New Amazon EC2 competitor - SoftLayer launches CloudLayer - <AUTHOR> http://www.softlayer.com/press_2009_05_04.html

<comment><USER2> SoftLayer's real advantage seems to be in bandwidth. Offering bandwidth at $0.10/GB or cheaper in bundles, their CloudLayer Storage can offer some nice savings over S3 depending on what you need.

Likewise, while they haven't published their CloudLayer Computing prices yet, the plans do include 2,000GB of outbound bandwidth and free incoming bandwidth which is potentially a huge cost savings over EC2 since 2,000GB of bandwidth would cost $360 on EC2.

SoftLayer tends to have a wonderful reputation with many YC companies choosing it for their hosting. I'm not sure I'd want to be one of the first customers on this new service, but I'm definitely glad it's happening. If nothing else, hopefully it will put pressure on Rackspace and Amazon.

<comment><USER3> Another real advantage is that you can mix generic Xen instances with custom dedicated hardware (for specialized problems) -- all on the same, fast private net.

I've pushed a lot of backend bits between different server lots there, and my private vlan was solid, minus acceptable hiccups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks like they are going to launch, the EC2 side of things won't be available till May 11th. I hope their cloud private network is not the same as the server private network. They have major issues with the private network and if you're site is connecting to a private network address for db, you are screwed.

<comment><USER5> Curious to know what issues you've had with SL's private network? We have more than twenty servers spread across Dallas that rely heavily on their private network. HTTP, MySQL, memcached, etc. Peaks into the hundreds of Mbps. While there have been hiccups, it's generally been fine.

<comment><USER6> +1 for the SL private network. Minus (minimal) outages, it's been excellent for us over the past 2 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's still some crucial information missing from this press release (prices and API) but from the information that is there CloudLayer looks like more of competitor to Slicehost and GoGrid than EC2. There's a big difference between launching a server in <60 seconds (EC2) and 5 minutes (CloudLayer).

<comment><USER8> > There's a big difference between launching a server in <60 seconds (EC2)

Do you achieve that in practice with EC2? I find 3 - 4 minutes is typical and as bad as 10 minutes is not uncommon.

<comment><USER7> 10 minutes, wow. I've only experienced that with Windows instances (especially in eu-west) which I rarely use. Solaris instances are slower too but those are still considered beta.

I've been working on a development tool for EC2 for the past few months so I'm starting and shutting down instances almost every day. All of the Linux instances I've started have come up in less than a minute and usually around 30 seconds.

Keep in mind, if you're using a custom image or one that's been modified it could take longer depending on how large the image is (lots of preinstalled software) and what scripts are running on startup.

<comment><USER8> You hit the nail on the head - most of my instances are windows because I'm using them to run a small piece of windows software on demand. Didn't know there was a difference. Here's hoping they get a bit quicker as time goes by (maybe there's just not a large enough pool of them yet).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is awesome. I was getting ready to migrate us to EC2 for the reserved instance savings, but we're already with SL so it might be cheaper to stay if they're offering monthly plans (which is basically like reserved). Can't wait for pricing info!

</comment><comment><USER10> Looking at their S3 competitor, I can't seem to find any documentation on how you actually place data onto their storage system. They mention WebDAV, FTP, and "API", and Blackberry/iPhone applications. I couldn't find any more details than that.

<comment><USER11> [http://http.cdnlayer.com/softlayerweb/PS_CLStorage_GettingSt...](http://http.cdnlayer.com/softlayerweb/PS_CLStorage_GettingStarted.pdf)

I don't see any API; looks like a Web interface only.

<comment><USER12> That seems odd. Surely there's an API?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> the actual link is <http://cloudlayer.com> (it's going to be their homepage on May 11th)

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm pretty sure I just read my quota of (tm)s for the month.

In other news, it sure would be nice to see a list of places they have a CDN presence. Their CDN seems pretty limited as is, though. 24 hour sliding expirations for the origin service? Yuck.

<comment><USER5> They partner with Internap for their CDN:

<http://internap.com/flash/maps/overview_map.html>

More details on the service:

[http://internap.com/cdn-services/deliver/http-content- delive...](http://internap.com/cdn-services/deliver/http-content-delivery- service.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> You know what someone needs to build; a cloud agnostic layer. A standard API that translates across all these cloud companies.

It would reduce migration barriers and help drive down the price.

<comment><USER11> Several such efforts are underway; OCCI looks the most promising.

<http://www.occi-wg.org/>

<comment><USER15> Awesome! Thanks for the link.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Have you ever regretted taking an investment? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Yes.

Once someone is on your cap table it's very very hard to get them off. If it's someone who isn't reliable, doesn't align with you philosophically, or is unethical.... There's a world of hurt waiting. You spend the money once, you deal with the consequences for the life of the company. Little things include having to chase down signatures years after they've "checked out" so you can run your business. Bigger things include blocking an exit for petty reasons, or scaring away future, higher quality, investors, because good investors don't want to be in deals with bad ones.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sort of.

Let's say, for illustrative purposes, that I took an investment from Peter Thiel (it's someone like that). I wanted to work with this person since the late 1990s, and finally got a chance to. They've been an amazing and patient partner / investor, but it hasn't worked out as hoped. That part is very hard, and very frustrating; like trying to refuse gravity. If you've ever thrown everything you have at something, and felt like gravity was bringing the rocket back down early no matter what you do, then you know what I'm talking about.

I regret that the failure of the company will mean the end of working with this investor, it was a rare opportunity. I obviously get to retain value from the experience and what I learned. There is a significant toll that is paid with every serious start-up, measured in years of your life, effort, stress, difficult life trade-offs, and a love for what you do and having to deal with that not working out. All I've ever wanted to do is build, and work with great people; it always sucks to not come through for people you look up to, that believed in you. Even if that person can afford the lost investment, the principle context goes beyond money, it's the hope of creating something that matters and seeing it prosper.

<comment><USER4> I have had a similar experience failing a really great investor, and I am sorry to hear that your opportunity is not working out. I see from your profile that you are a serial entrepreneur, so I doubt that you need to hear from me that there will be other opportunities in the future.

What I can tell you is that it is important to be as honest and forthright when the rocket crashes as you can. You may never work with that investor again. That doesn't mean that nothing has to come out of that relationship. It is important to keep your reputation, especially with regards to someone with a high profile. It is equally important to keep your reputation and relationship with your coworkers and employees. When my first startup went under, there was a lot of anger between me and my partner, who had left college to work with me. But we worked through it and fourteen years later I was a groomsman at his wedding. So, realize that things are going to suck and there is going to be anger, but if you stay straight with them, they will hate the failure instead of hating you. And you can share that hatred for the failure with them, if you don't internalize the failure as being a part of you. It's hard to do that, but it's necessary to some extent to keep following your dreams.

There are roles other than founder which VCs need in their quiver. Failed founders are one of the best places for VCs to find technical knowledge, which can be important for them in vetting other opportunities. Since they have already worked with you, they have a good idea of how much you know and how much you don't. And they have seen failure before, and won't hold it against you unless you do something untoward when things come apart.

Failure sucks, and failing a great opportunity sucks more. But I hope that you really don't regret taking the opportunity, even if it led to a failure. One thing is to ask yourself, if you didn't know if it would result in failure or success, would you take the opportunity again? If you would, then you don't truly regret taking that chance.

If you do realize that your venture is failing, it is good to switch to 'failure management mode'. I did this about a year too late, and it cost me dearly (I still had a forlorn hope, I didn't take salary the last year to save on expenses, ended up living in my car, girl left me, lots of fun). Maybe for you, failure management may mean salvaging relationships, your love for what you do, and hope for the future. All that emotional stuff is the hardest part of what we do, and managing that for both you and your people is a very important part of winding down a failed venture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yes, without a doubt. I can't even stress how important it is to figure out who you are dealing with. Just expect that this person is more important than your closest confident, closer than your lover in many ways. They will affect your life in more ways then you can understand, so choose them more carefully than you do a partner in your own bed.

Ok, so I am maybe a bit dramatic, but frankly it is all true.

<comment><USER6> Could you please share your experience (if you don't mind and of course leaving out personal/sensitive details).

<comment><USER5> Sure. The shortish version is that I took an investment from someone who I have known for years and is quite a capable investor but even before I took it I was questioning whether or not I should. At the time I took the investment I was in need of funding to continue growing but also I had grown my head count too fast so I actually _needed_ the funding or had to lay a few people off. He saw that as an opportunity to get more for his money, which he did because I was in a weak position (in hind sight I saw this as a warning sign because he was short sighted on the business).

In the end this particular investor questioned every decision we made, wanted to be involved with client meetings, tried to use us as his personal IT/development group without payment, tried to drive us into his personal projects, would show up at the office and start asking people what they were working on and if he disagreed he'd tell them. So overall he became a royal pain in the ass. In the end we wound up getting him out of the business through raising enough money on good terms to buy him out, but it is an experience I would never want to repeat.

What I took away was that if I have any bad feelings, odd feelings or feel something just isn't quite right, I pass now. Divorcing a spouse is hard, getting rid of an investor can be even harder. This is because you basically want to placate this person until you can get them out of your business so they do not go off and become a negative effect on fundraising for you or for the business as a whole. An ex spouse, even if they are screaming you are a douche will be viewed as just a bitter ex, an investor doing this will turn off other investors many times for valid reasons.

