We Just Thought, 'This Is How You Start a Company in America' - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthink/2014/10/21/we-just-thought-this-is-how-you-start-a-company-in-america/print/ <comment><USER4> "We started in January 2012, and may still be the only Asian YC founders ever."

So that is not true. 9gag is from Hong Kong. Semantics3 is from Singapore. Strikingly is from China. Memebox is from Korea. Cleartax is from India. Those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.

That being said, I actually would love to see more Asian startups applying to Y Combinator. We should be funding one from each country EVERY batch, not just averaging one per batch. I've made several trips to Asia now talking with startups to try and better understand how YC can do a better job and what is it about their ecosystem that makes the Asian startup scene so different. For example, I did office hours with over 60 Japanese startups trying to understand why it feels different over there. What surprised me the most was how much we take for granted here in the US about our startup ecosystem and values.

My plan is to write this all down in depth soon and figure out what actionable things can be done by YC to help. Stories from companies like AnyPerk help, but so much more needs to be done by us to reach out to founders out there.

<comment><USER5> In Japan at least, there is a very different mainstream cultural perception of 'startups'. It is basically not OK to try one and fail - you do not get credit for trying, and it can have a significant negative impact on your career if you do not succeed. There is a small, fairly tight-knit community within which this is obviously not the case, but mainstream Japanese culture still takes a conservative, and predominantly dim view of the 'startup'.

<comment><USER6> And by "significantly negative" read "You have forever passed on the opportunity to work at any Japanese megacorp." Think of an alternate universe America where AmaGooBookSoft did substantially all of the hiring at universities and if, on the day you were invited to interview, you said "Oh I am exploring a startup so I don't want a job this minute" that barred you from them for life:

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How you start a (tech) company in America:

* Move to the valley.

* Come up with a really good idea. Or at least a gimmick that will be a fad for a time.

* Find a generous person from the upper echelons of the wealth distribution (or a club of them) who have enough money to fund your idea or gimmick.

* Make a deal with them so that your business becomes part of their diversified portfolio. The risk to them is hedged by being broadly invested. The risk to you is a real ultimatum of your time.

* Work tirelessly and thanklessly. If you do succeed you will give a large part of your company, and many times control, to your patrons.

* Furthermore, because you've waited as long as possible to IPO all of the initial growth to launch your business into 9 or even ten digit figures has been captured by the upper class - the common man never had a real chance to invest in your idea.

* That's okay though, the common man probably isn't paying you with dollars anyhow. You're probably collecting his data for sale and for advertisement (or rather partnering with a company that does for you).

<comment><USER8> >the common man never had a real chance to invest in your idea.

This part of your very pessimistic comment is certainly true, and I would like to point out that this is the government's fault, not Silicon Valley's. People who aren't rich are legally not allowed to invest in startups. [1]

But the unstated major premise of your comment, which is wrong, is that investment in startups is some kind of magic bullet for making tons of money. This is demonstrably not the case. One of the common justifications for the law in [1] is the fact that high-risk investments like startups are not necessarily any better than traditional low-risk investments (like stocks in big companies), and (by some metrics) are worse.

1\. [http://www.sec.gov/answers/accred.htm](http://www.sec.gov/answers/accred.htm)

<comment><USER7> I completely agree that VC is not a magic money making bullet, but I don't think it matters for the post.

Certainly there are patrons who will lose money. Having a portfolio full of lemons isn't going to make any financial elite any money. Most will hire accountants and financial and technological advisors. Some will provide extra services (advice, contacts, demo day audiences, etc) to bolster the prospects of their portfolios. Some will fail anyway. The ones who stick around are the ones who are good at it.

The real unstated major premise of my comment is that it is essentially impossible to be a self-starter unless you are already rich, which (along with the other stated bits) implies that growth in the tech industry concentrates wealth and that there is a mobility problem that runs counter to our nice cultural myth about geniuses in garages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You do not necessarily need to _start_ in the Valley to become successful, especially if your situation there imposes additional hurdles to success. Living out of a car or tenement is generally detrimental to one's ability to focus on the business.

