The iPad Luddites - <AUTHOR> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2010/04/the_ipad_luddit.php

<comment><USER2> My problem with the iPad is that it's more closed than it needs to be. It's fine to provide people with a simple, immediate, intuitive and trouble-free interface to information. Not everybody needs to be or wants to be a content creator. But why not allow people to install apps outside the App store if they manually opt-in, as Android does? Why the absurd secrecy around the sdk and developers agreements? Why the seemingly arbitrary rejection of apps that in some way impinge on functionality Apple reserves for itself to implement?

The almost paranoid and unduly aggressive control Apple exerts over its platform is worrisome, particularly for a company poised to dominate an important emerging platform. This is why, as much as I respect Apple's engineering and design prowess, I do not use its products. After two decades of a suffocating Microsoft monopoly I'm not eager to spend the next two under another.

<comment><USER3> _But why not allow people to install apps outside the App store if they manually opt-in, as Android does?_

Because people will install apps that don't work and then blame their iP(ad|od|hone) for misbehaving. If they could figure out a good process for it, I'm sure Apple would certify their developers before letting them develop applications.

 _Why the absurd secrecy around the sdk and developers agreements?_

What absurd secrecy? AFAIK, the only threatening legalese was removed in 2008 [1]. I don't know for sure, but I imagine it was there left over from the developers that knew about it before the SDK was announced.

 _Why the seemingly arbitrary rejection of apps that in some way impinge on functionality Apple reserves for itself to implement?_

Because people _do_ get confused about things you might think are obvious. If you give people two "dialer" apps, I guarantee you they'll sometimes launch the wrong one. And again, frustration against apps is frustration against the device.

1\. [http://www.telecoms.com/5294/apple-removes-secrecy-oath- from...](http://www.telecoms.com/5294/apple-removes-secrecy-oath-from-iphone- sdk/)

<comment><USER4> > _Because people will install apps that don't work and then blame their > iP(ad|od|hone) for misbehaving._

Millions of people using OSX disagree with you.

<comment><USER5> The people opting in to install non-store apps likely fully understand that the apps may not work on their particular device.

Anyone remotely tech savvy is going to comprehend this fact, and you're likely going to have to be somewhat tech savvy to be willing to hunt down sites supplying non-store software.

I wholly agree, there are quite probably untold millions who are savvy enough to comprehend the limitations of their devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That Nick Carr, whose Luddite rantings on his blog eventually persuaded me to unsubscribe, likes the iPad is good enough for me - he's convinced me it'll be a dead end, sooner or later... :)

<comment><USER7> "In the long run, we're all dead." :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I really don't see the apocalypse others are seeing here. It's probably because I spent 1.5 years on a solaris box at home (from my normally mac life), nicely insulated from the _fix_ of the mac way.

Yup, Apple's consumerizing computers. It's about time, really. I'm rejoicing: I won't have to help fix people's iPads with network settings, app install/uninstall/reinstall, rebooting, or anything else. It'll solve their simple problems without unnecessary complexity.

And I won't buy one. It's that simple.

Instead, I think it's a wonderful time to hack. I _really_ don't understand what the problem is. Gnome is actually pretty nice now (before OS X I was a linuxer from ~1995 to 2001, coming back now it's pretty nice!). My Nokia N900 is a wonderful little linux-based phone, and it's the stock software stack on the stock hardware!

I still mourn Sun, and will for a while. I'm looking at replacing my beloved Ultra 40m2 with a stock supermicro mobo/case combination. Linux will fly on it.

If I don't want that, I can build arduino kits up myself! If I want more power I can pick up a high-powered arm dev board with a display controller, wifi, ethernet, and plenty of storage and ram to hack! Otherwise I have a pc, with an open OS!

In my book, us geeks have been hogging computer technology for too long. We have everything we need, and it's time we stop making everyone else suffer for our thoroughly-satisfied needs for openness.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think of the iPad as a kind of dumb terminal. An end-user device with limited uses. I don't think it will bring an end to other devices. The primary reason being that you have to create apps on something. Also, I see this as something confined to the Apple universe - while it is a bright universe, and sometimes blinds us to the other Microsoft/Linux etc. universes, it's neither the largest, nor the only area for us developers to work and play in.

<comment><USER10> I think a big part of that frustration is to think of what this piece of equipment could do in the hands of hackers if it were truly open.

Hopefully it won't be long before linux is available as a 'third party option'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think this is the best line in the piece...

"Doctorow is not the only Geek God who's uncomfortable with Apple's transformation of the good ole hacktastic PC into a sleek, slick, sterile appliance."

Though it's an anathema to most here I think the majority of people want their computer to act more like their stove and less like the highly hackable Apple ][. That's exactly where Apple is aiming to go with the iPad.

Honestly, I personally don't have a problem with that. One thing that's been proven in recent weeks is that there will also be bushels of hackable Android tablets out there so I say let the masses have their iPad and stop complaining.

<comment><USER12> You're right, except discussing why one might not want an iPad is not complaining. It's just expressing an opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Reading that I tried to think about what is the progress in the iPad, and really couldn't think of much. Except that it is closed. Portable - done by netbooks. Touchscreen - appearing in Notebooks by now, too, it's obvious that they can make for a nice GUI. Also, closed computing environments have been around before (gaming consoles). So what really is new about the iPad?

In any case, I don't see why I have to care about progress if that progress doesn't care about me. Maybe because of the iPad I'll be back to becoming a weird minority again? So what, as long as I'll have fun doing what I do.

<comment><USER14> "… they can make for a nice GUI"

That's your progress, right there. You know, that's enough sometimes.

<comment><USER13> Yes, but Touchscreens weren't an invention of the iPad, or even the iPhone.

<comment><USER14> Isn't that the point, though? You could buy touchscreen computers since the early 2000s but there was nary any UI progress in sight. Touchscreen computers used essentially mouse centric interfaces. Sometimes they might have gotten a pity feature or two, but that was about it.

<comment><USER13> Aren't touchscreens still essentially mouse centric? Pinch to zoom doesn't make a revolution in my opinion. It is nice, sometimes, but not that much of a biggie.

I am pretty sure that touchscreens before iPhone also had some specific UIs.

What's new is the form factor and the long battery runtime (which netbooks already had to some extent, too). It still remains to be seen if the form factor is even all that useful.

For example a touchscreen in a desktop PC might be nice to have, but probably wouldn't be very ergonomic for long term working.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What is the difference between an iPad and a Wii/Xbox/Playstation?

Locked down? Check.

Can't use with programs that haven't been blessed by the device manufacturer? Check.

Can't develop your own programs for it unless you pay again? Check.

<comment><USER2> The difference is very simple. Nobody replaces a laptop with an Xbox. The iPad, on the other hand, is a first-class citizen of the net and could easily become somebody's primary interface. Consequently, it matters a lot more exactly what kind of limitations the iPad imposes. The iPad has implications for film, literature, music and communication that consoles just don't, which is exactly why people find it both inspiring and troubling.

<comment><USER16> I don't how long that will be true though. Xbox Live is integral to the Xbox experience and now has a fb application and all sorts of social games (1 vs 100, etc).

Between that and the internet TVs which are accruing hype by the day, I think the distinction is largely going to be moot.

Basically everything is just going to be a content portal with some ancillary proprietary benefits (it has an app store, it plays xbox games, etc).

The only distinction will be the form-factor and screen size.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Maybe some people have a different definition of "progress". I would argue that a dumbed-down device is geared more towards luddites.

<comment><USER17> This is the way technology has always progressed. The first cars required extensive knowledge to drive and were completely open to modification. Modern cars don't even allow you to adjust the choke and the gas pedal isn't hooked up to the engine directly. When you push on the gas the cars computer decides how much gas to feed the engine. Modern cameras come in two different varieties: cameras for normal people and professional cameras. Why would computers be any different? I can't think of any technology that became mainstream without there being a dumbed-down version for people to use. I think by your definition most people are luddites. They aren't interested in technology, they're just interested in the benefits it provides.

<comment><USER18> You can still do plenty of tinkering with cars. In fact, one of the things that I love about Hyundai is that last I looked, they provide their entire tech/service manual free, online. I used this to swap out my thermostat, to replace the fuel filter, to swap in a bigger sway bar, to take apart my dashboard, all kinds of things I'd never really even thought of handling myself, except that the information was there for me.

By comparison, you're not supposed to change your iPad's battery by yourself.

<comment><USER19> You can still do plenty of tinkering with _some_ cars. E.g. you're not supposed to change the battery on the Prius yourself either.

Suffice to say, not all manufacturers are the same and not all products are the same. And frankly, so long as the tinkerers are being serviced, I don't see society as having lost anything yet, just because a single more appliance-y product has hit the market.

And --specifically to the matter at hand-- particularly not when the appliance-y product in question has a first-class, standards-compliant web browser.