If you have specific questions happy to share my experience. I know we had a nightmare with this one, but have had amazing help from others. Just with this one person I could go on for a long time with the nightmares, but hopefully the "short" version covers the key issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Jean-Philipe Joining a startup as employee no 1. It was my worst investment. I'll be happy to merely get the value of my work hours back some day, even in the best case that the exit will be quite a successful one. I don't expect to get more than what I could have made as a freelancer during those years. I'm now making way more money just working. Simply buying the shares would have been cheaper for me.

Now whenever I do the math for accepting shares over money, it's usually not worth it.

<comment><USER7> We need to learn from Hollywood. Always get a share of the profit off the top. Any other kind of profit sharing is not worth it.

<comment><USER8> Always get a share of the _revenue_. Example: Forest Gump author got zilch because his share was based on _profit_ and not _revenue_

<comment><USER9> And a share of gross revenue, at that. I'm sure all these definitions are written in the studio's favour. Apparently, Stan Lee never got anything for his creations either (and Spiderman grossed $800M+).

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

<comment><USER10> Stan Lee's famous for ripping off the creators of characters in comics he published, so I wouldn't feel too sorry for him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> (I realise that the question is actually about taking on someone/entity as an investor/partner)

Slightly different POV:

I had the opportunity to work for a company for either options, or accrue extra annual leave. I took the options. Smart people took annual leave (because it was still actually payable/real money)

At the end, as it turned out we all lost our jobs anyways, people who had taken annual leave got extra money. I got a huge bunch of options.

Now that's fine they may have been worth something, but I still had to exercise them. It was ok though, the CEO told us all verbally we would have 12 months to exercise them.

2 months later, I got an e-mail from the CFO asking what I was doing with my options as they would lapse in 30 days. I had to exercise them or let them die. I was already committed, so I thought what the hell, I'll exercise them because otherwise I walk away with nothing

So I forked over even more money.

I wish I hadn't exercised those options. They ended up being worth exactly $0.

<comment><USER12> Did you have to pay tax on the unrealized gain?

<comment><USER11> The one upside - the tax I had to pay was on the value of the shares. The value was zero, so I had to pay zero tax.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Yes. At the earliest stage i needed money so i partnered with a friend who had nothing to do with what i was working on. I always kept him in the loop out of courtesy, but it back fired when he started refusing some of the decisions and pushing his own. To get rid of him i paid 4X what he originally invested and i'm still going through a lawsuit right now. i'm paying for all this from my revenue and end up having nothing for myself. Hopefully the judge will dismiss the case and this nightmare will end.

</comment><comment><USER14> Yes! I took investment for one of my businesses during the product / market fit discovery faze. I regret this. The implication is we burned equity whilst trying to create a working product / business model.

I will only now take money to scale a business that's already working.

<comment><USER15> That seems to be the safer approach, if possible. Prove that an idea is working and making some money (aka get some traction) and then seek investment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Oh yeah! There were the VCs who stopped us from doing the google business model. There were the VCS who made us spend half the money they gave us on another portfolio product that didn't actually do what was promised, setting us back 2 years. (Yes 2 years!)

I've seen countless conflicts among the founding team because VCs push bad decisions on them and some of the founders fell like they have to follow them because they want more money form the VCs and the other half of the founders know the VCs are full of it.

I've seen VCs push out good founders, leaving the weaker founders behind in the company-- so they could have more control.

Notice all of these examples are VCs. Seen a LOT less shenanigans perpetrated by angels.

<comment><USER17> How were VCs able to do any of this? Did you sell them a majority?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> For those of you who answered yes - could you elaborate more? And also shed some light to new founders on what to look out for, questions to ask, red flags to look out for, and advice in general when choosing investors?

</comment><comment><USER19> We turned down an investment and went the revenue-funded route instead. We grew a bit slower but it was absolutely the right decision.

<comment><USER20> I admire this. What were the biggest hurdles? Hiring?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> No.

But I have the benefit of experience through osmosis, watching others get into problem investments and learning how to avoid them. It's difficult to describe how to do this properly, it's a complex and subtle art, and you never really know if you did the right thing (assuming the investor isn't throwing chairs at you during negotiations or something). It takes a lot of chutzpah to say no, and a lot of the reasons to say no end up being buried in deep contractual agreements even lawyers have trouble reading.

Treat investment like a loaded gun. It's a tool, but a dangerous one when used foolishly and without control.

</comment><comment><USER22> I took an investment. It's turning out to be a 'lifestyle' business that's been fully built out after just one small round of funding. I regretted it for a while because I feel my parents(who are very well off) could have funded the whole thing and we'd be sitting pretty right now. I didn't ask them originally because I thought I was onto something big that would need several rounds of funding. But then again the investors made THE key decision to pivot into a better line of business, so there's always positives.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'll come at this question from a different angle.

We made a decision in our last startup to actually turn down a term sheet and go heads down instead of taking money from a VC which we had seen a number of red flags from but had committed to leading a round of funding.

I know it was the right decision to make it and even though it seemed hard at the time I never once regretted it, but I have no doubts that if we had taken the investment I would have regretted it almost every day since

</comment><comment><USER24> Family money trust trap. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_abuse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_abuse)

Marginalized members of wealthier business family units deal with the same/parallel social issues as broke, corrupt, controlled workplace/parent- state organization cultures.

A warning to ask "would you trust your parents to look after your money?"*

If anyone fits that situation and reads here before or around trauma, read yourself and be warned about economic abuse madly easier due to/based on how well you are known and objectifiable by even close family.

I waited to share because it is complicated, difficult, and accumulated, to struggle to explain at my age still.

It broke a lot of important parts of my life apart.

I am making my own version of (CC) @Painreal and #paincoin to try to deal with that count and age of power remorse.

[1] [http://new.spring.me/#!/r/would-you-trust-your- parents-t/660...](http://new.spring.me/#!/r/would-you-trust-your- parents-t/660320943997989631)

</comment><comment><USER25> Hell Yeah. When you are building a mission-oriented company and trying to change the world it's important to work with investors who understand what that means to you and who are fully aligned with it. This is especially important when your profits drive your purpose. Otherwise you will have a lot of fun figuring this out ;)

<comment><USER26> What's a "mission-oriented" company?

<comment><USER27> A ship whose captain would rather it sink than change course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Yup!

But it was too late to do anything about it. I was pitching like a money craze just to set up the company and get things going. I managed to get what the startup needed and start rolling.

But Ow Boy! Getting investment from a politician that is from a 3rd world country can go south very quickly. We are talking about like really bad south.

I learned few things on the way:

1- Bad investment can very easily kill the company.

2- Living rough and patching things together can be a better investment than taking someone's money that you know will cause you horrible outcome.

Edit: red flags:

1- He/she have no clue how proper investment is done.

2- No trust or believe in the actual entrepreneurs. I don't care how much he/she offers, you've got to see it in their eyes that they are willing to do this and you as an entrepreneur is the one.

3- Don't take a politicians investment! Bad bad money.

</comment><comment><USER29> Am I the only one who finds irony in the fact that this site is run by company which invests in companies yet pretty much everyone who has commented thus far has said that yes, they do regret taking a investment?

I suppose it may depend on whom the investment is from, but it also makes me glad in many ways that I've turned down all of the people who have wanted to invest in my company thus far and run it strictly on the revenue it generates. (i.e. it was a hobby of mine that started generating revenue and only after that did I bring other people on to help)

<comment><USER30> Selection bias. The people most likely to respond are those who have more than "no" to say.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Yes. I've also regretted _not_ taking an investment. Had I exercised some share options six years ago for ~$5k, I'd have ~$20M+ in the bank for my trouble.

Instead, tumbleweeds. Live and learn.

</comment><comment><USER32> Watch out for inexperienced investors.

<comment><USER33> And be equally careful about the experienced ones.

<comment><USER16> I've met no trustworthy investors-- that is to say, people who after 3 or more years, I still consider to be honest.

This is over nearly 30 years founding startups.

<comment><USER34> Just guessing, it seems like that no matter how you structure it, there's always going to be a conflict of interests and values.

<comment><USER16> Yes. In theory there might not be a conflict of values. In practice, the conflict of interest is very real.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> You can give up too much equity or control, which will make the company unattractive to future potential investors.

</comment><comment><USER36> The quality of investors varies dramatically so be mindful of who and what you're getting involved with.

With regards to sounding out investors; talk to the companies that they have invested in before, especially the companies that didn't do so well.

That'll often tell you all you need to know.

</comment><comment><USER37> Yes. To elaborate, I felt sick to my stomach when I took a particular investment. Gut feeling that I did the wrong thing? Maybe.

<comment><AUTHOR> How did it go?

PS: see new comment

<comment><USER37> It went just as badly as I assumed, but for different reasons than you'd expect. I pitched an immature product to investors, and when sales flopped, we flopped, despite numerous pivot potentials. The investors and I are in good graces, but we basically wasted a year of our time on the unsellable product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Absolutely. Taking money is a much, MUCH bigger risk than investing it for a wide variety of reasons.

<comment><USER15> Care to elaborate?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> If people regret what they eat for breakfast in the morning, you can bet they will regret taking on investments.

Maybe a more specific question would be appropriate?

</comment><comment><USER40> Nope.

</comment><comment><USER41> Yes.

</comment><comment><USER42> Yes, came to know antidepressant medicine because of that.

</comment><comment><USER43> Yes.

</comment><comment><USER44> Yes.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> If you want to answer anonymously, I created a question on Quora:

[http://www.quora.com/Have-you-ever-regretted-taking-an- inves...](http://www.quora.com/Have-you-ever-regretted-taking-an-investment)

<comment><USER45> What is the advantage compared to throwaway accounts?