It's always amazing to me that as tech entrepreneurs we largely sell to others the idea that technology enables us to do anything from anywhere, but simultaneously believe that there is exactly one place on earth where _we_ must phyiscally be to get anything done. The ideal place to start a startup is anywhere that your day-to-day life issues can take a backseat to working on your startup.

<comment><USER10> From random readings, it appears that great musicians, scientists, artists live not only during the same era, but usually very close to one another.

I guess today you could call the Internet the city/town.

There is also something to be said about what _seems_ to be serendipity. When there is a high concentration of people doing the same thing, you are more likely to bump into people who can help you turn your vision into a reality. This is why you hear the joke "Go to jail with a bachelor in theft, come out with a PHD in insert_high_level_crime_here."

<comment><USER11> > From random readings, it appears that great musicians, scientists, artists > live not only during the same era, but usually very close to one another.

I'm highly skeptical of this claim. Can you back it up?

<comment><USER12> There are several well-documented examples throughout history: Vienna at the turn of the twentieth century[1], and the Florence Renaissance during the fifteenth century.

[1]: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Insight-Understand- Unconscious...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Insight-Understand-Unconscious- ebook/dp/B0050DIWV6)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Living in a Mission dump trying to sleep three people to a bed is _not_ how you should be starting a business. Why do people think this is how you optimize for success?

<comment><USER14> Right. Nothing against this company and all the best to them, but what is the larger narrative this story is building? Its really exploitative to tell young people that they should come to one of the most expensive places in the world and sleep in their cars so they can have the privilege of giving equity to Y Combinator.

It's something really dark in California's culture (I have lived my entire life here). From '49 to Hollywood to now Silicon Valley, its a reverberating call for people to come here and get rich quick. And in any gold rush, its always better to be the ones selling the pics and shovels than the ones buying them.

<comment><USER15> I think a lot of the time people miss the positive side of these stories.

It's not just a story of impoverishment, its also story of adventure. If you were going to backpack around the world, you're certainly going to be sleeping somewhere dumpy, eating poorly, dealing with crazy situations, etc. But thats okay, because you've accepted that you're trading off comfort for some unique experience.

When I was a teenager, my friend would crash at my house and we'd just hack on our websites, play computer games, and occasionally step outside. For weeks at a time, that's all we'd do. And honestly it was some of the most fun and fulfillment I've ever had.

You don't really get to do that as an adult, except in extreme cases like when you try to build a startup. Life isn't about necessarily optimizing for comfort or salary. Sometimes its more fulfilling to do what you want to do, where you want to do it, on your terms.

<comment><USER14> I absolutely agree, but people need an honest appraisal of the situation. You should be making these sorts of decisions because this - in the moment - <USER2> the lifestyle you want, not because you believe it will make you a founder of the next WhatsApp.

<comment><USER15> I'm a bit more laissez-faire about the messaging behind these stories. Your assumption is that young, naive founders are being suckered and exploited by the perpetuation of these stories, because they don't need to live such extreme lifestyles to be successful. This is partially true.

But we already know that we all can't be winners, and most ideas will be losers anyway. In our subgroup of grinders, I don't know that there is a significant statistical difference in the outcome vs the normal population of startups. But heuristically, we know that people willing to put themselves through more pain are objectively tougher, and harder to kill. Traits that probably are pretty good to have for a startup entrepreneur.

Thus, I don't think its such a bad thing for entrepreneurs to do, even if its for the wrong reason. We don't need to protect anyone from themselves, startups are such an extreme experience that they'll quickly know whether or not they're happy with their decision.

<comment><USER14> Sure; I'm not saying no one should do this - and definitely not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to do this.

What I think is a problem is the way that it is memetically emerging into a life narrative. To take an example that is probably not controversial - <USER3> people are going to college who really should not be. It isn't advancing their interests and often isn't even intangibly edifying for them. Why are they going to college? Because there's a cultural messaging telling them to go to college. Their ability to self-determine is being undermined by a larger sense of what they are supposed to do.