<comment><USER20> Right, but if you were to change the battery in your Prius (and publish instructions on how to do it) you might void your warranty but you're not going to get sued under the DMCA. It seems insane to me that something that could have dangerous side effects (changing a battery in a complex vehicle) is less regulated than code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Although Carr is talking about the iPad, I think a similar analysis could be applied to Internet openness and the net neutrality debate. Is the old architecture of the Net truly superior or does it just agree with our biases and desires?

</comment><comment><USER22> If it were possible to reach as far back as the introduction of the GUI, I'd be willing to bet that the same thing was being said by people who were most familiar with the CLI.

"What is this GUI thing? What good is it for? What can it do that can't be accomplished by the CLI?"

And it would be wise to see how that played out. That there would be certain situations where a CLI or a GUI and now a touch-based interface would be the appropriate means to accomplish certain tasks.

</comment><comment><USER23> My problem with iPad is the cult of Apple - why everything Apple does must be good - bit.ly/cQxviX

</comment><comment><USER24> _While progress may be spurred by the hobbyist, it does not share the hobbyist's ethic._

Well said. The hobbyist also won't necessarily like the money making form of it. Does that sound familiar?

<comment><USER25> I think that statement illustrates his bias. He puts people objecting to Apple's control into the basket of "hobbyist", impugning them at the same time as implying that there are no business or professional reasons to dislike closed platforms over open ones. In his view, the only uses for open systems is so that people can fiddle in their spare time and make mischief, causing ordinary folks pain and suffering.

It is a common and somewhat legitimate reaction, to say that geeks just want computer systems to stay geeky so that they have more control and power. However there is a very real _non-hobbyist_ problem with closed systems. I don't think anybody would agree that it was great that Microsoft was able to stymie the growth of the entire internet with their domination of the browser market. And IE / Windows was relatively open, compared to iPhone OS and Safari. The damage done by holding back the growth of the internet has hurt consumers enormously, even though most of them don't know it and couldn't articulate it if they did. Apple is essentially setting the stage for the same thing to happen in the mobile space but far worse since they have quite literally given themselves veto power over any application making it to consumers.

<comment><USER26> _It is a common and somewhat legitimate reaction, to say that geeks just want computer systems to stay geeky so that they have more control and power._

That's a ridiculous strawman and I'm amazed that so many people believe it. Most geeks would be thrilled if more people could perform basic computing functions without constantly asking for help.

 _Apple is essentially setting the stage for the same thing to happen in the mobile space but far worse since they have quite literally given themselves veto power over any application making it to consumers._

Exactly this. Microsoft was only able to delay the rise of the web; with the power to prohibit disfavored applications they very well might have stopped it completely, or twisted it into a proprietary architecture deliberately dependent on Windows. If Apple has Android shut down in the courts and is able to form a cozy duopoly with Microsoft, we won't be seeing that sort of innovation anymore and we won't even know what we've lost.

<comment><USER24> _If Apple has Android shut down in the courts and is able to form a cozy duopoly with Microsoft, we won't be seeing that sort of innovation anymore and we won't even know what we've lost._

I think this is overblown. If Apple gets too high-handed, some Chinese company is going to come out with a cool new platform slick, cheap, and open enough to support the next killer app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Luddite? What does dislike of one or another decision on closed or open development have to do with resistance to technology?

</comment><comment><USER28> And yet Apple freely distribute powerful devkits and a youtube video showed the iPad being 'jailbroke' within a day of release.

Not so long ago people were talking about how the App Store had ushered in a new age of bedroom programming. Some of this commentary is getting truly grotesque - the Guardian had some muppet saying if the iPad catches on _'we will have reached an Orwellian future through Huxleyan means, and have only ourselves to blame.'_</comment>


AT&T Next allows yearly phone upgrades. - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2421812,00.asp

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't figure out why anyone would want to go this route. Phone cost will be on top of the normal plan price and AT&T gets your old phone when you upgrade (so you can't sell it to make back some of the cost). I assume AT&T decided to offer this plan because there are people dumb enough to pay for it. It definitely was not looking out for the consumer.</comment>


Show HN: Klosenit- Share referrals for pros and book services - <AUTHOR> Hello HN: We just launched Klosenit- a mobile platform to share your referrals for service professionals and book their services. Think Uber for service professionals, but based on referrals. We are live on Apple app store and Google Play store. Would love all of you to download and use the app and share feedback. We want to learn from your experience and improve the product and take it to next level. Our mission is to make a trust-based commerce ecosystem and drive engagement between consumers and service professionals. We dream that one day Klosenit can become the only referrals sharing social platform. Thanks a bunch. Search for Klosenit on app stores. <comment><AUTHOR> website is [http://www.klosenit.net](http://www.klosenit.net) App store links: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.klosenit](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.klosenit) and [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/klosenit/id1475209202](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/klosenit/id1475209202)</comment>


Ask HN: Which job should I choose? - <AUTHOR> I need to make a decision in the next 8hrs and i need help to decide which choice would be better for me and my career.
The first company is developing software for airline companies and they have a few big clients. The tech i would be working in is Angular, Backbone, Cordova and some PHP.
The second company is into IT security. They develop tools for malware detection and network security. The tech i would be using is JavaScript, jQuery and Kendo UI. I would mostly be building charts in the beginning but there is a possibility of getting a bit more into actual software development later.
Both companies are good standing and the pay is about the same (the IT security company is offering a little bit more). I like the tech the first company is using more, but i'm more interested in IT security than airline software.
Please help me decide, i have 8hrs, what would be better for my career and what branch do you think has a better future? <comment><USER2> Surprised nobody has mentioned this yet: be careful about that non-promise of a "possibility of getting a bit more into actual software development later."

It's very easy for a company to make vague non-promises like this. Consider how you would feel if it took 1 year or 2 years or infinite years for that "getting a bit more into actual software development" thing to happen. Would you quit after a year of waiting? Would you feel like you had wasted your time?

Something to consider.

<comment><USER3> I spent 3 years at my last company waiting for the "possibility" I was promised in the interview. Admittedly it was great job that I did enjoy the stuff I actually was doing, but the constant waiting and hoping for that elusive 'possibility' did gnaw at me, and heavily contributed to me quitting.

So basically my advice is to heavily discount any promises of future possibilities and judge the job mainly by what you know you will be doing.

<comment><USER4> I turned down a job offer based on promises, over two years ago. Nothing has happened regarding promition, hiring of more staff.

Just quit as I received another job offer, and when I asked to have "something definite in writing" this time, then the wonderful promises vanished.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Flip a coin. Seriously. If you don't like the decision the coin made for you then ignore it and do the opposite.

<comment><USER6> Bingo. I've also heard this sentiment expressed as "Flip a coin. While it's in the air, your brain will be wishing for one of the sides. Pick that choice and forget about the coin."

<comment><USER7> The version of this that resonated with me is a quote from an otherwise- terrible movie called "The Very Thought of You." From the best Google result I could find:

      Pederson: "You have a decision to make...What's the problem? Bearing in mind there's no such thing as a difficult decision."
      Lawrence: "Sorry?"
      Pederson: "Well, every day we make hundreds of thousands of decisions. In a year, it runs into tens of millions. People get themselves into knots. The truth is, decisions are easy. Know why? Because every time, every time, we already know the answers."
      Lawrence: "You think?"
      Pederson: "Absolutely. Trade secret. Always tell my boys. You see, you didn't come to me to make a decision. You came to me because you didn't like the decision you'd already made."

I've found this to be mostly true and that once I view a tough decision through the lens of already having made it and only needing to accept that I don't like the decision I've made, the decision becomes a lot clearer and I'm able to move past it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Consider picking based on other factors like humanity and people how you like the people you will work with. Often this is more important then small differences in career choice.

In terms of "career", well the airline has more stuff to add to you resume.

<comment><USER9> The airline industry is also very cyclical, which could have some bearing depending on what you mean by "career."

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> My 2 cents:

\- The security job is more hardcore. It's a branch of software that you probably will find hard to learn about on your own, with lots of little juicy details. Airline software, I'll bet most devs could figure out how to write if they understood the domain, and there are probably fewer pitfalls. But I'm no expert on either.

\- Your subjective experience will depend a lot on the individual people you meet and work with. You don't have much other than gut feeling on that.

\- Tech, I wouldn't worry. There's always going to be a whole bunch floating around. Once you get in the zone, you can pick up a new language/framework quite quickly.

\- Don't worry too much about your decision. It seems hard to choose, but that probably means the outlook is similar for the two. Otherwise it wouldn't seem hard.

<comment><USER11> Oh come on, he's be using javascript and kendo UI to make graphs. That's not hardcore security programming.

That's the very antithesis of hardcore programming. Apart from tearing your hair out at the shitty kendo API designs.