<comment><USER46> HN can log IP addresses, so throwaway accounts are not anonymous to YC.

<comment><USER45> You mean that Quora doesn't log IP addresses?

<comment><USER47> Quora isn't run by an investment firm.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Sun Locator AR - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.genewarrior.sunlocator.lite <comment><AUTHOR> Sun Locator predicts the sun's position at a specific location during the course of the day. The Augmented Reality feature displays the Sun's position directly overlaid on your device's camera. Use the slider to set the time of day and directly track the solar movement.

Since this is my first app, I would appreciate any feedback and suggestions on how to improve it.

* The Lite version is free and contains no ads: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.genewarrio...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.genewarrior.sunlocator.lite)

* The Pro version can additionally display other days of the year: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.genewarrio...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.genewarrior.sunlocator.pro)</comment>


Gardasil Lawsuit – Deaths and Serious Injuries Linked to HPV Vaccine - <AUTHOR> https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/prescription-drugs/gardasil-lawsuit-hpv-vaccine/ <comment> sahin-boydas Disclaimer: i am for vaccinations. Science can always make better safer vaccinations.

And this is from the law firm:

There is currently a great deal of controversy surrounding vaccines. Our firm wishes to stress that we are not against vaccines. They have the potential to eradicate disease and save millions of lives. We are, however, against intentional efforts to mislead consumers about the safety and effectiveness of a drug or vaccine.

<comment><USER2> I remember discussing this very issue when the vaccine was fast tracked. I was called anti-science when I said the trials looked suspicious.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where can I purchase an Saas or App? - <AUTHOR> I am looking for something with a few customers and low monthly revenue that I can take over and grow. I know about flippa, but was wondering if there are any other sites or if anyone on HN want to sell their site/app/Saas since they are working on something else? <comment><USER2> Have you checked out FE International?

[https://feinternational.com/buy-a-website/](https://feinternational.com/buy- a-website/)</comment>


Russel Brand gets 2000 followers in 5 minutes - is this a record? - <AUTHOR> http://twitter.com/rustyrockets <comment><USER2> Russell Brand is an English actor, comedian, and television and radio personality. He is known for his striking fashion style which he considers "S&M; Willy Wonka". In October of 2008, Brand resigned from his BBC Radio 2 program following a controversial prank call to actor Andrew Sachs that resulted in his suspension. \--Mahalo.com</comment>


Why Sacrifices by the Rich Won't Fix Social Welfare - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-08/why-sacrifices-by-the-rich-won-t-fix-social-welfare <comment><USER2> Yes, remember how Social Security didn't take seniors from the most impoverished age group to the least, and was completely unsustainable for 80 years?

</comment><comment><USER3> I read it and just don't get the point or the argument. Not what i expected</comment>


I Cited Their Study, So They Disavowed It - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-disavowed-it-11594250254 <comment><USER2> Academic research is very often political in nature especially in categories like public policy, history and sociology etc.

<comment><USER3> Do you have a citation for that?</comment></comment>


Enter the Matrix: Organizing Product Management - <AUTHOR> https://www.braintreepayments.com/braintrust/Enter-the-Matrix-Organizing-Product-Management

<comment><USER2> A very tough problem to solve: you organize by customer and you start to get requirements driven by particular customers, making your more of a custom dev shop that can't scale the business. You organize by engineering team and you become a project manager with less visibility into customer needs. You organize by Product, intersecting between projects and customers and you end- up with lots of ownership questions and gaming by PMs (strong PMs often will circumvent others to get satisfy their customer and/or project deadlines).

I've settled on the same conclusion as I've grown our team (and tried out all of these pivots along the way)... focus on the product and scaling the business out. Settle cross-ownership disputes by trying to clarify who makes the decision. Reflect regularly and adjust accordingly.</comment>


The Inexplicable War on Lemonade Stands - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/ <comment><USER2> When you have insanely overly funded law enforcement geared for massive threats that don't exist, then they are most certainly going to use all that manpower and equipment go after easy targets that cannot defend themselves, to justify their salaries somehow.

They know it's a hassle to go after people who are wealthy and can afford their own lawyers so they avoid it unless there is something political to be gained.

This theme repeats itself at every level, local, state and federal.

This is why when I see things like a national database for facial recognition it's pretty easy to accurately predict for every one "terrorist" caught each decade, thousands of people will experience life-traumatizing hassle that they didn't deserve.

Just look at the TSA and their VIPR "squad" - if they are not defunded soon, they will become the nightmare of the USA, never catching one "terrorist" but themselves terrorizing millions of citizens for no purpose but to "keep us in our place".

I think we will really get a demonstration of this at the upcoming RNC and DNC conventions (ironically funded by taxpayers).

<comment><USER3> The terrorist in the USA won a long time ago. The unfortunate lives lost on September 11th will never be forgotten and the wars fought over them won't either.

Sadly, the freedoms lost because of these events set back the Unites States many many decades. I remember growing up a proud US citizen who was happy to be patriotic because my country stood for the right things for the right reasons.

Now, I'm ashamed. My country took a head first dive into the quick sand of ignorance and fear even though there were countless, larger than life, signs warning us it was right there.

To my fellow citizen, and the rest of the word, I'm sorry America is no longer the beacon of freedom it once was.

<comment><USER4> _The terrorist in the USA won a long time ago._

I don't think terrorists actually win. What they got on 9/11 is more intervention in the middle east. The fact that it terrify the US government into terrorizing their own citizen is just incidental.

<comment><USER5> The goal of terrorism is to cause terror. Was the US sufficiently terrorized by 9/11? It'd be near-impossible to argue that we weren't. Not only did we shed quite a few civil liberties, and subject our own citizens to a wide range of inconveniences and violations, but we also spent trillions of dollars in an ongoing "War on Terror" that seems to have no end and no realistic, tangible goals. (As with the "War on Drugs," it reifies an intangible concept, and then attempts to fight that concept as if it were tangible).

Getting the US out of the Middle East is a long-term goal of Al Qaeda and similar organizations. But the short-term goal, i.e., how they plan to get us out of the Middle East, is by causing our society to collapse -- financially and socially. To paraphrase one of OBL's treatises, Al Qaeda wants to "bleed" us to death. Terror is their chief tactic in pursuit of that strategy.

OBL is dead, and depending on whom you ask, Al Qaeda is either spent or significantly weakened. But that's sort of beside the point. Those guys never really expected that 9/11 would cause us to withdraw immediately from the Middle East. In fact, their entire plan was to _draw us deeper in_ , where we could waste blood and treasure and engender further ill will in the region. And the fact that we whipped up a security frenzy in our own country (PATRIOT act, airport security theater, paranoia, etc.)? That's either icing on the cake, or part of the cake itself, but it's certainly a big win in Al Qaeda's column.

Now, if you take the long view, you could argue that there's still time for us to correct our course. The terror and repurcussions of our reaction to 9/11 can still be undone. We recovered from McCarthyism. We recovered from the Alien & Sedition Acts. Time and again, our country has temporarily threatened its own principles or abandoned rationality, and then come back to its senses in the long run. It's entirely possible that the post-9/11 security frenzy ends up being another historical footnote.

<comment><USER4> On the other side, the United State government benefits, as they are seen as more important than ever and they can justify further tax increase In other words, they benefit from a situation they did not create.

Of course, it was not rational in the long run. But for the careers of certain individuals, it is a good thing. The harm may be so dispersed that they barely felt it or they are shielded from it altogether. Furthermore, they are fueled by our irrationality of perceiving rare, media-worthy like a terrorist attack as more important than many common death scenarios and the more common(and arguably more important) horror.

Keep in mind that organizations will either choose to expand, or disappears. If the US government choose the rational way for society and enlightened self- interest, it would have make itself disappear by unemploying themselves in the process. Of course, the government choose to makes job for the insider instead.

In some sense, this is what the party of the US government wanted and what terrorists desire. But if they aren't so wrapped up in the government or being a terrorist, they might have a different perspective.

It's like being a luddite at the dawn of the industrial revolution. We saw that we are losing our jobs, but we don't see that eventually our quality of life is going to increase. Now that we don't have to make clothes, we can enjoy the finer thing in life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it's hilarious that Forbes is framing this sort of thing as crazy- berserk anti-business activity, when it's just a valid to interpret it as pro- _big_ -business activity.

The fees and licenses are barriers to entry that prevent established businesses from having to compete with a thousand nobodies. To an established business, the permit and license costs are trivial.

Once your food stand / hot dog cart business reaches a certain level of reliable revenue, it's rational to _support_ increases in license costs for this very reason. I don't know, of course, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that this is exactly what happened.

<comment><USER7> I believe in principle you can only be pro-business or anti-business. If 'pro- big-business' means keeping some people out of business to make more business for other business, that isn't business at all -- rather a rehash of violent coercion comparable to the regular operations of mafias and gangs. In essence, established business -- like a mafia, is staking their territory and using their strong-arm (cops) as muscle, to stifle competition and maintain their monopoly. These kids did not have permission from any 'family leaders', therefore their operation was disassembled.

<comment><USER8> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>

<comment><USER7> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This has a simple explanation.

A permit, as defined by Black's law dictionary (paraphrased[1]), is authorization to commit an otherwise criminal/forbidden act. Thus if you had a skulking permit that authorizes you to steal and kill, you legally could commit what was a crime.