So if there's a narrative that you should eat ramen, work 100 hour weeks, so on, to try to catch the Zuckerberg lottery - well, who wins in that game? A few of the people playing, and also the VCs.

<comment><USER16> Time to roll out my favourite Venkatesh Rao link, I think: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/venkateshrao/2012/09/03/entrepre...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/venkateshrao/2012/09/03/entrepreneurs- are-the-new-labor-part-i/)

EDIT: I submitted it to the front page as well, for good measure: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8510967](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8510967)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Nice story. I'm so tired of hearing all the "get rich without stressing yourself - by using this one simple trick" folks. Not that I encourage going to extremes for no purpose, I just don't see these as extreme at all. Just determined.

Sharing a room with a few people for a little while to save the last bit of money? I just call that camping and adventure, which some people actually seem to like. Have the commenters here never been camping? Travelled on a small boat? Been in competitive sports? Hiked a mountain? And they cry about sharing a room for a little while? What a bunch of wimps!

<comment><USER18> When most people go camping it's not because they can't afford a flat

<comment><USER17> Yup, pure ego. Competing to be the guy who can show off that he got away with doing the least. It's the adult version of trying to be the too cool for school guy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This valley conceit is just astounding. Do some of you people who are obviously so smart at what you code and create really think that this is the only way to go about being a success? You look like trapped otters.

<comment><USER20> sorry 99.99% of hn commenters are not as cute as otters :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Three days into joining YC, we decided to pivot. We'd been working on the dating site for six months at that point, and we knew it wasn't working... Also, I'd read a study that said happy employees are twice as productive as unhappy employees. That was the beginning of AnyPerk."

After all the flak the word 'pivot' has gotten I'm surprised to see it used this way here. This does not seem like a pivot, but rather you just deciding to work on a completely new business. Were the two ideas related in any way? Did anything in the original dating business inform this new idea?

<comment><USER22> Presumably "the team" and "being in YC". Which is reasonable -- you're in a program with a time-limit, together in a foreign land, and you realise the idea you had isn't going anywhere. So they took their advantages (time in YC remaining) and applied them to a different problem/application.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is it just me or do other people also find the idea of pivoting after three months really troubling ?

I've seen two kinds of people creating start ups so far : business school guys and "real job" guys. The first type are really focused to one thing : making money. The second type have a passion for their skills and had an idea on how to improve something in their field.

The first type can pivot to about anything, because ultimately the product is just a mean of getting rich. The second type feels the need for their product in their every day life. So profitable or not, they really want that thing done.

Somehow i've always found the "real job" type the most interesting to work with.

Edit : business school guys doesn't mean you went to a business school. It's just a mind set. Same for "real job", i mostly mean passionate about one specific personnal need.

<comment><USER24> From what I gather from the last paragraph of the story, they found out they were doing something they didn't really care about. If that was the case, then pivoting is the only right choice IMO.

Sometimes you just have to try something in order to find out whether it's working for you or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Can someone explain AnyPerk to me? Is it just a middleman for employee perks? What is the added value? Why couldn't a company look at their landing page and say "thats a good idea, I should buy my employees movie passes", but not sign up for AnyPerk?

<comment><USER6> I worked in a Japanese megacorp which used the local systems available for doing this. From the corporation's perspective, it costs rat spit to buy a _very_ wide selection of perks for their entire employee base and _they don 't have to spend any time managing it_.

I never once took advantage of anything in the booklet, as I was a salaryman and all of my waking hours were spoken for, which is one reason why prevailing rates for this are so low in Japan. Still, had I wanted to take advantage of the movie pass perk (50% off a ticket at a local chain), the process would have been "Call a toll-free number or log onto the website, speak with a rep for a minute, give her my membership number and the address of a local convenience store, and then consummate the transaction there." Note that at no point have I inconvenienced my HR department.