The security job sounds like a boring job to me from his description, sounds like they'd be using him to animate a bunch of graphs on their website or something.

OP, there's almost nothing worse in programming than making graphs.

<comment><USER12> Graphs are fun, CHARTS are boring.

<comment><USER11> Haha, that's a more accurate assessment!

OP, it's so hard to know what a job is like from a tiny second hand description, so don't take my words too literally, it might be fine and more involved, but as someone else said in the thread:

 _there is a possibility of getting a bit more into_

Is code for:

 _we 're going to dangle this thing in front of you for a year or two and then conveniently forget we ever said it_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Pick the one with better, higher quality people. In the long run what matters most is who you surround yourself with. You'll learn more from smarter people and become better as a result.

</comment><comment><USER14> I can help you make a decision.

Take a deep breath.

You will be fine. It won't matter which job you take.

<comment><AUTHOR> lol, why?

<comment><USER14> Both choices have their pros and cons. If you pick the wrong then you won't be stuck there for long anyway. Follow your heart. Don't bother rationalizing.

<comment><USER15> it reminds me a bit of this: [http://lesswrong.com/lw/th/harder_choices_matter_less/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/th/harder_choices_matter_less/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> IMHO, at your career stage (if I'm inferring your "career stage" correctly), I'd consider these two possible avenues to advance your career:

\- The craft of designing and maintaining software

\- The problem domain software is being applied to

Some people might rationalize this as a generalist vs. specialist argument. However, I see being a badass software expert as just being a certain kind of specialist.

Both approaches will help you grow into bigger shoes over time, assuming the most optimistic outcome in either path. If you focus on honing your software craft, you can fit in many places and easily internalize any system as your chops get better.

If you focus on a particular problem domain (you seem to be interested in IT security), then over time you can become a subject matter expert. At this point, you can contribute knowledge back to your community, use your domain insight to identify a market and new product to sell, or just become a prized star employee in the companies focused on your chosen problem domain.

Being an all-around software badass can also make you a prized star employee after you grow into that notoriety.

I suppose it's possible to mix both approaches if your role accomodates this.

I guess my ultimate answer is similar to what others have said- follow what your heart says :-) Hopefully this adds some perspective to your choice. Best of luck!

</comment><comment><USER17> You might find this TED talk enlightening.

How to make hard choices - Ruth Chang [https://youtu.be/8GQZuzIdeQQ](https://youtu.be/8GQZuzIdeQQ)

Sorry for the terrible formatting, I'm on mobile (and lazy at this time of the morning.)

<comment><USER18> If this video helps you, more power to you. Personally I think her talk reflects just her own struggle and how she somehow managed to come to terms with it. For one thing, claiming that the kind of decisions discussed in the video are on par is moot. Sure, for practical reason it might be helpful to assume it. But just because we don't know a way to compute a preference doesn't mean there isn't a way we can do it somewhere in the distant future. But that's rather a minor nitpick. My main problem with her talk is that she assumes that we all can be pro active individuals as opposed to drifters who float around aimlessly. If you want to be proactive you need a goal and setting a goal is itself a hard decision. Now according to her, comparing goals is not going to lead to success as goals can be on par. So we need something else that makes us finally do something. Maybe this "something else" is not part of the rational world but we got to have it. As far as I can tell she doesn't explain how initial motivation comes up and what to do if it is missing. How do you become a pink socks wearing, donuts eating person? Maybe by just drifting around?

Assuming that we possess some degree of free will I think it is best to prevent hard choices to turn up in the first place. That probably doesn't always work out but maybe you can shift the odds in your favor. For example, if you start programming very early and become really good at it by the time you have to decide for a career then your choice is (rather likely) to be easy. You already have a marketable skill and motivation to do more (otherwise you would have given up earlier). No vague "Let's do an MBA and see where that leads me" feelings that ultimately lead to hard choices: Should I do Marketing? Accounting? Something not related to my degree? The point is not to bash MBAs here but the problem that this is one of the many paths where you can get far without any "real" motivation. But eventually you reach a point where motivation is key (the choice) and if you lack it the choice is going to be hard. From a practical point of view your decision doesn't really matter (so I sort of agree with her) but again I think that preventing hard choices leads to better outcomes ( a happier life) than any option you may decide for when making a hard choice (most of the time)

Anyhow, the wisest universal advice is "Don't panic!", though. In a way, everything is ok the way it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Two answers:

1\. Pick the one that will let you meet more people, whether as coworkers, customers, tradeshow attendees, etc. People will be far more valuable to your career than what frameworks you know.

2\. "When in doubt, flip a coin, because in that second it's in the air, you realize that you already know how you want it to come down." You already know which one you want, so why are you asking us?

</comment><comment><USER20> It may be helpful to think about how your work for each company would look on a resume. The company, unless it's a brand name everybody knows for it's technology like Google, is less important then your role.

The airline company software lets you talk about full stack (don't worry if you don't like PHP, you can always learn another stack), and maybe scaling issues. You also get soft skills potentially, have to deal with changing client requirements.

The IT security... well you get to do front end dev, and maybe they'll let you do something real at some point? But maybe you get some interesting experience integrating with APIs.

It honestly doesn't matter too much, you'll be doing dev work for both. If the money is a big difference in your mind, it wouldn't hurt you to ask the airline software company if they will match what the IT company offers you, or if they can provide some other perk (a signing bonus, discount airfare, extra vacation days).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, i think the job description of the first company would look better on my resume. But IT security is a much more interesting field to me although i think it might be more difficult for me to find a job if i had to leave the company after a couple of years.

Thanks for the advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Flip a coin. If you resent the result, you know what you really wanted. If you are happy with the result, you are fine, too.

</comment><comment><USER22> Both sound fine in terms of career, and you say they offer about the same pay.

The big thing you haven't mentioned is working conditions. Does either demand unpaid overtime? Require you to work in an open plan office? Have a long commute, particularly if it requires driving? Have a noncompete clause in the employment contract?

If they're the same as regards working conditions, flip a coin, see how you feel about the result, then act on that feeling.

</comment><comment><USER23> As people write, you have to decide on your own, but I can share what would I do. First, consider technologigies. Do I like any of thechnologies more than those in second oportunity (I assume there aren't technologies you dislike). This is not very important though. Second, think about what company do. I'd prefer security much more and this is very big plus. What would you do: design or maintenance (I think we all like first more ;)). But still it is important how the work is arranged in the company. Using scrum or chaos, what tools are used? It's maybe 0,5 as important as second. Startups win over corpo, that's the rule for me. People, I would choose nice, energetic team over dull corpo crowd. In fact, I already know I wouldn't choose second anyway. :) If still in doubt I would refuse to both and look for something better. I don't know if you can afford, but I have better things to do than work in medicore environment. ;) I hope this can help you a little bit, good luck!

</comment><comment><USER24> > what would be better for my career and what branch do you think has a better > future?

Based on your limited description, I think both would be fine your career, and both branches will do well enough in the near future.

Questions to ask yourself:

* how much freedom do the companies offer you? How many of your own ideas can you bring in?

* are the good programmers how can mentor you at each company?

* how much does the choice of tooling affect you? That what you'll work with all the time. How fast is it going to change?

* how much does the business branch actually affect your work? If you're doing frontend development for an infosec company, you're not doing intrusion detection or the like; if you do frontend development for an airline, you won't do flight or luggage routing. My point is that it's not a given that the branch will actually influence your work very much. (It might still be, though).

* How many people will use the software you write? How much does that matter to you?

* Are there any ethical differences? Do you support the companies' values and methods?

</comment><comment><USER25> What do you know about life inside each company? About the culture there? It's something that will affect your life day to day.

More than anything else, remember that it doesn't matter that much which you choose. You've got two great jobs on offer, and they are just jobs - you can leave any time if you don't like them.

<comment><AUTHOR> From the interviews i've had it seems like the airline software company has more experts in the field that i would be working in at the beginning. The team i would be working in at the other company is smaller but the atmosphere looked friendlier and they seemed a bit nicer to me.

I'm trying to gather more information about the companies, what do you think would be a good way going about this? I'm using LinkedIn to gather info on their employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> What about benefits? Insurance, 401k, Vacation hours? Distance to commute? Room for growth? People you will be working?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks to everybody for your advice. I've decided to accept the airline software development company offer. I'm just way more interested in the technologies they are using and as someone said it looks like in the IT security company i would mostly be doing Kendo UI charts.

</comment><comment><USER27> I You feel good at these all technologies/frameworks and the salary and location are pretty similiar in both of these companies (or You just don't care at the moment about it) I would suggest You to take the 1. offer.

Why?

I'm a webdev and I love building websites. This company build apps using hyped (at the moment) technologies so if something go wrong then You'll find new job easily (I'm getting job offers which requires angular/backbone/cordova experience all the time)

On the other hand, IT security is trending niche, which can be more stable than web development (where market is really huge and dynamic).

