: Does anyone know whether there is there a housing equivalent of the Basic Income movement? Basic Shelter?

<comment><USER73> Affordable housing is something that would actually be solved by free markets. It's the heavily regulated (almost socialistic) systems when building new homes to new people in a growing city is not allowed (because the old residents don't want their city to grow), so supply is now allowed to meet the demand, when we have these problems.

<comment><USER74> Everything could be solved by a perfect free marker where everyone had perfect information, zero latency in decision making and where making a decision cost nothing. Trouble is, IRL, none of those assumptions is even remotely true. Just as the renter signs an agreement, so does the landlord; rent controls skew the bargain but they do it for both parties. If the landloard didn't want to have a rent-controlled tenant for 10 years, then they should have magically known (using their perfect market information, duh!) that that tenant would be there 10 years and rented to someone else who wouldn't.

<comment><USER73> A desirable city with very limited new construction will lead to increasing prices. You can use rent control to give cheaper housing to a smallish number of people, who kind of win in this lottery and get cheaper housing the others. But there will be those others, lots of them, who were not among the "lottery winners" and who will have to resort ti living with a much longer commute.

If demand is high, building new homes for people should be allowed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Hey everyone, time to retake San Jose.

</comment><comment><USER76> Wonder how this rental mechanism works

</comment><comment><USER77> You nerds are sooooo fucked when the rubber meets the road.

</comment><comment><USER78> I can't take San Francisco seriously anymore.

If the VCs weren't there, it'd be a third-rate city, and much of what the VCs are funding isn't even technology but the post-apocalyptic sort of "attempt to engage in one of the short-term natural monopolies that technology sometimes creates" gambits that bloom in the caldera of an imploded technology industry. Yet it has become a more expensive place to live than New York, despite being dysfunctional in every measure other than tech salaries.

I cannot see why California hasn't done something about Prop 13 NIMBYs. All that those useless parasites do is block progress, drive up the rents by preventing new housing from being built, and cause measles epidemics with their anti-vax nonsense. It's really time to call in some Texans on that shit and fix the NIMBY problem. If California can't do that, then how are we supposed to take them seriously? If they can't get their heads out of the ass of the past that the NIMBYs claim that they are preserving, how can we trust them to build the future?

<comment><USER79> > how can we trust them to build the future?

Don't! Whatever the alternative was in your head when you wrote this sentence -- do that! The world needs more future-builders :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> messed up.

</comment><comment><USER81> I can't believe a single glibertarian hasn't quoted Krugman on rent control yet.

</comment><comment><USER81> Well, like all good things, HN has passed Eternal September. Or more quaintly:

[http://imgur.com/L00Fn2t](http://imgur.com/L00Fn2t)

<comment><USER29> Why, because you disagree with what some people are saying?

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Regardless of legality, this is obviously wrong. The owner of the property clearly has no understanding of reality; they're going to be financially destroyed by this move, so no additional action necessary on that front. Glad to see someone so evil fall on hard times; pity they won't suffer more.

As for the tenant(s); if you want to relocate, I'll put you up in Minneapolis for free for a couple months if you want. No conditions, just let me know.

<comment><USER21> From the records on Zillow, assuming they owned the unit free and clear, the landlord was likely losing money at the current rent: it's less than the current taxes on the unit.

Should they have been forced to continue to rent the unit out at a loss?

<comment><USER83> Zillow has property taxes at $11,043/year

The tenant was paying $2,145/month = $25,470/year.

According to the letter, they forced out another tenant. IF that tenant was paying a similar amount, the landlord was making >4x taxes in rent, not less than the current taxes.

Also, the current owners bought the property on 12/30/2014\. Why should anyone have sympathy for them having tenants? They knew they were buying a rent- controlled building. They aren't some owners for the past 30 years being held victim to tenants who won't move out.

<comment><USER83> correction to myself on "buying", it appears the previous owner was "SHUKRY & VERA LAMA RVC LVG TR" and the new owner is "LAMA NADIA V", so it probably was an inheritance, not a purchase.