Permits, as treated/used by the US Government, are just another form of taxation. It has become "pay up, or it's illegal". According to my understanding of the Constitution this is illegal—but that's never stopped our government before.

So, with the requirements in place to make it illegal to manufacture/brew/sell food (including beverages, like lemonade or even tea) without a permit, we get a crackdown on kids selling bottled drinks or lemonade made from a mix, to enforce the laws.

And that's still ignoring the peddling license and the business license.

Just take a look at the permits/licenses required to operate shop today, and what is illegal because of it. I can't even finish my basement off without paying for a permit. For example, a heterosexual couple can't get married in most states without a permit. This practice came from interracial marriage being illegal in the 1900s and requiring a permit; prior to this time marriage was a (primarily) religious institution and people married without governmental interference. The idea of a marriage permit has since been promulgated as a "good idea," and "common-law marriages" are considered "bad ideas".

Give the government an inch and they take a mile...

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

[1]: I had to paraphrase because I don't own a copy. I had to look it up in the library a while ago, and the definition stuck with me.

<comment><USER10> It's a shift from the philosophy "that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted" to "that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden".

It seems it's good to have health inspectors, and shut down the dodgy operators. It's also good to force restaurants to follow good practices. But the regulations always seem to grow, and don't always prevent disasters.

The problem is, disasters are "black swan" events. Builders take reasonable steps to avoid hitting their fingers with hammers, because it's a high incidence / small impact kind of thing. But low incidence / high impact things (like cutting off your hand with a buzzsaw) need a bit of regulation.

The problem is, regulation _doesn't work_. Someone will put up a sign spelling out how to use the buzzsaw, which people will follow for about 30 seconds before putting their hands in danger again.

You need education (safety signs), but you also need enforcement. And one of the best methods of enforcement is encouraging whistle-blowers. Whenever a real disaster happens, there's usually a clear paper trail of people making complaints about the potential hazard. People _know_ the risk, but aren't able to escalate it to someone who can force mitigation. Obviously this is a sort of inverted survivor bias (no-one cares about paper trails when there's no body), but the point remains - people usually knew the disaster was waiting to happen, and weren't able to figure out what to do about it.

The most important regulation (I believe) is that safety complaints need to be made, and dealt with. No system is perfect, but overregulation encourages a system that looks perfect on paper while problems go unnoticed.

<comment><USER11> _But low incidence / high impact things (like cutting off your hand with a buzzsaw) need a bit of regulation._

We used to, for the most part accept that such things would happen, and not try too hard to prevent them when the impact was mostly limited to the person making the poor decision leading to the accident. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing; regulations shift the responsibility and costs away from the person actually doing the potentially dangerous thing on to the organization as a whole. The whole process slows down as a result.

I'm not against regulations or some equivalent (such as best practices plus liability) in situations where someone being stupid puts many people or the public at large at risk, but don't tell me I need certification to use a buzzsaw. I learned to use one when I was 12.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The thing that bothers me is that its not "too much" law enforcement overdoing it. Where I live now, the code inspector's office is cruising around town shutting down all of the "haunted houses" that charities are running because its a public gathering and those need alarm activated sprinkler systems, don- cha-know.

No, its not an over-abundance of a thing, its a different kind of thing altogether. Some time in the last decade or so, we turned into something altogether different than what we were before and it feels like its just getting started.

<comment><USER13> It's the quest for "safety" - it got so much media attention what with all the terrorist threats and attacks (which existed long before 9/11), that it has been engrained in the minds of people as "safety and security at all costs" and has extended to most parts of life, not just external threats to the country (which is understandable, since most Americans never see any real terrorism but know that they have to fear it and protect themselves, so they find something else to protect themselves against).

<comment><USER12> All that is true. But I don't think that's it alone. The core of the problem is that there are public officials, "public servants" as they try to call themselves, that come to work and say "Gee what am I going to do today? I know I'll go harass some little girls. Yeah, they're breaking the rules, after all. Good job! Go me!" and are completely ok with it.

Its not even so bad that _they_ are ok with it. There have always been rotten apples. Its that (despite the small outrage), everyone else has just sort of become numb to this kind of ass-hattery. Try to imagine what would have happened in Mayberry in 1960 if the code enforcement office pulled something like this. I believe nearly everyone at the office would have instantly found themselves looking for a new line of work. It quite likely would have been difficult for them to even continue living in that area.

The whole idea of putting a human being at that post was to avoid this machine-like enforcement without discretion.

There's some kind of deep intractable cynicism that's changing the worldview of the United States (probably the whole "western world" to a lesser extent). Its more than just fear-"save me from the terrorists!", it has a raw edge of hopelessness to it that has never been present in the USA before.

<comment><USER8> _The core of the problem is that there are public officials, "public servants" as they try to call themselves, that come to work and say "Gee what am I going to do today? I know I'll go harass some little girls. Yeah, they're breaking the rules, after all. Good job! Go me!" and are completely ok with it._

Not so. A lot of times, in fact probably the majority, they are responding to complaints from other vendors.

This is especially true at events; vendors pay a _lot_ of money (often a few thousand a day, paid months in advance) to the organizers for the right to set up a food or refreshment stall, and are subject to safety inspections themselves. So they object to anyone else coming along and doing the same thing for free, even if they're only selling small amounts. Event vendors live on fairly thin margins; since they're transient they can't count on repeat business of any kind. If it's a kid that's cute, but if the kid is selling commercial beverages rather than home-made lemonade (as shown in the photo accompanying the article), then professional retailers see that as a front for the parent who is buying the stuff in bulk at Costco. Having worked as an organizer on a few musical festivals, I regret to say that they're sometimes correct about this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> When I think of a good ol' fashioned lemonade stand, I think of kids picking lemons and mixing up a big pitcher of homemade lemonade. In this article, the main photo shows kids selling bottled drinks and putting cash in a strongbox.

Would it change your opinion if you found out these kids were making $1000 a day? What if their parents were food vendors and didn't want to deal with permits, so they had their kids operate a stand? What if someone got salmonella from their lemonade?

I'm all for the cutesy kids killing a summer afternoon by selling homemade lemonade at the end of their driveway. The parents buying flats of drinks from Costco, a steel cashbox, and taking them to a street fair? Not so much.

<comment><USER15> Actually, I have a problem with that. Even if it was a front for parents to sell food without a permit, frankly I'd be okay with that. The fact that our government has produced an environment where I need permits, approval, and licenses to sell something is ridiculous.

<comment><USER16> I hate to break it too you, but it has _always_ been the case that a permit has been required to sell food to the public for your entire life. The rules may have been selectively applied more frequently in the past, but the laws are not new.

<comment><USER17> There is a keen difference between _"on the books it is illegal"_ and _"there are actually men with guns walking around that will enforce this"_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This reminds me of the major undercover sting operation that took place several years ago against a group of people who had formed a private poker club in Colorado. It sickens me that the police would waste the time prosecuting this, instead of catching murderers and rapists who are free. As if they have nothing better to do. May God save this pathetic country.

<comment><USER19> _It sickens me that the police would waste the time prosecuting this, instead of catching murderers and rapists who are free._

Do you honestly believe that the two are exclusive?

<comment><USER12> To hear the police talk about their budgets and shortages nowadays, _yes_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was expecting the title to be a metaphor for something, the fact that it's completely serious and that cops are actually shutting down lemonade stands for permits is utterly pointless.

I could maybe get if they were selling complex food stuff that the kids couldn't make themselves and the parents were using them to make some money using a loophole.

But I highly doubt this is the case with 25c lemonade stands.

<comment><USER21> I had the same expectation, thought it would be a witty article on some over- zealous law enforcement on small businesses or similar. But shutting down actual lemonade stands run by a few kids? I'm very surprised this is actually real. How silly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is not just a few isolated events. My brother set up a lemonade stand on family property a few years back, and they didn't operate for more than an hour before they were visited by the township health inspector and, after they refused to move, the police. They were a bit older, sophomores or juniors in HS, but it should be clear that local townships are not fans of micro entrepreneurs.

</comment><comment><USER23> I do not know if anyone else here is or was a fan on NationStates, but this is right out of the game: "The private sector is almost wholly made up of enterprising ten-year-olds selling lemonade on the sidewalk, although the government is looking at stamping this out."

</comment><comment><USER24> What's unknown is if the police are shutting down the lemonade stands on their own volition or if they are acting on complaints from residents. Not that either is right, but if they're acting on complaints it kind of shifts the anger.

<comment><USER25> That's what I was thinking. Neighbours talk less often to each other these days, and instead, they rely on the police to fix these sorts of issues. It's just a side effect of an increasingly individualistic society.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Wow. I thought the lemonade stands was a metaphor for small startups. Not actual lemonade stands by 6 year olds.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm slightly glad about this. For a long time, undesirables (junkies, blacks etc) would have gotten more police harassment if they were running businesses from the street whereas a blind eye was turned to nice middle class kids doing what is almost the same thing.

Now the cops have to apply the law to everyone, and yes, if you want to give the police the power to move that person who makes you uncomfortable then you must give them the responsibility to shut down the lemonade stand.

<comment><USER28> There is a difference between setting up shop on a public sidewalk and conducting business on private property.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I was reading the "My Dad taught me cash flow" (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3167630>) article and I thought "I bet kids couldn't do that in the UK." So I had a quick search, and it turns out that some places in the US are cracking down.

But why? What is the risk here? I'm not asking about the actual risk, but what the perceived risk is from 7 year olds selling lemonade at 25c per cup.