(Your offer as a perk broker to vendors is "Will you cut us a deal on N units of your service if we bring you happy, well-behaved, middle class paying customers with lots of disposable income?" The conversation goes like this: "Hello hotel chain corporate sales department. Can we buy 100 nights in your off season?" "OH YES YOU CAN." "Great! Make it worth our while." "WE CAN DO THAT." "And we'd prefer 30 day net payment terms, counting after use." "Umm could you maybe pre-pay for the whole block?" "100 nights." "30 day net it is!")

<comment><USER26> From the description you gave it sounds the business model of AnyPerk is based on the fact that HR departments are too lazy to do their job.

<comment><USER6> I'd phrase it as "HR departments prefer to spend their time negotiating with an insurance provider over how many millions a group policy for 200 people costs versus negotiating with a single employee over a mutually acceptable showtime for Frozen."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The amount of cynicism in the comments for this story is astounding. The list of complaints is long. By my accounting, people don't like that the founders were:

      * naive
      * exploitative of the funding climate
      * deluded into irrational personal sacrifice by dreams of riches
      * whiners for thinking their hardship was hard
      * bad decision-makers overall by coming to SF

What happened to being charitable? Taro and co have built a real company out of nothing, and they took a particular path to get there. No one was harmed and it looks like they had a great time. Startups are HARD and you should expect successful (for some value of success) companies to have odd beginnings.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I had to resubmit this because the first post got missed. This is one of the best startup stories I've heard. Good luck with AnyPerk, guys!

<comment><USER28> Thanks for submitting!

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> The problem I had with this article was that there was no substance on what they actually did to create the product and start a company. How did they arrive at the idea of AnyPerk, what did they do? Did sleeping in the TacoBell parking lot or sharing a bed in a $10/night hotel do something for their startup other than low burnrate. How did this help them? Seems they had a (wrong) idea in their mind on what you have to do to start a business in America and in the end they contributed more to that idea by only telling a story of sharing a bed/sleeping in a car. Someone naive may come along and think if I sleep in a car in a parking lot, and sacrifice my privacy I'll have a successful business. There was more to this story and this was their opportunity to state that. I wanted to hear about how the idea came about, how they created a site, then they spoke to and contracted with x number of vendors to provide these perks that they are essentially reselling.

Pretty weak article. I would have said that its not worth being on front page of HN, but comments are interesting.

</comment><comment><USER30> Sometimes it just takes talking to the right person to get your start. It may take a few thousand no's, but one yes can change your life. This story is inspirational and reminds me that you have to put yourself out and communicate with others not just build a great product.

</comment><comment><USER31> I wish more university students had this kind of attitude. Instead of "Let's take out the maximum amount of loans so I can get a new iPhone!"

Well done.

<comment><USER32> Do people really use loans for iPhones?

<comment><USER33> Yes, in two ways:

\- By buying on a subsidized contract, you've effectively used a loan for an iPhone. It's not different just because the phone company issued the loan.

\- By using a loan for something else (e.g. tuition, automotive, housing), and then buying an iPhone instead of paying down the loan

<comment><USER34> I wouldn't consider buying an iPhone on a subsidized contract a loan because you are just commiting to have service for a set period of time. You would be paying the same amount for service regardless if you were under contract or not.

<comment><USER35> > You would be paying the same amount for service regardless if you were under > contract or not.

No, it's lower if you bring your own device with most carriers. [http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/byop.html](http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/byop.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> No one should have to consider living in their car when starting a business. I guess that's how it goes in America.</comment>


Spring 2017 product design update and operations report – Purism - <AUTHOR> https://puri.sm/posts/spring-2017-product-design-update/ <comment><USER2> Very happy about this. One thing I didn't understand: can the USB-C be used for charging the battery?</comment>


Amazing NASA robot short film - <AUTHOR> http://vimeo.com/40524878

<comment><USER2> "I am Neil Harvey, a director and editor from Sydney, Australia. This video is a short film I created as an anniversary present for my girlfriend a few months ago. The film-making process involved downloading about 10 hours of footage from the NASA archives and compiling a list of shots which resonated with me at some level. I did this over about 2 or 3 months when I had the spare time."