<comment><USER84> If you read the facebook post, it claims they transferred the house from one couple to a sibling as part of the process that allowed them to increase rent.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple CEO Tim Cook Once Personally Threatened to Kick Uber Out of the App Store - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ceo-tim-cook-threatened-travis-kalanick-over-ubers-app-in-2015-2017-4 <comment><USER2> This raises some interesting points about the established order of Apple in the tech landscape: 1\. Around the same Apple was beginning a fight with FBI and law enforcement about protecting users' rights 2\. That Apple didn't just pull the plug on Uber until it was fixed That Cook had a meeting with Kalanick to warn him as opposed to acting unilaterally suggests that Apple doesn't have the power in the market that some believe (and that it projects).

<comment><USER3> Taking Uber off the App Store would kill the company dead. Tim Cook had, has, and should continue to have that authority.

<comment><USER4> It wouldn't really though would it?

Everyone who had the app on their phone already would still have it and Uber would end up updating to comply pretty quickly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When someone discovered that Uber suddenly needed your location "always" instead of just "while app is running", Uber tried to say it was no big deal. Yet, combined with questionable attempts to profile users, it really does seem like they have a major interest in every drip of data they can scrape (namely, they probably sell it on the side).</comment>


Air Taxi Startup Lilium Raises $90M for Electric Mini-Jet Service - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2017/09/05/air-taxi-startup-lilium-raises-90-million-for-electric-mini-jet-service/#2fdfdfb7377f <comment><USER2> This would so fly (pun intended) in the LA metro area. There are tons of rich people who would pay for 20 minutes from e.g. Santa Monica to Irvine when the drive can easily be two hours around rush hour.</comment>


Ask HN: Should I offer my app on a daily deal site? - <AUTHOR>

I've got offers to put my desktop / cloud application (it comes in two versions) up for sale on several discount daily deal websites (similar to AppSumo). They all take a steep cut, in most cases I end up having to discount my app by over 60%.<p>What has your experience been promoting sass / desktop applications on these type of sites? Did it end up being worth it? <comment><USER2> It worked well for me: 5 times our usual sales, at a 60% discount -- that is still twice the usual daily revenue. Plus the option to earn more when it comes to renewals.

<comment><USER3> Revenue can't be taken at face value.

Sometimes sales attract customers that wouldn't have bought before (either the price was too high, or customers were unfamiliar with the product).

Sometimes sales simply pull demand from the future (folks who would have bought, but haven't gotten around to it yet). If you experience the former, great! If you experience the latter, then you're actually losing money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would, great exposure, lots of new customers.

More revenue than your typical day.

Plus lots of people to spread the word about how great your app is.</comment>


TikTok to Sue Trump Administration over Ban, as Soon as Tuesday - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2020/08/08/900394707/tiktok-to-sue-trump-administration-over-ban-as-soon-as-tuesday?sc=18&f=900394707 <comment><USER2> > The source familiar with TikTok's internal discussions on the matter says > the president's order appeared rushed and did not include carveouts or > exceptions for TikTok to maintain any legal representation, which the > company plans to argue is a violation of due process rights.

This is the important part for me and the reason the order could actually be overturned and need to be redone.

The administration keeps doing these half-assed orders that would go through fine if they just did the process correctly, but for one reason or another they seem incapable of it.

<comment><USER3> Is it possible that the administration doesn't actually want to ban Tik-Tok but simply remove them as a factor for the election?

<comment><USER4> Is Tik-Tok considered an election factor?

<comment><USER5> Rumor is it was the TikTok Teens who made Trump's recent rally such a disaster by mass registering for tickets and not attending.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Note at the end: "TikTok helps fund NPR content that appears on the social media platform."

<comment><USER7> What are you trying to say?

You make it sound as if you did some investigations and found this out on your own, yet the statement is right there. In order for your comment to be meaningful it would need to include something more than just the excerpt, like an analysis or opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Seems bold considering China's firewall and all the US social media and chat apps it's banned.

<comment><USER9> "China does it too" is not as strong argument as it sounds.