But hey, in the end, it's up to You and You should choose wisely what suits You best.

</comment><comment><USER28> Job 2 (with the security thing) sounds like nonsense. 'A bit more into actual software development'? Also you won't be involved in any of the development it seems. It sounds like an internship-level job.

</comment><comment><USER29> I now have enough experience to recommend that you make your decision based on finding great people. Technology stacks and early roles matter less than attaching yourself to a great group of individuals. That's how opportunities arise.

Of course, it's hard to evaluate just from a few interviews. But it also works once you are inside: make sure to find the rising stars (they may not be much senior than you by the way). You'll learn much more and be exposed to much greater opportunities.

</comment><comment><USER30> Hey buddy !! i am in similar situation. I have two job offers with following :

1) Security company. good salary and facilities like transport facility.Offering stocks. But, the company is splitting into two ( u can surely guess the name). Big brand.

2) Talent management company offering solutions as SAAS. Nice exposure to multi-tenant cloud infra. Higher fixed pay. Cooler work culture. Became private from public (yes the other way round)

I am extremely confused which two ? May be suggesting me can help you find yours.

<comment><USER31> (2) seems like obviously the right answer for you. unless you really really love security (you crazy paranoid fucker), (1) will have extra crazy politics and higher probability of getting stuck somewhere you didn't expect / don't want to be. if the stock comp is really good and doesn't come with weird strings attached then maybe (1) could be competitive. career options after experience on "multi-tenant cloud infra" are pretty good though.

<comment><USER30> yeah "multi-tenant cloud infra" , is what attracting me too. thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Based on your comments, the airline company seems like it would have the best opportunity for personal growth. If it's early in your career, I'd go for that one as it gives you experience working with front-end, back-end and mobile.

Edit: there's also the fact that with the security company you're starting off making charts and maybe moving into more dev, but there's also the chance you could get stuck making charts

</comment><comment><USER33> Have you made a decision? If not and you'd still like some help email me at samuel at thelittleyes.com and let's setup a time to chat. I coach folks through these kinds of decisions for a living. I'll give you the HN special, no charge for the first hour, and I think we'll probably be able to get you the clarity you need in an hour.

</comment><comment><USER34> This choice has a lot to do with you yourself, about which you didn't say very much.

Assuming both are good in terms of finance, location, etc. go with which team you think you'd enjoy working with the most -- smartest people, most compatible with your working style. Plan for 2-3 years.

If that's a wash, I'd take the security company.

</comment><comment><USER21> > I need to make a decision in the next 8hrs [...]

You probably don't. The market for programmers is hot enough right now, that any deadline the companies might have set is probably a bluff.

Having said that, having a deadline is probably a good thing for you. Avoids endless overthinking and procrastination.

<comment><USER35> Ah, an exploding offer: [http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/11/26.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/11/26.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I would join the smaller team (not smaller company). If that number is not known, I would join the company whose interview I enjoyed more (had the interviewers read your resume before they interviewed you? how intelligent/relevant were their questions? and so on)

</comment><comment><USER37> Don't take the advice of strangers online. Talk with your peers who know you and know your interests the most.

If you don't have a solid peer network, go with your gut, and deal with the consequences later.

</comment><comment><USER38> Congratulations on two job offers!

Tech is always changing. Think about what you'd like to be working on in 5–10 years. The jobs you take now will help you "write the resume" you will need later.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER39> If both offers seem equal to you, why not choose on the location?

EDIT: I just read it would be in the same city, but what about distance to home? District, etc...

<comment><USER3> Yes. Don't underestimate the importance of things like commute times and working in a nice part of town.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Go for the job that gets you doing more software development right away. Life is to short to waste it doing stuff your not interested in doing.

</comment><comment><USER41> I wouldn't focus so much on the tech as on the purpose of what you'll be doing.

In the end, follow your gutt feeling and don't look back.

</comment><comment><USER42> Don't focus on the tech/stack. Go for work that you find interesting and where you like the company culture and people.

</comment><comment><USER43> location?

it would also be ideal to get into the situation where you tell both offers that you are considering another offer at x price and that you will take y time to decide. then you hold the negotiation instead of feeling rushed.

sometimes the side that wants you more will come back with a bigger offer or ask you what's meaningful for you to see if they can give you that.

<comment><AUTHOR> EDIT: i don't wanna be giving up to much info on the companies

<comment><USER43> hey. i meant that consider the location difference in the jobs. maybe there's a place you'd like to work in, live near or commute to over the other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Go for the one with the shortest commute. ;)

</comment><comment><USER45> Pick 2. It seems to offer a more specific skillset. That will allow you much more leverage in the future.

</comment><comment><USER46> In most cases Choice, is always between two good things. Take one. It does not matter which.

</comment><comment><USER47> I'd go for security, seems more interesting (to me).

</comment><comment><USER48> You should be able to decide on your own.

</comment><comment><USER49> I would pick the first, because I hate security. Everything bad and annoying on a project and come from security requirements. Yes, I know why, but if you aren't going to help me write the correct code, you are just putting lots of barriers in my way.</comment>


World's first solar sail unfurled in orbit - <AUTHOR> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/24jan_solarsail/ <comment><USER2> Not quite. According to the article, the Japanese deployed a solar sail with a Venus probe. This, though, is the world's first solar sail on a probe designed for Earth orbit.

<comment><USER3> The Planetary Organisation _tried_ to deploy a solar sail back in 2005 ( <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cosmos_1> ) but the rocket failed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In what way is this a solar sail? It's a drag sail. From the article, it seems to me that the sun doesn't propel it any more than the sun propels my car.

<comment><USER5> Because it's so close to Earth, the drag force will be much greater than any propulsion force achieved from solar particles, which means its orbit will decay and it will fall out of orbit. However, this doesn't preclude it from being a solar sail, it just means it's not a very efficient sail. Eventually, we'd like to send these into deep space, where there is no drag from the atmosphere, allowing the craft to accelerate indefinitely. But for now, it makes sense to keep it in orbit and study it at close range so we can be sure the "sail" effect works as predicted.

More info: <http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/smallsats/10-109.html>

"The relatively low-deployment altitude means drag from Earth's atmosphere may dominate any propulsive power it gains from the sun, but the project represents a small first step toward eventually deploying solar sails at much higher altitudes... because the sail will deploy relatively close to Earth, researchers will have a difficult time detecting the slight solar effects."

<comment><USER6> > allowing the craft to accelerate indefinitely.

In theory that's all very nice, in practice the power available for acceleration decreases as the cube of the distance.

Of course a bit of acceleration is better than nothing but this will only work well if you have very large amounts of time, and since all systems will have to survive for all that time I don't see this as a practical means of propulsion. Bussard Ramjets are a lot harder to construct (and shield) but I think if there ever is going to be a practical means of achieving speeds that are a significant fraction of lightspeed then I think that's where it's going to come from, not from solar sails (even though the technology definitely has its charm).

<comment><USER7> >In theory that's all very nice, in practice the power available for acceleration decreases as the cube of the distance.

This is why any solar sail intended to move very quickly will open up somewhere closer to Mercury.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It would be interesting to see if the magsail or electric sail concepts are developed as well. The simplest design appears to be the electric sail, which only needs radial conductive wires (easy to manufacture and deploy, although it needs to be launched well outside the Earth's magnetosphere).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_sail>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_sail>

</comment><comment><USER9> I see that this is expected to, as one outcome, help reduce further space junk in orbit. I wonder what impact existing space junk - which is predominately small pieces of metal orbiting the earth at speed - would have on the sails?

Without knowing its altitude, even the 70-120 day lifespan makes it a target. I wonder how resistant a 10m^2 piece of thin polymer sheet would be to a lazy 2-inch screw hurtling into it?

<comment><USER5> > I wonder how resistant a 10m^2 piece of thin polymer sheet would be to a > lazy 2-inch screw hurtling into it?

Presumably, not resistant at all... Even the heavy shielding on the ISS can only protect from debris less than 1cm in diameter. The question is, would such a debris hit shred the sail, or would it punch a neat hole, leaving it mostly intact?

<comment><USER9> Yes, 'not' is how I would have described the resistance. As long as it were a fairly direct hit, I imagine a neat hole would be most likely (though these could add up fairly quickly over time).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "For reasons engineers still don't fully understand, NanoSail-D spontaneously ejected itself." Best line of the article!

<comment><USER11> I'm going to point people to this article next time some code inexplicably starts working.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is it a sail or a drag parachute?

<comment><USER13> It is a proper sail propelled by light pressure instead of wind.