Title is incorrect. Even though NASA was helpful in providing video material, this is a personal project.</comment>


Show HN: FilmScout, an app to keep track of your favorite filmmaker's projects - <AUTHOR> https://filmscout.app <comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

Ever wondered what your favorite filmmakers have been up to? Instead of googling every now and then to search for answers, I developed FilmScout.

With FilmScout, you can search for information on your favorite movies and TV shows, check the filmmakers, explore their works, and follow them to keep track of their upcoming projects.

You can also create custom lists of movies and TV series to share with others, and follow other people's lists.

As of now, you can track filmmakers in the roles of Director, Screenwriter/Writer, Composer, Cinematographer/Director of Photography, Editor and Story.

FilmScout is available for iOS and Android. It was built with React-native and Ruby on Rails. Any feedback is greatly appreciated!</comment>


SVG Wow Demos - <AUTHOR> http://svg-wow.org/ <comment><USER2> I have to say that most of the demos are opera only, and not as impressive even compared with Silverlight.

This one

<http://svg-wow.org/video2/video.html>

is laggy as hell in Chrome Dev 5.0.307.1 (r37331) on Windows</comment>


Show HN: Real-Time Counsel, Matter Management - <AUTHOR> https://griffn.io/ <comment><USER2> What does "private beta" mean?

<comment><AUTHOR> We just finished a beta at a law school - they tried it out for a semester during one of their mock trial classes!</comment></comment>


I can't believe someone built "A pure JavaScript video player" - <AUTHOR> http://ajaxian.com/archives/jsonvid-pure-javascript-video-player

<comment><USER2> I think what some of the other comments here are missing is that this was supposed to be a "wouldn't it be cool if we could actually do this" project as opposed to a "let's create a viable video player" project. Isn't that part of what hacking is about?

<comment><USER3> True, but this really isn't even doing anything. It's no different than an animated GIF. I think it would be truly interesting if they made it able to play normal video formats.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So, someone reinvented the animated gif?

I hope to see a web stream player that don't use flash or java. But that's not it, not even close. Actually, it would be great if you could click on the link and open the stream on mplayer or vlc. The ads could be on the video itself and around the link. That would be perfect, I don't get why youtube and other sites like that don't take that approach.

</comment><comment><USER5> I can't believe someone didn't realize that you could eliminate so much duplicate data!

see: <http://www.nihilogic.dk/labs/jsvideo/video/officespace.jsvid>

<comment><USER6> Eh, looks like just the frame header is identical... simply turning on gzip/deflate on the webserver solves that.

<comment><USER7> Cropping away the letterbox on each JPEG would help too. Lazy!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> More of a fast slideshow than a video player. Expected video quality goes hand in hand with Moore's law, so this approach would always be two steps behind a proper video player with keyframes, etc.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'd go with something that can generate javascript code and then port an existing player to that. I believe PyPy has a javascript backend or one in development.

</comment><comment><USER10> Could you get rich animation from using transparent PNGs? Graphic elements could roam free on the layout...

</comment><comment><USER11> It seems to work pretty well.

<comment><USER12> No sound and not really video anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> wow impressive.

</comment><comment><USER14> I actually did this in 1997 IIRC. I tried using an animated GIF but it was too dithered and grainy, so I switched to JS and showing JPEG frames with a timeout so I could get 24-bit color instead of 8-bit.</comment>


Education in 2030: Open source and community-based - <AUTHOR> http://opensource.com/education/11/5/future-education-looks-open-source <comment><USER2> I wish people would stop using the phrase 'open source' for things that don't provide their source.

For books and education, that would mean providing the raw pre-publish format of the books... Raw text with markup.

But that isn't what they're talking about here. They're talking about free education/information shared freely.