<comment><USER10> It's how reciprocity in international trade works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Anyone else find it amusing one of the biggest "things" going on at the moment is not a global pandemic, racial injustice/social activism, but the country banning a silly social media platform? :)

<comment><USER12> The main reason it's being banned by Trump is very likely because it has been an extremely effective platform for sharing videos of police and military brutality against the protesting population of America and of cause pro- science/anti Trumpism content telling people to wear masks and social distance.

This isn't just a silly app being banned. This is a major blow against freedom of speech being pushed forwards with a silly cover excuse of "national security" all happening up to an election.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is this an attempt by ByteDance to retain control of the company?

<comment><USER14> It is an attempt by ByteDance to eliminate any pressing need to sell their US customers to a non-Chinese company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Various sides fighting a proxy PR war in election year and media (and tecnorati) taking the bait...

</comment><comment><USER16> I support TikTok in this matter. I'm not comfortable with the United States banning companies. We should strive to be the best place on earth to do business in. We are an open country and we benefit from being open. We benefit from competition.

If I'm afraid China is taking my personal information, it's up to me, the consumer, to delete the app. It's up to Apple to design APIs to prevent real theft of such things as passwords left on your clipboard, or location data.

Many people will point to the fact that TikTok is controlled by a single party, the CCP, and may push various points of view. I don't see how that is different than Twitter whose employees give to the Democrats at a North Korean level of popular support [1] (99.8% of political gifts given to non GOP candidates). Twitter famously shadow ban conservatives, cause liberal ideas to "trend", and push a political agenda even if I'm there just for technology news.

Again, comparing TikTok to Twitter, when I load TikTok I see music videos and no politics. When I load Twitter I see riots, violence and people complaining about Trump (24/7 365). It's like looking into the depths of the abyss. Twitter provides a platform for countries to threaten one another, for example Iran threatens Israel on its platform. TikTok provides a platform to make music videos. How is again Twitter superior?

One other point, I wish to make is the way we are handling the transfer of TikTok to Microsoft. We are literally taking TikTok's business and giving it to Microsoft with a "Big fee" paid to the Federal Government. Considering China's history, this will offend them. What if they did the same thing to us? What if they did not trust Apple's business in China? What if they stole Apple's Chinese business, and gave it to Tencent with a fee paid to the CCP?

TikTok is a major accomplishment because it's the first US top rated social network not designed in the United States. This is something to be celebrated and a cause to inspire us to compete to make something even better. Taking it, transferring it or banning it is not the way to go.

[1] [https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual- contributions/?...](https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual- contributions/?contributor_employer=twitter&two_year_transaction_period=2020&min_date=01%2F01%2F2019&max_date=12%2F31%2F2020)

<comment><USER17> Your points about TikTok's content compared to Twitter's content are interesting, but seem anecdotal and personal to you. I use Twitter almost exclusively for art, and I try to avoid any politics trending or people attacking each other or Trump. TikTok has an abundance of politically-charged content from people with different political views, but it's just not always on the surface (although sometimes it is).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Completely expected. Trump doesn't really have a good track record in coming up with legal executive orders, while Tiktok is completely in their rights to contest this order. And...judicial review is what sets the USA apart from China.

<comment><USER19> You realize US presidents have imposed embargo via executive orders against nations for decades right? Cuba? Huawei?

Whether you think it's right or wrong, legally, it has prescient.

<comment><USER2> That's not what he means. They consistently pass exec orders that at the core would be legal, if they allowed for due process, but they rush it or are incompetent so they get overturned.

In this case, the order bans any US citizen from doing business with ByteDance, and doesn't make a carve out for retaining a US lawyer, which is a violation of due process and means a judge could overturn the order.

If they just added that carve out, it would probably be entirely legally defensible. That one dumb mis-step could mean it gets overturned. This keeps happening with the Trump admin, it's the same reason the DACA repeal was overturned by the supreme court.

<comment><USER20> There is no requirement that US based lawyers must be US citizens.