<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Solar_sail>

<comment><USER14> "NanoSail-D will remain closer to home. "Our mission is to circle Earth and investigate the possibility of using solar sails as a tool to de-orbit old satellites and space junk," explains Alhorn. "As the sail orbits our planet, it skims the top of our atmosphere and experiences aerodynamic drag. Eventually, this brings it down.""

Pretty clearly not a solar sail...

<comment><USER15> "They'd also like to measure the pressure of sunlight on the sail, although atmospheric drag could overwhelm that effect."

Dual purpose study.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


SOPA hearings adjourned until 2012 - <AUTHOR> http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/2896 <comment><USER2> Just to point out, this is apparently not true. Updated information indicates that Smith has scheduled another hearing on Wednesday, December 21. (Several current threads on HN point to stories describing this.) Don't assume you have until 2012 to oppose this legislation.</comment>


Show HN: Smartphone Magnetic Field Visualizer - <AUTHOR> https://www.vieyrasoftware.net/physics-toolbox-ar <comment><USER2> Used the digital compass in my phone the other day to set various lab magnetic stirrers to the same rotational velocity using a app that plotted the reading from the sensor over time. Incredible what the average smartphone is equipped to do.

</comment><comment><USER3> LOL I do _not_ envy the weird emails you are going to get from psychotics and ghost-hunters around this thing..</comment>


Apple intern reportedly leaked iPhone source code - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/9/16997266/apple-source-code-leak-intern-internal-tools-jailbreaking-github-ios-9 <comment><USER2> It's still odd to see such a large news outlet get the headline wrong in such a way. Headline: "[Apple intern] leaked iPhone source code"; first sentence in the article "iOS source code was posted online".

</comment><comment><USER3> This article is cribbed from one that is discussed at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16343910](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16343910).</comment>


NYC vs Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://www.metamorphblog.com/2010/02/nyc-vs-silicon-valley.html

<comment><USER2> _a) Wall Street has been a huge talent suck for a long time...the default dream...: Work for Lehman._

Actually, there is a bigger talent suck than Lehman. I can easily see the appeal of working for a startup rather than Lehman: don't wear a suit, don't deal with bureaucracy or MBAs, technology rules the day. Less money, but a lot more fun.

Now, consider many small hedge funds: don't wear a suit, no bureaucracy, maybe one or two MBA's who handle clients, technology rules the day. Bring your dog to work, but the CEO's dog gets veto power.

Both seem like fun places to work, but the hedge fund can compete on price.

<comment><USER3> The technological problems that you work on in a hedge fund are less interesting than those you do in a startup. On the other hand, making actual money has benefits.

<comment><USER4> I don't know, I disagree that they're not solving really interesting problems. My first jobs out of college were at hedge funds, pretty much by accident, and I got the chance to work with a ton of really smart people -- many of whom were math or engineering PhDs -- in a very challenging environment.

One two-person team I got to work with was doing something resembling stat- arb, and was pushing about $250 million of trades in the last 10 minutes of the market. Beyond getting to be hands on with some crazy math, building a system to make that happen isn't exactly trivial.

<comment><USER3> Fair point. At a quant hedge fund, you do get to work with some awesome people, and you learn a lot from after-work conversations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am a veteran of both places. Here is what you need to know.

\- NYC is 30% more expensive than Silicon Valley / SF

\- you don't need a car in SF but you probably do in SV

\- you might need a car if you live in the inconvenient neighborhoods of SF.

\- the bay area is sort of automatically healthy, you have to work hard to be unhealthy

\- NYC is automatically unhealthy, you have to work hard to be healthy

\- the weather is better in California

\- the women are better in NYC

\- if you are decent looking and have a job, you can get a date in NYC

\- you can be good looking and rich in SV/SF and still never get a date

\- there are better options for outdoors activities in California

\- anything besides outdoors activities is more convenient in NYC.

\- hedge funds / finance can be more interesting than a dumb startup and will certainly pay more

\- working for a dumb startup is bad for your career

\- you can get trapped in a startup career spiral in SF/SV where you never make any money, even if you're a great programmer

\- you'll eventually make decent coin in NYC even if you're only an average programmer

\- there are interesting people in NYC with varied careers ranging from UN analyst to fashion designer

\- in SF/SV there are tech industry people and weirdos

\- counterintuitively, even though NYC is more money oriented, the programmers often have very interesting outside interests. the meetup scene in NYC is intellectual, there's math, machine learning, functional programming, etc

\- in SF/SV most of your fellow programmers will only claim road cycling and guitar hero as interests. the meetup scene is usually about source control or social media tweeting

I could go on and on. Thinking about where the best place is to build your startup is kind of silly. You want to think about what you want to build, and build it. You can always move later if needed. These lists are also dumb, although it was fun to write. Really the only way you can decide where to live is to experience places yourself.

</comment><comment><USER6> In further defense of NYC, I want to address this whole rent/commuting argument.

We are comparing this to Silicon Valley, where the freeway is packed with traffic both ways every morning and evening. That same commute in NYC means you could live in very affordable places in Brooklyn, Harlem, Queens, and NJ.

Another founder I know, after exiting his company, moved to NYC from SV mainly because he couldn't stand being stuck in traffic all day.

Commuting in via the subway or NJ Transit is no longer than the time a lot of people spend in traffic in SV.

And the best part? You can read a book. I just finished another chapter in Founder's at Work on the subway back from a meeting. Awesome.

And since when was SF and Palo Alto that cheap anyway?

Plus in SV you need to own a car and car insurance. That is expensive. I couldn't afford that so I had to borrow a bike. That bike had to get me EVERYWHERE. Want to go to a meeting in SF? There goes half your day because you're at the mercy of the caltrain.

Anyway, I could go on, but you get the point. I would argue that NYC will save you time and money when it comes to transportation and rent. OK /rant

ps SV and Palo Alto will always have a place in my heart :).

<comment><USER7> Just a quick point, you do not need to own a car and pay for car insurance in SF. I've been car-free for two years. Whenever I need to go somewhere that isn't convenient to my schedule or by public transit, I use zipcar, which is very convenient (at least in my neighborhood). Between car payments, insurance, maintenance, fuel, parking, and parking tickets I used to pay an average of $1,500/month for my vehicle. Now I spend about $70/month on Muni/BART/Caltrain, and between $100-$400/month on zipcar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _[Wall Streeters turned venture capitalists] are people who do dumb shit like ask about pricing for a premium version of a genuinely novel product (in a category with no existing market) that hasn't even launched yet...in the first meeting._

Right, because asking about pricing (you know, the process by which you charge actual money for a product, thus generating revenue and hopefully profit) is a completely unreasonable thing for an investor to ask about.

<comment><USER9> When the product hasn't launched and there's no existing market, the questions should be around finding customers, distribution, and technology risks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> VCs/Angels in NYC(northeast as well) are just not in the same investing environment as the West Coast. And it's solely because this area is just not as mature as there. There are the investors that are smart and are willing to take the risks (Founder's Collective, USV, FRC, Flybridge etc.), but the problem is that they are few and far between relative to earlystage VCs and angels on the west coast. Therefore, because they're smart, have branding and don't have serious competition, they DON'T have to take the risk. And why would they, who would blame them? They can wait until the company is almost completely de-risked before they move in. (I guess an argument here is that it's a good thing that the early stage investing industry is small and less risky here. If they succeed more will come.)

The other investors here (the wall streeters turned VCS) just don't get it. They're not investing, as you say, in "change the world" ideas. They're investing in stuff that can make money right away, which is probably why they ask about pricing prematurely.

NYC is frustrating in this respect, and it's easy to see why you're thinking about the West Coast. They're just way more intelligent, early-stage investors. That's changing though, I believe. It just sucks to be a startup in this sort of purgatory. The more Ron Conway's that come to the east the better!

<comment><USER11> From personal experience, I can tell you that's not remotely how Union Square Ventures and First Round Capital invest. (Can't tell you about Founder's Collective or Flybridge because I haven't taken money from them.) They're certainly willing to put money into companies before the risk is gone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> _I hate Boston. Would never live there. So ignoring that city, where are you going to find, ohh, let's say Speech Engineers?_

Why hate Boston? I would disagree. Boston's a great city to live in. It's much smaller than NYC so you can walk from one end to the other, is a lot more scenic, and my favorite part of all is that it isn't gritty/dirty like NYC is (unless you head out to Boston's outskirts like Ashland/Brighton/Somerville). Whenever I've visited NYC, all of the pretty parts (outside of Central Park) were tucked away in some place most people can't afford. Being rich in NYC looks like fun, but most people aren't rich.

NYC feels like an extension of an office cubicle to me. Crammed buildings. "Rat Race" economics in full effect. No nature, no beauty. You're insulated inside a sea of cement and brick. The only thing that's missing are the metal bars.

IMHO of course. Boston isn't perfect either, but I wouldn't dismiss it as a startup hub. Great universities, plenty of talented people available. No, it's not Silicon Valley, but an admirable alternative none-the-less. NYC certainly is too, regardless if I personally like it or not.