<comment><USER8> Well, you could get food poisoning: [http://foodsafetyinfosheets.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/6-13...](http://foodsafetyinfosheets.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/6-13-07.pdf) or [http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/07/espn_re...](http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/07/espn_report_finds_health_viola.php)

Now if someone is selling food or beverages at an event, and people get sick from consuming the product, what od you think will happen? They sue the event organizer or whoever has the deepest pockets, saying 'you permitted the sale of the food that made me sick.' One could say that such people are litigation- happy weenies, but one also has to consider the sky-high cost of hospital treatment. Sometimes people's insurers will sue on their behalf to recover their treatment costs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> The map shows thirty points in a country of 300 million persons.

The enforcement actions I saw in the article were done by local police. Well, there are city councilmen out there who really like to be city councilmen, and will respond when home-owning, voting, constituents call up and complain. Before you start imagining yourself James Otis up against the Writs of Assistance, pick up the phone.

</comment><comment><USER30> If you really wanted to teach them a lesson on doing business in America, you'd charge them $1 for a permit and make them put a fictitious business statement in the local paper. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER31> If kids' lemonade stands were made illegal, it could be the most devastating thing ever to hit that country's entrepreneurship, long-term, if we follow Jason Fried's getting-good-at-making-money theory. [http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1985-making-money-takes- pract...](http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1985-making-money-takes-practice- like-playing-the-piano-takes-practice)

<comment><USER32> You know, the only lesson I took away from a lemonade stand is that people don't want to buy lemonade. This may have been a result of our rural environment and, therefore, complete lack of traffic traveling under 55mph past our sign.

Seriously, though, there are a lot of other ways for kids to show entrepreneurship and make money. Lemonade stands, if anything, teach that being cute gets you handouts. Mow some lawns, wash some cars, cut some hedges.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why are kids not allowed to sell lemonade but are allowed to mow lawns? What makes you think that children will be allowed to use dangerous machinery if they're not allowed to sell some drinks?

<comment><USER33> Duh! Because a 12-year-old can mostly only hurt himself by losing control of a lawn mower or weed eater. Give that same kid a 5-gallon tainted cooler of ice and lemonade-flavored Kool-Aid, and he could poison an entire neighborhood!

But seriously, this topic makes me wonder about all sorts of things we did as kids that might have been technically illegal but we all did anyway. Such as mowing lawns and babysitting while too young. Did you know most states technically require sitters to be 16 years or older?!? The paperboy as we fondly remember it (I want my two dollars!) might be technically illegal. I mean, don't labor laws restrict non-farm employment to 16 years and older?

I'd be curious to see a real, thorough analysis of the legality of so many things we take for granted.

<comment><USER32> _The paperboy as we fondly remember it (I want my two dollars!) might be technically illegal_

I was a paperboy. Technically, I was an independent contractor. Therefore, they had no legal responsibility to me. Of course, I was entirely responsible to them, and I wasn't allowed to run my route like a proper business (e.g. no payment for three days, cut them off). Basically, it was training for being taken advantage of by large(r) corporations.

Nowadays, it looks like all the paper delivery around here is done by adults. One drives while the other walks and tosses papers at 3am. Better experience for the customer, billing is automated, and no kids are exploited. A loss of an American tradition, perhaps, but a tradition which became a mild form of exploitation rather than empowerment.

Incidentally, on the subject of machinery, tasks should be relegated by age. A twelve year old is _probably_ capable of handling basic lawn machinery, though 14 or 16 is probably better. An eight year old can certainly rake leaves, dig holes, and trim bushes. A four year old can rake leaves and move rocks. I did lawn work for my grandparents every summer and, despite being disallowed the riding lawnmower, I was reasonably effective.

Another point I'll make is that both lemonade stands and paper routes are basically dead-end. You can't franchise a lemonade stand. As a paperboy, you can conceivably upgrade to a scooter to cover more distance, but you're still stuck personally collecting money from all the deadbeats. It's really just wage-labor under an entrepreneurial fog.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _Another point I'll make is that both lemonade stands and paper routes are > basically dead-end._

That's a good point, but you would only want the child to do the stand for a weekend or so, or maybe a couple of weeks over a summer, to teach them simplistic stuff about adding value, and making profit.

<comment><USER32> Better hope you kids are cute, or they won't learn they're lesson. ;-)

Another tangential point: I learned much more from manning my family's garage sale than from any other single money-making endeavor. I suppose the modern equivalent is eBay. In fact, come to think of it, what could be better than getting rid of the junk cluttering your house than telling your kid he/she can keep all the profit?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm not shocked by the original article. I've known about this sort of thing for awhile. I am shocked at some of the responses in this thread. "What if you cause X dollars in damage through some unbelievably unlikely sequence of events?" can be used to prevent anyone from doing anything at any time.

</comment><comment><USER35> Buy your kids a soda machine and teach them real business.

</comment><comment><USER36> The land of the free, the home of the brave.

<comment><USER37> The land of the fee, home of the slave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Inexplicable indeed. Have we solved every other major problem facing society to the point where we should be focusing energy on child run lemonade stands? I am doubtful.

I think the bureaucratic state has gone far enough. This is a shining example in my mind of why smaller government is better. Just think, every one of those people responsible for shutting down a lemonade stand is making a living wage, made possible by my 33% tax contribution. Sickening.

</comment><comment><USER32> Meh. I don't really want to drink potentially contaminated, lukewarm fluids served up by a child at the side of the road. I'm reminded of the horror story of a coworker's husband who bought a coconut cream pie from a roadside vendor in the Philippines...

A kid will learn much more by doing odd jobs for older people in the neighborhood. Mowing, yard raking, hedge trimming, window cleaning. The only thing you learn at a lemonade stand is that being cute earns handouts, and very basic change-making.

That said, local licensing and business registration needs a special < 18 category. Oregon, for example, has a minimum incorporation fee of, I think, $250. It should be $40 or $20 if you're under 18.

<comment><USER39> Then...don't?

If you were genuinely concerned, you could always ask them how they made it, and if anything seemed fishy (improper cleaning, ingredient prep, etc) you can always walk away. The existence of the stall isn't in itself a hazard, and in the majority of cases, there won't be any problems at all.

The problem is in the 0.1% of cases where someone didn't wash their lemons, or has been snacking on peanuts near an open container or something similar, and there's a major incident. Risk/benefit analysis suggests you should avoid it and go grab a coke instead, but there's nothing stopping you picking up a cup of lemonade and tipping it down the drain if you wanted to encourage some neighbours children to pursue their business ideas.

I agree that there's less to learn, but also there's much lower risk to the children (gardening work will often involve pointy things and/or power tools), and it could well be a good place to start.

I'm not sure how the licensing issue could be dealt with, since AFAIK a minor can't enter into the majority of contracts that might be necessary to obtain permits/handle licences.

<comment><USER32> _If you were genuinely concerned, you could always ask them how they made it, and if anything seemed fishy_

The number of cases of food poisoning in the US food service industry each year leads me to believe that it's not so easy to detect contaminated food sources.

And yes, you can buy a cup and throw it out, but we're really back to asking what lesson you're teaching. I maintain you're teaching "be cute, get handouts, ignore costs" early with a lemonade stand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I actually support this. Why these stands should be magically exempt from all the permits? It's a business. Plus they don't have insurance. What if that kid serves poisoned lemonade (by mistake or on purpose)? Who will pay the liability of (potential) millions of dollars?

</comment><comment><USER41> The situation is that bad in my town. You need a permit to do anything. Want to charge people for parking on Game Day? Gotta get a permit. It's ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER42> Bad title. Should be "The nonexistent war on lemonade stands that we just made up as part of our publisher's long-standing propaganda efforts".

<comment><USER43> reason has been posting articles about this for a while.

[http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/18/lemonade-stand- crackdown-c...](http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/18/lemonade-stand-crackdown- conti)

<http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/10/free-the-lemonade-three>

[http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/24/concord-cop-threatens- came...](http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/24/concord-cop-threatens-camera-w)

[http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/17/saturday-is-lemonade- freed...](http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/17/saturday-is-lemonade-freedom-d)

<http://reason.com/blog/2005/08/03/when-lemonade-is-illegal>

<http://reason.com/blog/2009/08/06/lemonade-is-not-a-crime>

[http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/01/reasontv-the-war-on- lemona...](http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/01/reasontv-the-war-on-lemonade-s)

But hey, I personally enjoy the smell of sand, so I wouldn't blame you for keeping your head there as long as you like...

<comment><USER44> I read 4 of those articles, none of which are a "war against kids' lemonade stands", and all of which involve violations/disputes that tangentially had kids or lemonade involved, before I stopped giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I saw:

* Anti-competition ordinances around a special event * Lemonade stand on a busy intersection * At a specially permitted farmers' market, a vendor (not even a kid) crashing the market to sell his stuff, with a bonus dispute over the right to film police

The "War on Lemonade Stands" angle is propaganda: it's inventing a misleading emotionally-powerful angle in order to add rhetorical power to an argument over a separate issue.

<comment><USER43> Uh, what? Top story, top link.

>Police in Georgia have shut down a lemonade stand run by three girls trying to save up for a trip to a water park, saying they didn't have a business license or the required permits.

>Midway Police Chief Kelly Morningstar says police also didn't know how the lemonade was made, who made it or what was in it. [...]

>The girls needed a business license, peddler's permit and food permit to operate, even on residential property. The permits cost $50 a day or $180 per year. [...]

>The girls are now doing chores and yard work to make money.