And while I don't doubt that education will become even more readily available online, you won't replace brick and mortar schools with free information until primary schools teach how to learn, instead of force-feeding information. And I'm not sure that will ever happen.

All the information they teach in primary schools is already on the internet. And most (if not all) of the information in colleges is there, too. Some sites (usually schools) have even gone so far as to categorize and collect it into nice piles.

And yet I still haven't met anyone who can say 'I learned physics online rather than in school'. Pieces of it, sure... But never all of it. The opposite is true, though. Plenty of people learned everything they know about Physics in school.

The teacher-student paradigm is time-tested and accepted. It's going to be hard to change that, even if something else was proven to be better.</comment>


On popular exceptions that break RDBMS - <AUTHOR> http://push.cx/2009/rules-of-database-app-aging

<comment><USER2> Long discussion under its actual title from two years ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=436663></comment>


Show HN: BemTV – Hybrid CDN/P2P Architecture for HLS Broadcasts - <AUTHOR> http://blog.flavioribeiro.com/bemtv-hls-p2p-webrtc/ <comment><USER2> Great work. I'm always excited by attempts to marry the centralized nature of the web with all we've learnt about P2P. Best of both worlds. Just gave it a try. The video was a bit choppy for me, on a ~3Mbps connection, but I'd like to see how it works with a larger swarm (it's remained fairly stable at 8). I'll take some time to look at the code, too, though it's likely beyond my immediate grasp :)

<comment><AUTHOR> thank you! I still need to calibrate when a peer gives up to receive by p2p and goes to CDN, but it seems it's working for some swarms with low RTT. Regarding the code, I bet you'll not have problems to understand but feel free to ask me anything you want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I hate the fact that as a Canadian, I can't really support any video streaming services relying on P2P simply due to our archaic bandwidth restrictions.

Most Canadian ISPs have combined Up/Down Bandwidth Caps, which are already insanely easy to hit with any sort of media streaming (they usually range from 40-80 GB/mo). Peering any of these services is only going to make matters worse.

<comment><USER4> They offer unlimited data plans for internet. And it isn't archaic (unless you live outside a city).

<comment><USER3> Not on any major providers, at least in Ontario. Bell, Rogers, Cogeco are all definitely metered and limited (for all reasonable price ranges at least, $90+ for unlimited bandwidth is not reasonable compared to prices in other countries).

<comment><USER5> But in most of the services areas where you can get Bell or Rogers, you can get one of the 3rd party providers like Start or Teksavvy. These providers have an unmetered upstream cap and very generous downstream caps.

<comment><USER6> A download cap of 300Gb on a 150Mpbs link is hardly generous, which is what Teksavvy offers in Ontario.

It's a joke. And the only reason is to make you pay for the more expensive connection. Maybe also to hand you additional charges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Since some people asked for, I just released a small step-by-step guide on how to deploy BemTV on your transmissions: [https://github.com/bemtv/bemtv#how-to- use-it-on-my-own-hls-t...](https://github.com/bemtv/bemtv#how-to-use-it-on-my- own-hls-transmission)

</comment><comment><USER7> Project's page with a live demo: [http://bem.tv/](http://bem.tv/)

<comment><USER8> This doesn't seem to work without Flash. I'm a little disappointed.

<comment><AUTHOR> hey dublinben, thank you for your comment. Since the browsers do not support HLS by default, it is needed to use Flash for it. I'm planning to bootstrap a version with DASH support (probably using dash.js) dropping the need of Flash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Awesome work Flavio! Hope to integrate with Peer5 soon. [https://github.com/Peer5/bemtv](https://github.com/Peer5/bemtv) [https://github.com/Peer5/P2PXHR](https://github.com/Peer5/P2PXHR)

</comment><comment><USER10> A service that I pay for or that shows me ads does not get to also steal my upload for P2P.

Especially if they do it without even telling me.

<comment><USER11> Right, because the only costs associated with any content service are due to distribution. Producing said content is free, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hum very interesting.

The adult video sector will be very interested ... The bandwith is a mjaor problem there.