<comment><USER4> Boston occupies a strange place in my heart. I grew up in and around Boston, but am now a New Yorker, and I don't think I could ever move back. There are definitely worse places to live, but Boston has always felt more like a really big small town than a city to me, and the amount of close-mindedness and racism I've found in Boston has always been surprising to me. I just often don't feel comfortable in Boston.

While Manhattan might feel crammed, it's part of the appeal for us. Everything is always open, everything you need is within a couple blocks, you can get anywhere anytime in the city via 24 hour public transit. You walk down the street and hear tons of different languages constantly. The diversity in ethnicity, cultural backgrounds, and experiences is mind-blowing. It's one of the world's cultural centers. Art and music is everywhere all the time. We have enormous, beautiful parks all over the place, Central Park only being one of them. Gorgeous brownstone neighborhoods with tree lined blocks. Old factory neighborhoods repurposed into everything imaginable.

Is there trash on the ground? Yes, everywhere. That fades from your perception into the landscape within weeks of living here.

Maybe Brooklyn would be more your thing (it is for me) -- it's more laid back here and less crowded, but gives you easy access to all the amazing parts of being in NYC.

'No beauty' really is hard for me to swallow -- I look around me here all the time and am always amazed at how beautiful and diverse this city is.

<comment><USER12> Perhaps I was harsh implying "no beauty". The definition of beauty is something that differs from person to person, depending on what then enjoy and where they are in life. I think we can agree that it comes down to a matter of personal preference. :)

I'm curious, but what racism did you see or experience in Boston? I'm likely shielded from it (white American english-speaking male), so it's not something that I've ever experienced.

Will check out Brooklyn the next time I visit. I've only ever spent a lot of time in Manhattan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Matt, I'm reprinting my reply on your blog here:

Duuuude, NO! Or at least, that's what I want to scream at you after reading this. But it is hard for me to refute your logic around investors. Of course, SV has a larger and older network. Can't deny that. But, of course, in SV there are also waaaay more entrepreneurs vying for VC dolla bills. Having spent time in both locations, I wouldn't say it's any easier to raise funds in SV, although they do have more smart money for sure.

But now with FRC, Flybridge, and Founder's Collective (among many others) stepping up in NYC, I think we're just seeing the beginning of an awesome growth curve.

Plus, haven't you been reading Dave McClure's blog? It's not about the tech, it's about the design and marketing. Which NYC has in SPADES.

Alright dude, enjoy SV!

<comment><USER3> New York will succeed as a startup hub if the rents come down fast enough. Right now, they're still too high; you pretty much have to work a Wall Street job or be parentally supported to live here, and this is a problem.

<comment><USER10> Not true, you can find cheap places to live, if you're willing to live outside Manhattan. Jersey City, Queens, BK, are all viable options for the scrappy founder.

<comment><USER4> Brownstone Brooklyn isn't exactly cheap -- my place is considered a steal here in Park Slope, but it's still an eyebrow raising amount of money.

Places like Prospect Heights, Crown Heights, and Clinton Hill are gentrifying quickly, and rents are getting up near the $2k month for a 1 bedroom mark. It's just not sustainable.

<comment><USER13> Bushwick. $1275, 1BR. Booyeah.

<comment><USER3> This shows how far New York has diverged from reality. No one in any other city would consider this "booyeah" worthy.

In most cities, you can raise a family in a $1275/month apartment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sorry to hear about your feelings re: Boston. I really enjoyed it during my trip this week and briefly considered moving as FC has an office in Cambridge.

I do, however, feel your ecosystem pain. NYC is such a money town, and while there are pockets of sun, air, & water here and there, they don't instantiate enough to be completely nourishing.

That said, culture evolves and history re-writes itself with every passing second. Given time, I can see the city reaching her potential as a startup hub; she will make her inexorable way forward. Certainly it's time that neither you nor I can afford to let slip by, but if it's not people like you and I (& other like-minded folks) who help move this city forward, people who give a damn and follow passion up with action, who's it going to be?

I realize that you've got to put your company first, but the two (help NYC/grow company) aren't mutually exclusive. For instance Mouse.org -- I'll be chatting with them soon, & if SpeakerText is still in town, would love to place a capable high school intern from one of their squads with you.

We (NYC entrepreneurs & investors alike) might make more progress if we could set aside more than a couple hours a month to work concertedly on building culture and making history.

</comment><comment><USER11> This article is almost completely 100% opposite to my own experience raising money in NYC.

There's plenty of good angels here - largely entrepreneurs who have been successful with their own businesses. I talked to a number of them one-on-one and never paid to pitch.

There's plenty of good early-stage venture capital firms here - yes, fewer than Silicon Valley, but there's fewer startups to compete with.

Raising money from early-stage firms here was a relatively straightforward process. The deal terms were clean, and the valuation was adequate. (Trust me, you want clean terms and an adequate valuation over a high valuation under a ton of preferences anyway. Keeps your options open.)

Recruiting was also easy - I largely hired people I'd worked with before at other startups, or who came recommended to me by people I'd worked with before at other startups.

The differentiating factor, I suspect - because personally, I'm nothing particularly special - is that I worked at a few startups in NYC and got to know people over a few years before founding my company. (Like Chris Dixon wrote a while back, there's a time to learn and a time to earn.) I suspect this is largely true for Silicon Valley as well.

</comment><comment><USER15> Having lived in both NYC and the Bay Area for extended periods of time, I would say that at least in terms of rent and location, that there are many more options for running a start-up cheaply in the Bay Area. You might be able to find a decent deal on housing in, say, Astoria, but if you look in Silicon Valley, Berkeley, Oakland, or even certain areas of SF, you'll find many cheaper options that give you twice the space and are just as conveniently located.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't it helps that most startups here in NYC are pretty lame, ripoffs of yelp or really weak ideas. I have been very unimpressed and stayed away from both startups and wall st.

<comment><USER3> I work for a startup in New York. We have a really cool idea, but raising money has been a bitch and a half. We've decided to bypass the VCs almost entirely and focus on customers.

<comment><USER15> In my opinion, this is exactly what you should do! Build a really great product and perhaps even become profitable on your own before you try to take on capital.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> this is a great freaking post. smart notes on all points.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> a take on this from the Founder's Perspective...</comment>


Ask YC:  Best Tools, books to learn more about build, deployment process - <AUTHOR>

What are the tools you use for one step build, depolyment ? I am mainly interested in applications written in Python, PHP and Ruby. <comment><USER2> Django (Python) - <http://www.djangobook.com/en/1.0/chapter20/>

</comment><comment><USER3> I have used <a href="<http://www.capify.org/>">capistrano to deploy both php and rails applications, it works with merb, and probably camping and rack.

You need it check into some sort of SCM, then setup some ssh keys and put in your server settings. Then you can deploy it out.

It does take a little getting use to, but it helps greatly once you set it up correctly. It's a build and push to server sort of setup. It's great.

On the python front, i wouldn't know, but the newer capistrano seems more open to different types of code-bases.

If capistrano doesn't suit you, you can always build up some nice rake tasks that automate it for you.

just my thoughts :)

</comment><comment><USER4> PHP has Phing, which is based off of Ant (from the Java world).

For Ruby, there's Rakefiles and Capistrano for web app projects. There's also Vlad the Deployer which is more lightweight. For Rails, there's a continuous integration plugin which you could use to monitor your unit tests.

If it's not a large project, you might consider just writing your own tasks to automate the process (ssh'in and svn up or hg pull/up). But if you need the ability to rollback or to make sure all your unit tests pass first, go for Capistrano or Vlad.

People have used Capistrano for Python web apps too.

</comment><comment><USER5> Cal Henderson gave a pretty good talk at FOWA Miami that involved some talk about how Flickr does their deployment, you can listen to the mp3 here: <http://cdn4.libsyn.com/carsonsystems/Cal_Henderson.mp3>

deployment stuff is about 3/4 of the way through if i remember correctly.

</comment><comment><USER6> Capistrano is great for deployment. I'm not sure what you mean by 'building'. These are scripting languages...</comment>


Sheriffs want popular police-tracking app (Waze) disabled - <AUTHOR> http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2025546016_apxpolicetrackingapp.html <comment><USER2> > They say one of the technology industry's most popular mobile apps could put > officers' lives in danger from would-be police killers who can find where > their targets are parked.

Couldn't the same people, assuming they exist at all, just use their eyes as they drive past to gather the same information?

This is absolutely about revenue generation from traffic tickets, and nothing at all to do with officer safety. Their argument doesn't even make any sense.

They just know that the public dislikes traffic tickets, but might be naive enough to get behind the officer safety angle. It is a classic "won't someone PLEASE think of the children" argument.