<comment><USER2> There is very much a constitutional requirement that the government can't tell you you can't have the lawyer you want because they are a US citizen. That's a clear violation of the 14th amendment right to due process...

<comment><USER20> A part of due process is the opportunity to be represented by counsel. Unless there are few or no quality lawyers who are not US citizens, I don't see how this would infringe on anyone's due process. Not being able to get the exact lawyer you want is not the same as your due process being violated.

<comment><USER2> > Not being able to get the exact lawyer you want is not the same as your due > process being violated.

It absolutely is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Just wait until the CCP gets their pile of lawsuits over unfair tech bans. Oh wait...

</comment><comment><USER22> I am not opposed to a ban. However, I am opposed to the executive having the power to force companies (foreign or otherwise) to sell assets.

We are really entering developing country territory here.

<comment><USER23> They're not forced to sell. They would simply lose access to the US market. They've already lost access to the Indian market.

<comment><USER22> No. Trumps delayed ban is for a wiggle room for an American company (Microsoft) to acquire US and other non-China assets.

This effectively means that the app is not a national security threat but the ownership of it is.

And that threat was as determined by the executive without any charges.

I am opposed to such unilateral powers where the executive plays godfather and decides the rules of the game.

<comment> abc-xyz Are you against executive orders in general or just this one?

Because surely one of the most popular social media platforms in the world, operated by the enemy, with access to troves of personal user data that can be used for election interference, blackmail, propaganda, etc. is a national security threat.

And yes, other social media platforms, including Facebook, pose national security threats as well, but it's up to the elected officials to decide how significant the threat is, and when/if it's necessary to take action. With regard to TikTok and WeChat, I'd say it's long overdue, and I personally hope the list will be expanded to include all software and hardware operated by Chinese companies.

<comment><USER22> I am against this one. If Congress comes with a bill which clearly defined which companies can be banned or forced to sell assets, I am ok with it because the rules are clearly defined.

However, with an executive order as this one, the rules of "national security" will keep changing with the political desires of the president in charge. Maybe someday a President will come and ask you to divest your Tesla shares because the President at the time doesn't like Elon musk. This is too much power in the hands of one person, especially an erratic one as the current POTUS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Here's a slightly related HN post which just makes it to the HN front page as well: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24090923](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24090923)

</comment><comment><USER12> Seems natural. The only proof he has of the claims of risks against national security seems to be his typical wild ramblings of "a lot of people say! Everyone knows! Just read the manuals, read the books!" While not being able to mention a single name or fact.

If trump forces trough this sale, the EU are bring morons if they don't forcefully take over EU facebooks and LinkedIn business by Wednesday next week.

<comment><USER25> The claim isn't a dispute about the legitimacy of the national security grounds, that will probably come later. The claim is that the EO prohibits retaining US lawyers, which is pretty clearly a violation of due process.

<comment><USER26> Regarding the retaining US lawyers part - I think it would fall under FARA:

[https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara](https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara)

<comment><USER25> The EO imposes a prohibition on financial transactions between US citizens (and probably also residents?) and ByteDance, so they wouldn't be able to pay their lawyers even if registered. So it's essentially a ban on having lawyers

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'd start the questioning like this...

"On an average day how many kids under 13 do you think join TikTok without their parents knowledge?"

"On an average day, how many teens under 18 and preteens dance in a manner that would be considered provocative on your platform?"

<comment><USER28> If the reason for banning TikTok is to "protect the kids" why not say so in the order, instead of using some vague "national security" excuse? Clearly the TikTok ban had nothing to do with young kids using it or dancing provocatively, and the administration clearly isn't thinking about the kids when the ban was ordered.

<comment><USER29> It's retaliation, both for the kids and for TikTok, for snatching up all those Tulsa Trump rally tickets, and making him look bad because fewer people showed up.</comment></comment></comment>


An app for living healthier, really this time - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wellwith.me/introducing-wellwithme

<comment><USER2> An integration with Jawbone's Up / Fitbit's One would help a lot.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a pretty good idea. We still have to validate if people want to do something like this. So far, our beta testing has come back really positive.</comment></comment>