And professionnal streamer too.

Regards

</comment><comment><USER7> Maybe Google Hangouts should be interested in this.

<comment><AUTHOR> hey fiatjaf. Actually, Google is already using WebRTC on Hangouts: [http://www.webrtcworld.com/topics/webrtc- world/articles/3584...](http://www.webrtcworld.com/topics/webrtc- world/articles/358421-hangouts-move-toward-webrtc-with-hd-calling-among.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is what Netflix and the like need to use, too.

</comment><comment><USER14> Twitch.tv should use it too!</comment>


MAAS 2.8: Fast server setup tool, now does LXD VMs - edu-ap https://ubuntu.com/blog/maas-2-8-new-features <comment><AUTHOR> MAAS might be catching up, what with adding LXD to the mix. Used to be just KVM hosting, but using an LXD container as a VM host makes this a lot easier for me to run my "kitchen table data center" (four ginormous laptops hooked to a switch). It's got some growing to do, for sure -- like, it would be nice to dump QEMU and just use LXD containers as VMs -- but that's probably in their roadmap. Worth a try if you're into bare-metal stuff.

<comment><USER2> I've tried it years ago, and I couldn't even get it to bootstrap one node. It was, at least at the time, an insanely complex and fragile system.

Has anyone some recent real-world experience in MAAS?

<comment> edu-ap T-Mobile's Joshua McClintock shared his MAAS experience recently [https://youtu.be/dSZqax12Q7A](https://youtu.be/dSZqax12Q7A)</comment></comment></comment>


Did someone just patent the process of patent trolling? USPTO: 0080270152 - <AUTHOR> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20080270152&OS=20080270152&RS=20080270152 <comment><USER2> OH NO THEY DIDN'T.

I already patented 'a method of subverting the patent system by patenting the process of patent trolling."

I'm totally going to sue.

</comment><comment><USER3> The US Patent System has just been owned by Kurt Godel.

and Halliburton -- oh crap.

</comment><comment><USER4> "[0012]The inventor and the assignee of this patent have no intention of applying the techniques described herein offensively but instead intend to use the patent defensively to discourage patent trolls and the like from extortionist practices."

Whew, that could have been bad.

<comment><USER5> That's actually quite a brilliant hack. I wonder, has it ever been done?

X launches a patent-trolling suit to try to get in on Y's patent. These guys launch a countersuit at X for using their patented technique, stalling the original suit. The best part is, the evidence for the countersuit is already known to the court...

<comment><USER6> Worth doing just as a protest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Non-final rejection was on 2009-10-09. Response submitted on 2010-01-20. I haven't read any of it but you can look up application number 11/741429 at <http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair>.

<comment><USER8> Two bases for the rejections: one for lack of statutory subject matter (no machine or transformation under Bilski) and one for obviousness (combining an article about patent trolling with the PTO's prosecution manual makes the claimed method obvious).

With regard to subject matter, the applicant makes two arguments: (1) patents are like personal property, so they satisfy the "transformation of matter" prong of Bilski; and (2) one of the steps involves computer research (basically, Google searching), which involves a machine.

With regard to obviousness, the patent applicant argues that the prosecution manual does not contain all the steps of the claimed method.

In my mind, the big issue is that the applicant most likely wrote the claims up based on what other patent trolls have done before. Besides the fact that this means that his claims are anticipated by prior use, it means that he is not the original inventor of the claims, making them unpatentable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a patent application, not a granted patent.

<comment><USER10> This is sad. This case has 100 claims. The Examiner on the case is writing 50 page actions, the attorney is writing 20 page responses.

Both their time and energy can be used on better things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> From a cursory examination it looks like it's pretty close. Although this patent seems to be broader than just patent trolling. It looks like it's a patent on asserting patent rights in any situation predatory or non-predatory.

</comment><comment><USER12> perhaps someone should patent the process of patenting the process of patenting. no one will beat that, surely.

<comment><USER6> why not? It's not like they take prior art into a account.