How about this as a compromise: Waze agrees to get rid of it in any state that donates 100% of traffic ticket violation revenue to local public schools, homeless shelters, and other non-police-connected charities?

Seems fair, and since police aren't arguing against this for revenue reasons (or so they claim) they should get right behind that.

</comment><comment><USER3> _...could put officers ' lives in danger from would-be police killers who can find where their targets are parked._

This is about speed traps and DUI checkpoints, and everyone knows it. At least be honest about why you want it removed.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is a little bit silly. I feel sorry for the poor judge or magistrate who has to tell them "no".

</comment><comment><USER5> How can tech be used to stem the rise in militarization, agro tactics, and disproportionate weaponry?

</comment><comment><USER6> Won't someone think of the children or the terrorist have won.</comment>


New Jersey legalizes direct Tesla sales - <AUTHOR> http://blog.caranddriver.com/new-jersey-governor-chris-christie-legalizes-tesla-direct-sales/#. <comment><USER2> This is great news. People often forget that dealerships often abuse their power and take advantage of consumers. This is especially true since purchasing a car is a large purchase with information asymmetry (although new resources have made this less true). It's especially appalling how dealerships often discriminate on race and gender [0]

I am disappointed that this move only applies to zero-emission vehicles but hopefully this will lead to future legislation undoing the protection granted to dealerships.

[0][http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayres/Ayres%20Siegelman%20Race%...](http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayres/Ayres%20Siegelman%20Race%20and%20Gender%20Discrimination%20In%20Bargaining%20%20for%20a%20New%20Car.pdf)

<comment><USER3> >This is great news.

It is!

> People often forget that dealerships often abuse their power and take > advantage of consumers.

I doubt many people forget that. Car salesmen have some of the worst reputations of any profession in the US. Purchasing a car can be nerve- wracking. The research I felt compelled to do beforehand felt like I was preparing myself for battle, because I knew the incentives were diametrically opposed.

<comment><USER4> The best way to buy cars is option out exactly what you want and get the invoice price. Personally I've used carsdirect.

Now with invoice price in mind, send emails to all dealers in your area. Simply explain you want X car @ X price and that you are emailing many dealers and will move forward with the dealer that has the best deal. Its important that you compare cars across dealers by the difference from invoice price as small options will change the price of the car slightly.

As you get quotes, you can forward those to other dealers if they have the specific color you want, etc.

Once you lock in a price, take care of financing through your local credit union. Show up to dealer, decline all warranties/addons, sign the papers making sure price is the same you agree, and off you go.

Just did this about a month ago and it worked out great. Remember to calculate exactly how much DMV fees will be(usually around 2-3 hundred dollars) which will likely be on top of the price you negotiated unless you specify otherwise.

Don't tell them you have a trade in until you show up at the dealer to buy. Then you can negotiate the trade in value without them trying to move numbers around with the car price.

I like this approach because there is zero advantage to negotiating the car price in person. Via email you can take your time to research and also field many more offers and quotes than you would ever be able to if you visited each dealer physically.

<comment><USER5> The _best_ way to buy a car is from Tesla. Configure your car exactly as you want it online. See the exact price you will pay. When you're ready, click the button and put down a deposit using a credit card on their web site. When the car is delivered, pay the balance with an ACH transfer. Drive it home.

You certainly can do well with traditional dealers if you're prepared. It's just crazy that you even have to worry about it.

<comment><USER6> I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned CarMax. I won't argue as to whether CarMax is _best_ or not but I can attest that it is a very straight-forward, no-haggle, and pretty fair-priced way to buy a car. Even if you don't feel they are best-priced, you definitely will 100% avoid all of the anxiety and nerve-wrackiness that comes with going into traditional dealerships. That alone might be worth a slightly inflated price to avoid that experience anyways.

<comment><USER4> True and they will ship cars around their lots for you. That said, you pay for it if you don't end up purchasing the car but I think it opens up a lot of inventory to sift through.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why only (4) stores? Why only "zero-emissions" vehicles?

There should be zero limitations on direct to consumer sales for any manufacturer of any product.

<comment><USER8> because the dealership's concern is not Tesla, whom they consider a niche player. Their concern is their manufacturers GM, Toyota, Ford will set up their own stores and compete with and undercut them. The dealerships have poured a lot of resources into their dealerships over the years and it is an anti-trust issue for them to compete directly with the much more powerfule manufacturers.

<comment><USER9> If they can't compete, that means they're not providing sufficient value. What value would I, as a consumer, enjoy by doing business with a local dealer rather than the manufacturer?

I don't think the fear here is that they would "undercut them". I would do business directly with Ford, Toyota, etc. even if the price were the same. That's what they're afraid of.

<comment><USER10> My understanding is that these laws were put into place so that the manufacturers couldn't have it both ways - they couldn't enjoy the low startup-capital requirements of the franchise model, and then after using the franchisees to grow and scout out the best spots, cherrypick the most lucrative spots for manufacturer owned dealerships, driving out the independent dealerships by using their lower end-to-end costs. Because the franchisees are usually completely at the mercy of their chosen brand.

The perversion of the law is that Tesla has never had franchisees, and they're still being blocked by the laws in many states, contrary to the original intention.

I hate buying from dealers as much as anyone, but the law as I understand it makes some sense. I'm sure it varies from state to state and doesn't make sense in some.

<comment><USER9> > and then after using the franchisees to grow and scout out the best spots, > cherrypick the most lucrative spots for manufacturer owned dealerships

This is easily resolved on the contract level. Knowing this, nobody with half a brain would start a franchise unless the parent company guaranteed the territory. That's how it works in virtually every other franchising market.

<comment><USER11> Yes, this seems like a well-solved problem as nearly every franchising model includes company-owned stores.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Great news yes, but there are other states that are still big problems.

Among them, one that the media appears to not even know about: New Mexico (maybe they don't realize it's a state).

In NM, the NMADA (New Mexico Automobile Dealers Association) has basically crafted the laws such that no manufacturer can have a single store OR service center anywhere in the state. All have to be franchises. Because, you know, we have to protect the dealer franchises, otherwise we might have better consumer choice and better consumer experiences and that would be a nightmare.

If one owns a Tesla in New Mexico, and ever needs service, a Ranger has to drive down from Denver. If they're available. If the weather cooperates.

Range anxiety? Meh. RANGER anxiety is a huge problem.

Imagine finding out you could not buy an iPhone or even find a Genius Bar in the State of New Mexico because the franchises selling other mobile phones had bought the legislature and banned iPhone from the state. That's the situation with Tesla. And nobody knows about it, and nobody seems to be doing a damn thing about it.

<comment><USER5> I thought maybe this had changed, since Tesla's "Find Us" map has a "Coming Soon" service center in Albuquerque. Upon further research, it looks like that's just an expression of desire and optimism on Tesla's part, and they're still not actually legally permitted to build one.

<comment><USER12> Nope. That "coming soon" is wrapped in an Elon-style reality distortion field and should be interpreted as "we intend to have one there one day."

What they don't tell you is they cannot open it. And that there is NO WAY it is opening soon.

How do I know? Well, I contacted the Governor of New Mexico's office, and I contacted the Global VP of Sales/Service at Tesla. That got me a call from a Tesla regional manager who told me plainly, "New Mexico is worse than Texas" and that the laws are set up in such a way that there isn't much that can be done. The law on the books states that the dealerships are protected by the force of the State Police and should any young whippersnapper auto manufacturer, say, Tesla, come sneakin' into town and try to set up shop, well the dealers will be there with the full force of the state government behind them, to make sure Tesla crawls back into the hole it came from . . . in some other state.

The New Mexico legislature won't consider new proposed laws until Jan 2016. You can bet I will be working on my representative in Santa Fe to introduce a meaningful law modeled after the legislation recently passed in other states that has allowed Tesla to do business including service its existing customers.

It is remarkable how protectionist these auto dealers are. They're staring into the future and the future is staring right back, and the future has no sympathy. They must know they're on the wrong side of history. They don't care.

<comment><USER5> I think I may have come across a forum post from you when looking at what was actually going on there.

Good for you for pushing against the dealers. This stuff seems to be changing at a (relatively, for political stuff) rapid pace at the moment. NJ now, looks like CT soon, VA just relented a bit and allowed a store, and it looks like things are moving in Texas. Maybe seeing other states ditch these laws will help push things in New Mexico.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What prompted this law in the first place? Can someone from the US shed some light on this?

I just don't understand how you can ban selling what you manufacture to whomever you like outside of a planned economy.

<comment><USER14> The regulatory capture argument someone made below is hard to square with the history: [http://www.americanbar.org/publications/franchise_lawyer/201...](http://www.americanbar.org/publications/franchise_lawyer/2013/summer_2013/has_traditional_automobile_franchise_system_run_out_gas.html). At first, cars were sold directly to consumers by manufacturers, and independent dealerships were rare. It's really hard to explain using a regulatory capture or lobbying model how car manufacturers, huge incredibly profitable companies at the time, _lost their bid_ to preserve the status quo.