That was nothing like you described.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Am I the only person who thinks this article is silly?

"...but many of the regulations that come down the pipeline are pushed by brick-and-mortar competitors who want to keep competition at a minimum."

Or perhaps the brick-and-mortar competitors simply want for the competition to be on even ground. If the kids were required jump through the same hoops as the legit stands, then the kids likely need to sell lemonade at higher prices than a quarter.

"Police said the girls needed a business license, a peddler's permit, and a food permit to operate the stand, which cost $50 per day or $180 per year each, sums that would quickly cut into any possible profit-margin."

Correct. These fees cut into profit margins for all stands. Why should kids get special treatment?

"Who stands to lose from a couple of six-year-olds selling lemonade?"

Any purchase I make at one stand is a lost opportunity for another stand. Again, why should kids receive special treatment?

"Kids have been selling lemonade for decades without permits of any sort. They often set the stands up just for fun, but many lemonade stands (or bake sales) are used to raise money for schools, cancer, or sick pets. Lemonade stands represent the most innocent, optimistic side of capitalism out there."

Lemonade stands for kids is a great learning experience. Having to deal with the law is part of that learning experience. A lemonade stand run by kids and shut down by the police is as good a learning experience as one that is able to run without interference from the government. If the startup costs of a lemonade stand are too high, then perhaps the kids should try a different line of business.

<comment><USER4> Programmers are not licensed to program. So, it's unfair that other jobs need license. We should also make programmers go through the licensing process!

Look, just because brick and mortar pay fees doesn't mean it's also justified for them to impose it on their competition. Maybe the fee or the law are unjust. Just get rid of them and let them run their business.

<comment><USER45> Sure, maybe the kids should offer a colonoscopy (they're kids! why should they need a license for that?) service for 50 cents rather than lemonade. This is a ridiculous example, but the license / permit scheme is probably in place for good reasons. I don't know what those reasons are in this case, but I imagine it's to keep the event from being overrun by vendors.

<comment><USER46> This is a ridiculous thing to say. No one would go to a kid for a colonoscopy, and if they were stupid enough then they deserve what they get. Common sense says that adults should be licensed for dangerous operations because the customer can't tell by looking if an adult is trained to do the operation or not. You can tell a kid is not a doctor simply by looking.

Back to lemonade stands: use your common sense. If kids are running it and you don't trust kids' hygiene or ability to make lemonade or whatever, don't buy the lemonade. There is no possible reason why a license is required.

<comment><USER45> Right, you are repeating what I had already admitted, that my example is ridiculous. My response was to the suggestion that we should get rid of licenses and just let people run their businesses. In some cases, this is fine (and in these cases you probably don't need a license, programming is an example of this.) In other cases, not so much.

I'm thankful for the U.S. being strict on food safety / handling standards. I'm currently living in the Philippines and I had traveler's diarrhea for the first few months I lived here and I still get it regularly after a few years. Common sense helps, but it only goes so far.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/18/poor-kids-who-do-everything-right-dont-do-better-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong/

<comment><USER2> Another headline that's actually backed up by the data shown in the article would be: High performing poor college kids smoke rich dropouts later in life Since 19% of rich dropouts make the top 2 quintiles of income at 40, while 41% of poor college grads hit those categories, the headline is crap.

<comment><USER3> Is it so bad? The "top 2 quintiles" is the top 40%. They want to make a statement about the extremes.

I think the numbers are interesting. It looks like the rich kids' distribution is bimodal with a spike at the top quintile but centered on the 2nd/3rd lowest, and the poor kids' is unimodal centered at the middle quintile.</comment></comment>


Code Modernization - <AUTHOR> https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/what-is-code-modernization <comment><USER2> Writing code because of the details of how some processor does something isn't modernization; it's 1965-ization. (Which is not to say that optimization doesn't take place in a modern contexts: of course you need a fast video codec on your mobile device or whatever; it's just not in an of itself modern).

I'm not going to wreck my programs because of what Intel (of all companies) thinks.

The problem here is that although the chip designers care about how people program at a higher level above the instruction set, and design the hardware accordingly, their scope of what that means is limited to the C language. (For instance, here, this is what Intel are referring to when they say they have a line up of compilers, libraries and debuggers for you.)

Sorry, Intel: "write your code in C (in a 'cache-friendly' way: no linked data structures), with a smattering of such and such libraries for parallelizing it" is not "modernization".</comment>


The New Value Economy Arrives - <AUTHOR> http://www.chinavortex.com/2008/10/economy-arrives/

<comment><AUTHOR> This part was well-put:

"Recessions/depressions are like forest fires; they destroy a lot of the accumulated undergrowth and excess, providing an opportunity for new growth. We are now going through such a forest fire. It is likely that it is only just beginning. But it is worth thinking about what are the new flora and fauna which will grow and flourish in the environment which comes afterwards."

He goes on to make some good points about what sorts of things might come out of all of this.</comment>


Show HN: How to make a custom keyboard in iOS 8  - <AUTHOR> http://www.weheartswift.com/make-custom-keyboard-ios-8-using-swift/

<comment><USER2> I think we are the only 2 people writing keyboards so early :)

Did you find a way to get ALL the inputted text from the text field?

Thanks!</comment>


How to Publish Your Package on PyPI - <AUTHOR> https://blog.jetbrains.com/pycharm/2017/05/how-to-publish-your-package-on-pypi/ <comment><AUTHOR> "JavaScript developers are great at sharing code...A great example of this dedication to reuse is the excellent 'left-pad' library"

Oops they choose an example with bad luck...</comment>


Ask HN: Why aren't student robots way more advanced? - <AUTHOR> You can get a hell of a lot of smarts into robot-sized packages these days. Any smartphone has thousands of times the CPU power and I/O capabilities of an Arduino.<p>Why are students still doing line following bots and stupid R/C battles? Why isn't there a rapidly accreting standard library of robotics with robust image recognition, speech recognition, navigation features, and so on? Seems to me that your average FIRST design by this time should be downright impressive. <comment><USER2> The problem with FIRST is all the rules associated with the competitions. You are limited on how much money you can spend on a robot, you are limited on how much your robot weigh's and its size, and you are limited on the rules of the game. Furthermore, the build season of FIRST is I think only around 2 months from when they find out the rules of the game and from when teams have to pack up their robots and send them to competitions. Most teams struggle to even have core functionality working on their robot in time Furthermore, the most common software used to program the robots is Labview, which limits what you can actually do with your robot significantly.

FIRST robotic's goal is not to innovate on robot design as much as it is to provide a large audience of students to STEM fields.

<comment><AUTHOR> Perfect explanation. Thanks.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you do accounting for your startup? - <AUTHOR> Its tax time for our (bootstrapped) startup, and we're deciding the best way to do it. We have subscriptions that people pay for using stripe, and we offer discounts on longer duration signups. My ideal solution would connect to my stripe, and put things right, including prepayments, stripe fee, and refunds. Hoping to gain from the community's experience. <comment><USER2> It's worth thinking about which of these services you need:

\- Book-keeping: Keeping track of paperwork, and movements in cash/bank. Ideally these are entered into accounting software monthly (or more frequently). Some small, cash-based businesses just put paperwork (receipts, and copies of issued invoices) in a shoe box, and give that box to their accountant once per quarter or once per year.

\- Statutory accounts/tax filings: If you were a Limited company in the UK, these might include (i) annual accounts filed with Companies House, (ii) annual Company Tax Return filed with HMRC, (iii) quarterly VAT return filed with HMRC, (iv) PAYE (payroll tax) filings with HMRC.

\- Monthly management accounts (for you and your investors)

\- Planning and advice: at a minimum this would include planning to minimise tax (you can't leave it until compliance time) but may also include cash flow planning or broader business planning

There's more detail around each of these things. I'd be happy to go into more detail about any of these as it relates to UK-based companies.

(I am a qualified accountant but the above is general information and not advice.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Hire a book keeper as a contractor. We went through this with our startup we spent time researching various platforms considered automating some of our processes our selves and then ultimately hooked up with a book keeper quite accidentally. It changed our whole perspective on the process. Think of it this way if you were a group of front end developers who turned out to need a high powered backend database solution and hit a wall with internal implementation you would immediately go out and find a dba to be part of or advise your company on the path forward. Think about your books in the same way. Accounting has purposeful redundancy built into it and many constructs that will make a logical programmer want to cry. Getting setup in the right way from the beginning will help you later.

<comment><USER3> probably good to also point out the difference between book keepers and accountants in the united states. A book keeper is pretty much a literal title they are experts at going through and organizing your accounting. They are a cheaper first step before eventually getting in front of an accountant. They will generally also point out things you should take to an accountant. A book keepers time is generally significantly cheaper than an accountants. To make another example think a SQL developer could get you started with a plan and a DBA would come in to do really deep low level work.

<comment><USER2> That's roughly the difference in the UK as well. My sister does accounts and tax for a number of small-ish businesses. She provides a part-time book-keeper for those businesses who don't do it themselves (either on-site or remote). That way (i) the business is paying only the rate necessary for the service they need and (ii) she has a decent starting point for remaining work (accounts preparation, tax calculations etc.).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've heard UK contractors forming a co-operative and employing an accountant. The co-op is purely for the accountant, everything else is kept separate from it.

Not sure about the US but in the UK accountants are trained, qualified, registered professionals. The tax and legal systems are complex so it's usually a good spend of the money. You either save money by knowing what is tax deductible (for example) or you avoid fines by not claiming for things that you shouldn't. It allows you to concentrate on the fun other bits of the business.