In reality, these were consumer and economic protection laws. States didn't like how much money was flowing from their economies to Detroit, and by making direct consumer sales illegal they gave a lot of leverage to franchises, which are local businesses. They also justified the laws on consumer protection grounds--local car dealers would be a lot more responsive to customers than a megacorp in Detroit.

As for the "planned economy" aspect--remember that the ideas of what constituted unreasonable interference in the economy were very different back then. The revolution of applying economics principles to government didn't really happen until the 1960's and 1970's. Before that, quite extensive interventions in the economy were routine. For example, prior to the 1970's, the Civil Aeronautics Board set airline ticket prices! That would be amazingly controversial in the U.S. today, on either side of the aisle, but was par for course back in the day.

<comment><USER15> Sure, they didn't _originate_ with regulatory capture.

But the actions to prevent Tesla from selling direct now, today, have definitely been the result of regulatory capture.

The original interventions created a kind of local businessman, who knew he owed his existence to these local regulations.

And now that these laws have been made unnecessary due to the availability of both information and exposure -- and incontrovertibly unnecessary in the case of for instance a large city or densely populated state, where healthy competition exists -- the reason that they hang on and prevent companies from Tesla from opening shop is absolutely regulatory capture.

<comment><USER16> > regulatory capture

There doesn't seem to be much disagreement about the facts, just the definition of "regulatory capture".

The idea which "regulatory capture" describes is when regulations fail to do what they are intended to do, when instead of restricting they empower.

But the regulations have not "failed", they are still restricting manufacturers and empowering dealers, so this isn't "regulatory capture", just bog-standard monopoly-granting.

<comment><USER17> No, that's not the normal definition. Wikipedia, for example:

> Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a > regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances > the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the > industry or sector it is charged with regulating

Enforcing barriers to entry is a _huge_ aspect of regulatory capture. A regulation that creates $1 million/year of compliance costs nominally "restricts" all players (and certainly doesn't "empower" them), but that money is often a pittance for large companies while effectively squashing new entrants, greatly to the large companies' benefit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The NJ car dealers are extremely rich and powerful so this is quite a significant event. It's too bad that it takes something as exceptional as a Tesla to incentivize the public to fix the system, but at least it is happening.

Disclosure: I think my current car might be my last non-Tesla

<comment><USER19> Tesla didn't do anything really. Christie has national ambitions and knows that keeping Tesla out of the NJ market and bending over to support the current NJ regime won't play well on the national stage.

His story was different when Tesla was first banned. But then he wasn't running for national office.

<comment><USER20> _His story was different when Tesla was first banned. But then he wasn 't running for national office._

That was 11 months ago. I'm pretty sure Chris Christie's political ambitions haven't radically altered in the meantime.

The original "ban" was a perfectly reasonable reading by a regulatory body of the existing law. Regulatory bodies shouldn't be in the business of rewriting unpopular laws; that's the legislature's job, which appears to be what happened here.

<comment><USER21> "Regulatory bodies shouldn't be in the business of rewriting unpopular laws; that's the legislature's job, which appears to be what happened here."

Thank you. This point needs to be made 100x more often. These days it seems that the regulators & judges bail out the legislatures mistakes all too often. The onus is on people to convince their elected representatives to rewrite laws that are flawed or outdated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I can understand why they would have needed to limit this bill to only the exclusive manufacturers of ZEV just to get it through legislation, but I'm curious whether it would allow the other manufacturers to spin off the ZEV portions of their businesses into subsidiaries and then be eligible to sell directly as well.

It is a very contentious subject, but some people argue that part of the reason the existing big manufactures don't put enough effort into making and offering ZEV is because they can't rely on the dealers to actually sell them. Reasons given for this is that the ZEV compete directly with the hybrid and gas vehicles on which the dealers have far greater inventory and profit margins, so they have little to no incentive to sell the ZEV.

If ZEV subsidiaries of the manufacturers could be guaranteed a chance to sell them then that might be cause for them to spend more effort on making them work.

<comment><USER23> Manufacturers can make hybrid inventory contingent on ZEV sales, or offer all kinds of other incentives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's the 21st century. I find it amusing that I can order my computer build to order in less than 30 seconds and I know I'm getting the same price as everybody else. Yet to order a car I have to spend days/weeks of research, spreadsheets, emails, phone calls and I still won't get the car I want.

The auto industry is ripe for disruption. The sooner the dealership model is replaced by something more consumer friendly, the better.

<comment><USER25> how do you know you are getting the same price as everyone else? online sales certainly are not immune to pricing tailored to the individual buyer... in fact they are in the best position to do that compared to a brick-and-mortar retail seller.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Here's the question - can I, as a PA resident, buy a Tesla directly in NJ now and simply transfer it to PA?

<comment><USER27> You can. You can also buy one in-person at Tesla's five retail stores in Pennsylvania, or from your computer anywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Can someone please shed some light on the arguments from the other side. How were these dealership protection laws ever justified by politicians?

<comment><USER29> "Jobs" is probably the "official" argument. If the middlemen go extinct, people will lose _those_ jobs.

<comment><USER30> which never technically existed in the first place for that company, so the "people" who would be out the job, wouldn't have that job in the first place

<comment><USER31> I'd have to imagine that the number of jobs created at a Tesla franchise wouldn't dramatically exceed the number of jobs created at a Tesla direct showroom...

<comment><USER32> Wouldn't they need mechanics and financial people, and not just showroom/dealer people?

<comment><USER33> I'm pretty sure Tesla has service centers that employ mechanics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Meanwhile here in West Virginia, our legislature just banned Tesla and Uber from operating in-state. This is the same legislature that changed the motto of the state from "Wild and Wonderful" to "Open for Business" only to have the constituents petition and vote to change it back.

Our policymakers make no sense at all, I'd like to replace most of them.

</comment><comment><USER35> Interesting. As a co-developing story, a post a few days back led me to the Berkshire Hathaway (Buffet's group) web site, where I read their latest newsletter. It seems they just bought a car dealership company.

[http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/MAR1015.pdf](http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/MAR1015.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER36> Will be interesting when Apple with all their cash starts to fight these laws when they want to sell their i-car.

<comment><USER37> Agreed on this point.

How will the balance of power manifest when Google, Apple, Uber, others with deep pockets start selling cars without haggling or BS in a 'car store'?

The future is bright after all!

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> It's definitely a win for the people but it's sad the only reason this happened is Christie's advisor told him his presidential bid was dead in the water without it. This guy is a grade-A crook of the worst kind. I don't know that I've ever seen a bigger fraud.

</comment><comment><USER39> There must be a big election coming up.

</comment><comment><USER40> > at up to four locations in the state

Hooray for dismantling pointless regulation, but why leave this part in then?

</comment><comment><USER41> Does Tesla do free firmware upgrades for all owners, regardless if they are the second, etc. owner?

Because that is another thing that will crush dealers. Gas car manufacturers will not update ECU software unless the car is either in warranty or its an actual recall.

<comment><USER42> To my limited knowledge most (maybe all) of the software in Tesla model S can be updated over the air, using cars cellular internet connection.

<comment><USER5> That's correct. It's possible for a service center to load software over a wire, but that's only necessary when something goes wrong. In the normal course of events, the car pops up a little alert saying there's a software update available, and asking when you want to install it. Updates are free forever (although one expects that updates for older hardware will stop being made eventually). It's basically like an iPhone in this regard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Too bad Utah can't get their act together. Even after Tesla built a showroom and stocked it with cars, the state legislators voted to keep the existing stealership cartel laws on the books.

<comment><USER44> I was following the vote. A few said they didn't have time to read it, didn't know what the bill ramifactions were, but I agree, we have to get our act together. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm surprised 4 hours have gone by and no one has made a joke about Teslas on a bridge.

</comment><comment><USER46> Suggestion: go to Amsterdam Schiphol. Take a Tesla Model S to the city. Then make up your mind about the "Apple of cars".

The consensus in NL is that you're better off with a Porsche Panamera than a Tesla, most likely with a less painful (although still painful) amortisation.

Certainly, if you're taller than 180cm, drive before you buy into the hype.

<comment><USER47> 6'2" Telsa owner here. No idea what you're talking about on not fitting.

If it's a real concern get the panoramic roof which gains you another 3-4" of headroom.

<comment><USER11> I think the OP is talking about sitting in the back seat, not the front. I'd say OP got into a Tesla taxi/exec car and didn't like the room.

But not sure why comparing to the Panamera is a good example, because it has a low and sloping roofline, and is only a 4 seater. Weird choice.</comment></comment></comment>