<comment><USER5> > _It allows you to concentrate on the fun other bits of the business._

So wait up, what you're saying is that correcting reverse entry errors is dull and boring.

<comment><USER4> Some may say that. I couldn't comment.

While I'm here I used to work for an electronic engineering sub-contractors.

They had an excellent paperwork system to run production, with Sage Line 50 (when it was Sage Sovereign) doing accounts and payroll. It was great. Everyone knew exactly what was happening with any component - it was in a kit; it was in stock; it was in goods-in; it was on order; or none of those. We could tell when it had been ordered and what for and when it was due in and etc etc. then we "upgraded" to Sage Line 100 and rolled it out to include the whole company - stores, production, ordering, goods in, etc etc. it sucked. We lost all that tracability we had.

<comment><USER5> Correcting reverse error entries:

As an example, some idiot (it's easily done) posts a credit entry as debit. All error corrections are posted to the Journal A/C, usually situated in the General Ledger, with the corresponding double entry in the A/Cs which contain the errors.

To correct the error without taking the Journal into account, one post restores the A/C to its original balance prior to the error, then another entry is required to kick the balance into its correct value. If the error originally occurred in a memorandum account, the error will trickle down to the General Ledger, so another couple of entries are required.

I think that a reverse error entry in the Sales or Purchase Ledgers that is discovered after the end of the financial period requires eight entries to correct it.

In theory some compound errors may require dozens of entries to correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In the UK accountancy courses are subsidised, it might also be the case in the US. This could be an option regarding a long term strategy.

At my accountancy course I learned that when Sage goes belly up, you resort to double entry.

<comment><USER2> I'm curious to know more about the course, e.g. the target audience, objectives and content.

One of the reasons for my curiosity is that I'm unaware of any specific subsidies for accounting courses. Another reason is your comment _" you resort to double entry"_.

Double-entry is fundamental to accounting, in the same way that memory is fundamental to computing.

<comment><USER5> The government body:

[http://aat.org.uk/](http://aat.org.uk/)

The government subsidises the courses.

I'm currently studying level 2 AAT, I missed out on level one. I believe it goes up to level four which is a hefty qualification. Because I receive jobseekers allowance I was waived on some fees, but I still had to pay for the books and the AAT membership. Overall this came to about £260. The membership must be renewed annually if you want to get a decent position, but it doesn't include the initial administration fee.

Regarding the content, it's mostly double entry. At the beginning of the year we were taught some basic business knowledge, like costing and professional ethics. In a few weeks we start SAGE. If I were to continue into the second year ... just double entry but far more complicated.

> _Double-entry is fundamental to accounting, in the same way that memory is > fundamental to computing._

I couldn't agree more, but to get an entry level job, say purchase ledger clerk a lot of employers want experience with SAGE more so than paper T-A/Cs. One of my fellow students mentioned someone who works at a fairly high level in accountancy - almost completely ignorant of dub-entry, but was a whizz with SAGE. A look at a lot of job descriptions mirror this sentiment among typical employers. Using SAGE and the like contrasts sharply with the phrases some of my fellow students utter to remember the fundamental rules. My Zen Koan is: _Debit the thief 's A/C, credit the victim's_.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the clarification. A few quick thoughts:

\- Most/all of the UK professional accounting bodies recognise AAT level 4, and will give you exemptions from some/all of the first level of their own exams, e.g. [http://www.cimaglobal.com/Our-locations/UK/find-out-about- jo...](http://www.cimaglobal.com/Our-locations/UK/find-out-about-joining- us/Im-an-AAT-student/)

\- Totally agree, practical experience of accounting software is more important for a book-keeper than a deep understanding of double-entry. However, you've got to understand enough to be able to reverse/fix transactions when you/someone screws up.

\- I've met candidates who claimed >1 year experience doing book-keeping, but couldn't answer this simple arithmetic problem (with a calculator): "If I buy a mug from the pound shop (for 1 pound), and the VAT rate is 20%, how much of what I paid was VAT?".

\- I don't think AAT is a government body. (But I see the info on government subsidies for AAT courses: [http://www.aat.org.uk/qualifications/funding](http://www.aat.org.uk/qualifications/funding))

<comment><USER5> > _" If I buy a mug from the pound shop (for 1 pound), and the VAT rate is > 20%, how much of what I paid was VAT?"_

I calculated it as 16p, but I think if you are presented with a bill that requires paying VAT, the actual amount of VAT should be explicitly stated. VAT is always rounded down, so an implicit sum has lost some information, unless the total number of pennies is divisible by six.

> _I don 't think AAT is a government body._

Whoops, poorly worded.

<comment><USER2> Correct. I wouldn't expect someone to know about the rounding rules, as there isn't just one rule which applies to all situations:

\- [http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPort...](http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageVAT_ShowContent&propertyType=document&id=HMCE_CL_001596#P1493_117367)

\- [http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPort...](http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_ShowContent&propertyType=document&id=HMCE_CL_000139)

<comment><USER5> Cheers for the links.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Might not help you this season, but we use inDinero for all our accounting, and as a perk of a full-year subscription, they also do our taxes. It's quite convenient not to have to think about any paperwork.

</comment><comment><USER7> Hired an accountant that specializes in startups so you don't get accidentally hit with a surprise $30K tax bill like another startup I know just did :(

</comment><comment><USER8> Which country do you live in?

<comment><AUTHOR> We're a US C-corp.</comment></comment>


NodeConf 2013 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.izs.me/post/54766250297/nodeconf-2013

<comment><USER2> I started getting comfortable with Node as a sort of New Year's Resolution and, I have to say, one of my favorite parts has been the helpfulness and openness of the Node community.

A few months ago, I pinged Isaac on Twitter for advice on where to go next once you had a rudimentary understanding of how Node works. He encouraged me to dig into Node core and also to explore the source for NPM and libuv. I suggested that I was pretty sure that stuff was a bit over my head.

Isaac replied: "The best way to get strong is to lift heavy things."

<comment><AUTHOR> I really like that advice! A lot of node core looks just like regular node code. The calling conventions into C++ and the v8 bindings may take more in depth understanding, but it's not that bad.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would HN still be HN without the financial incentives? - <AUTHOR> Suppose that HN were a place where people just share their experiences and collaborate with each others --no money involved-- would it still had the same attraction?
Certainly I'm here for the intellectual knowledge and the good discussions, not to get financial aid, so I'm curious about what are the incentives that attracts so much people and what is that makes HN.. well.. HN
Is this something that can be achieved, on the other side of the world, without money involved? <comment><USER2> In my opinion, it would. Only if it would add value to the users. Take for instance stackexchange, they don't give you financial aid there but people still use it like a Q&A for Tech. So yes, it may not be the kind of HN it is now, but it would be useful and people will be attracted to it.</comment>


Why Microsoft's Snapdragon Windows 10 Cellular PC Is Walking Dead - <AUTHOR> https://seekingalpha.com/article/4084229-microsofts-snapdragon-windows-10-cellular-pc-walking-dea <comment><USER2> The vast majority of x86 ISA is no longer patent-encumbered. This article assumes full emulation of every current, patent-encumbered x86 instruction so that no applications would need to be recompliled. Do we know that's the approach, yet? Also many instructions are designed to be replacements for combinations of earlier (no longer patent-encumbered) instructions so; expanding them again wouldn't usually be illegal.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've made further research into the latest news. During IFA fair (two days ago) Qualcomm stated that Windows 10 ARM devices are coming, it seems to me that they're not backing down from the fight. [1]

It is good news to hear that the vast majority of x86 ISA is no longer patent- encumbered.

[1][[http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/qualcomm- snapdragon-835-w...](http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/qualcomm- snapdragon-835-windows-10-laptops-2950300)]

<comment><USER2> More specifically, according to something a RISC-V guy wrote, Intel has kept its (and AMD's) x86 ISA network effect alive by regularly introducing not-so- useful new patented instructions that at least someone will use (or be persuaded to use); so that others can't claim compatibility with the accumulating ISA for their now-public-domain ISA CPUs. If so, that rather requires Microsoft's connivance, since they could refuse to use any such new instructions in their OS, and even refuse to allow programs to employ them, theoretically. I'm blue-skying here, but I wonder if Microsoft hasn't withdrawn that kind of cooperation a long time ago; or been able to use the threat of doing so as a bargaining chip, here.

There is also the legal angle - Microsoft could sue on the grounds of patent misuse re that RISC-V allegation, and hope to invalidate the current x86 IP. Trouble is, that area of law has been deliberately allowed to fall into contradiction and confusion over decades in the U.S.; because corporations like to misuse patents to extend their monopolies and network effects - so I don't know how much luck Microsoft would have (and of course, they're vulnerable to similar accusations.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> wouldn't they be able to argue that since intel haven't sued companies like [https://eltechs.com/](https://eltechs.com/) they havn't tried to protect their IP?</comment>


A Renegade Muscles in on Mister Softee's Turf - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/nyregion/a-king-of-ice-cream-a-renegade-upstart-and-a-simmering-turf-war.html <comment><USER2> I've lived in NYC my entire life, and I've never even heard of New York Ice Cream. Mr. Softee's has always been the dominant (and singular) soft-serve truck.

Interesting that someone is challenging their dominance, although I doubt this will play out as well as the dollar-pizza wars for the average pedestrian.

<comment><USER3> The article says that New York Ice Cream only started sometime around 2013 and only "locked down" the midtown area last year, so perhaps that's why you've never heard of them before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This seems amazingly over-the-top. I get that it's their living, but I'm amazed there hasn't been some sort of resolution (e.g. giving out a fixed number of licenses like they do with cabs). People threatening to kill each other and cutting brake lines, etc. sounds like something that would've been tolerated in 70s and 80s New York, but not present day.

</comment><comment> m-i-l So are the "threats and intimidation that sometimes get physical" purely due to ice cream sales, or are there illicit goods also being sold from the vans (as per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Ice_Cream_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Ice_Cream_Wars) )?

<comment><USER5> Location is a serious thing in NYC for vendors. If someone moves within 10 feet of you, imagine your daily revenue cut in half.

Sometimes vendors will informally buy locations from other vendors.

<comment><USER6> Setting up shop directly next to your competitor is the best choice, i.e., Nash equilibrium. That's why all the gas stations and coffee shops cluster up instead of spreading out.

For example, on a beach, you should expect 2 ice cream vendors to cluster in the exact middle rather than move closer to their respective territories. This video explains it perfectly: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jILgxeNBK_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jILgxeNBK_8)

<comment><USER7> Unlike gas stations and coffee shops, which have static locations, ice cream trucks are more like buses. When a pair of buses on a route bunch up, the one in front gets fuller.

<comment><USER8> ...fuller of money.

<comment><USER9> Notional Express proved that that is true, when they "disrupted" public transportation in Britain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There was a great Radiolab episode about this: [http://www.radiolab.org/story/cold-war/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/cold- war/)

</comment><comment><USER11> > _Mr. Conway said Mister Softee had not sought legal remedy for the bullying. > "It's just the way it is," he said. "Life on the street."_

What? What the fuck? These are ice cream trucks, not drug dealers. Why aren't they protecting their employees? If it's as bad as they say, all they'd need is a few security cameras and the police could start making arrests.

<comment><USER12> It sounds like a 'cash heavy' business that might not want a lot of regulatory scrutiny. Plus, the choice spots might technically be in violation of some NYC code and they don't want the cops getting precise about what is and isn't legal. I was in NYC last weekend and I noticed that they squeeze in at the end of blocks where there isn't really a proper parking space.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Recommended: Comfort & Joy, the Bill Forsyth comedy about an ice cream war in Glasgow. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_and_Joy_(1984_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_and_Joy_\(1984_film\))

</comment><comment><USER14> So this isn't about Microsoft's turf on the PC being challenged by mobile.

</comment><comment><USER15> Hotelling's law.... with baseball bats.

</comment><comment><USER16> Sounds ripe for "Uber for Ice-cream". Pull out your phone and the truck comes to _you_.

<comment><USER17> You could have that with Seamless today if you had delivery riders with insulated boxes.</comment></comment>


I created a site the lets you view gifs inside of Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://hyrogifs.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Copy Links on site and post on Facebook. The image will display just like a video. Its a great new way to interact with friends on Facebook. Let me know what you guys think, Its about 2 weeks into the project.</comment>


Show HN: Annotate PG, our YC application demo - <AUTHOR> http://www.annotatepg.com/#0 - How to Get Startup Ideas.html

<comment><USER2> Normally I don't comment (at all) on posts like this, but this is just bad.

The comments overlay cover up the very text that you're suppose to be reading. This disrupts the reading flow, making it hard to find my way back to where I was reading, especially comments are merely secondary to the actual article. To get back to the article I have to press this tiny close button on the top left corner of the comments overlay. Plus, there's a huge amount of whitespace to the right of the article which you're not using <http://i.imgur.com/1JvLWQP.png> \- why cover important content, leaving large amount of screen space unused when there's perfectly good unused space on the right?

The pagination scheme is terrible. The article is a blog post, not a book. And even if it were, no one would want to read something on screens. (Edit: Firefox 21 beta. I see Chrome that has transitions, which means this is not actually poor performance, but simply missing transitions. I still don't see any reason why Firefox shouldn't have transitions, though) The performance is terrible. I can count seconds between me clicking on the next page button and the next page actually showing up, with no feedback whatsoever that the page is loading.

Document annotation and comment UI isn't hard. When Microsoft Word has you beat in terms of UI, you're probably doing something very wrong.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting points, thanks. I'd disagree with comments being merely secondary to the actual article though. Our point is that inline commentary, if done well, should be as important as the content itself.

<comment><USER3> This is a false assumption; the original content is the most important part.

<comment><USER4> This seems like it'd usually be true, but what about Hacker News comments that are more insightful than the original article?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You guys should check out <https://test.hypothes.is>. Non profit open source project that does this for the entire web. Here's the github: <https://github.com/hypothesis/h>

Randall, the lead developer, is one of the authors of the open annotation spec: <http://www.openannotation.org>

Dan, the founder, recently put together the I Annotate conference, which brought together all the individuals and groups who have been applying annotation to their problem domains for the past few years.

I designed the interface.

Annotation should be open source, standardized, and portable, not locked into little silos. Also, I'm not pg, but if I was, I would find this a bit... odd.

<comment><USER6> Nothing to add other than to say I'm a huge supporter of the work you guys have been doing. Can't wait until it is fully realized. Let me know if you plan on implementing different "styles" for the interface and want some contributions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting idea. Probably would be a stronger demo if you pre-populated it with some actually worthwhile comments.

Really don't like the pagination. Scrolling is how this is done on the web. Arbitrary page breaks and non-intuitive scrolling breaks this.

</comment><comment><USER8> This would be nice if not for the pagination. It's slow, unpredictable, and unnecessary.

For another approach to annotation, check out fixjam.com. I never took this past the 1-day hack stage, but I'd like to revisit it at some point. You can try it by clicking the bookmarklet and highlighting some text.

<comment><USER9> > This would be nice if not for the pagination

I came here to say that. The web already has a way of dealing with the situation where the text doesn't fit on the screen: it's called scrolling. Scolling is a much better solution than pagination, firstly because it's what people expect (and is therefore easier to use) but also because it gives the user more control over what part of the text they see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's a cool concept, but I can see everyone comparing it to RapGenius (several people in the thread already have). RapGenius has a bunch of features that seem to be missing here, you'll probably have to justify their absence.

The biggest problem I see, however, is the slideout pane from the right when you click an annotation. RG does this without taking up the whole reading area; it seems a bit silly to reproduce the whole sentence being annotated and cover up the rest of text for one heavily padded tweet. Personally I would find a two-mode interface more useful: hover to see a small dialog with the top/newest tweets and a summary of the annotation activity, and click to get a larger overlay if there's too many tweets for the small view.

Finally, I think using pg's essays might actually hurt you. I get that it's a gimmick, and the HN crowd might like it, but I think the man himself might be less flattered and more put off if it seems like you're trying to make up for technical shortcomings by flattering him.

</comment><comment><USER11> I actually prefer the Medium's implementation of sidebar annotations/comments. For example: <https://medium.com/design-ux/926eb80d64e3>

At least, the content isn't blocked when the annotations/comments are activated.

</comment><comment> mh- Echoing other comments about the scrolling, but wanted to add that I'm not strictly against the pagination.

For me, it's simply that the trigger is both unpredictable and way too insensitive. It takes two very large scrolls of the entire height of the trackpad on my MBP, and it doesn't respect the scrolling momentum. It just feels very non-native.

Overall, I like the design.

</comment><comment><USER12> I love the responsive design of your navigation menus. But it feels redundant when i see your page on my laptop. Both the left navigation pane and the TOC button display the same list of articles.

Instead you could perhaps make the TOC button display the chapters within the current article on a wider display and revert to the current behaviour on phone/tablet.

</comment><comment><USER13> I agree with rdl, I think classical scrolling would work better here. Also, could you make the app utilize the full width of the browser window? The comment box obscures the text on my 1680x1050 display, even though there would be enough space to display it next to it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. Great feedback, thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It reminds me of Django book's early days when it was being written (<http://www.djangobook.com>). Each paragraph could be commented upon and it led to a really fantastic collaboration.

</comment><comment><USER15> Is this not how Medium comments work? And the pagination is a bit annoying.

That aside, What's the use case of this app? Is it like an alternative to disqus for my blog?

</comment><comment><USER16> Great concept, I noticed Medium.com is doing something very similar in their stories now. See: <https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/265cc8a17432> They don't cover the text up, but push it left which is something you should consider. Best of luck with your application.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> We posted this two weeks ago, and we've improved the demo in response to the initial feedback. Thanks for your feedback!

<comment><USER17> Just out of curiosity, how do you differentiate with <http://rapgenius.com> ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> So it's a content creation play on the annotation ideal? Like: tumblr + annotation features.

I'd be curious to see how this goes after watching browser plugins struggle to achieve lasting popularity.

I'm guessing this is where Rapgenius is headed, one community at a time.

</comment><comment><USER19> Where a full stop/period is preceded by a single letter you should treat it as an acronym rather than the end of a sentence (I can't think of a valid sentence ending that has a single letter in it ... )

I just noticed that you're splitting up m.o into separate sentences.

<comment><USER20> I can't think of a valid sentence ending that has a single letter in it, except for when that valid sentence ends with a single letter like x.

<comment><USER19> In that case, you should have quoted the letter. For example, if I wanted to end this sentence with the letter "x" then I would put it in double quotes to show that I'm referring to the letter "x".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> You need to cater to people who doesn't want to share the full sentence. Allowing for inline editing in the overlay section might be great, or allow for selection of a partial sentence instead.</comment>