<comment><USER13> Shouldn't this apply to patenting trolling, too?

<comment><USER6> How about patenting a method of getting a patent despite prior art?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> After reading so many patents in the past week, I've learned a few things such as: "the title is meaningless", and "patents are densely worded and difficult to comprehend for somebody not versed in legalese"

So, are there any patent lawyers in our midst who can attest to the meaning of this patent application? Is this actually what it appears to be?

</comment><comment><USER15> Finally an effective way to end the patent troll:

 _You are using my patented method for patent trolling. I'm suing you!_

<comment><USER16> Only if a patent on patent trolling was set up up so that it could be used by everyone. I'm guessing its possible somehow to grant a license to use a patent to every person, living or dead, now or in the future for an unlimited period of time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> link gives an error.

[Edit] Why the downvote?

<comment><USER18> Anyone have a working URL?

<comment><USER19> Change appft1 to appft in the url

<comment><USER20> Still doesn't work for me. Are we overloading it?..

<comment><USER21> No, the USPTO is imploding.

<comment><USER22> I wish. =\

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think I'll patent "A method and process for mounting a legal defense against patent lawsuits."

And next, "A method and process for preventing patent litigation through acquiring patents and threatening to counter sue."

I'll be unstoppable!

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm sure you can find prior art on this one.

</comment><comment><USER25> Just? This was filed in 2007.

</comment><comment><USER26> Halliburton already tried this in 2008.

<http://techdirt.com/articles/20081107/0118162765.shtml> Yes, everyone's favorite "Halliburton".

</comment><comment><USER27> I suppose it could only have happened with the first (few) patent(s), but someone should have patented "a method for filing a patent."

</comment><comment><USER16> The one patent to rule them all!!

</comment><comment><USER28> This patent shouldn't be allowed. There are lots of prior art. Just ask any patent troll

</comment><comment><USER29> Prior art, surely.

</comment><comment><USER30> Self-reference has just waved the white flag and gone home.</comment>


Google Drive goes down - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/17/google-drive-goes-down/ <comment><USER2> How would you know? It's an unreliable piece of shit, at the best of times.</comment>


Show HN: Example of a multi-player HTML5 racing game using Socket.io - <AUTHOR> http://socketracing.com/

<comment><USER2> Warning: You can inject javascript into this game by making your name. <script>alert("hi")</script>

<comment><USER3> Yes, there appears to be a lot of shenanigans going on :)

I went to the site and everything was washed out in red.

<comment><USER4> amazing - <https://goput.it/c9l.png>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great! It's rather easy to cheat though. :)

</comment><comment><USER6> How does one win?</comment>


How to Hire for Cultural Fit - <AUTHOR> http://blog.piepdx.com/2014/09/16/how-to-hire-for-cultural-fit/

<comment><USER2> That's true. I think that too little emphasis is put on culture, and too much on skills. Thankfully, the developed world is catching up quick on that. How soon before the developing world gets the gist?</comment>


Meet the Most Suspect Publishers on the Web - <AUTHOR> http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/meet-most-suspect-publishers-web-148032

<comment><USER2> Fascinating. "Suspect publishing" must be what people who can't quite bring themselves to write banking trojans do with their time.</comment>


Firefox/Normandy/PreferenceRollout - <AUTHOR> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Normandy/PreferenceRollout <comment><USER2> Relevant context:

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548973#c57](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548973#c57)

> Update: We have rolled out a partial fix for this issue. We generated a new > intermediate certificate with the same name/key but an updated validity > window and pushed it out to users via Normandy (this should be most users). > Users who have Normandy on should see their add-ons start working over the > next few hours. We are continuing to work on packaging up the new > certificate for users who have Normandy disabled.

Further context: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19823701](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19823701)

<comment><USER3> This partial fix via Normandy means a relevant part of the user base may still be in the dark: tech-savvy power users with many extensions who have chosen to disable normandy. (This is probably also the group which is most affected by reset extension settings)

<comment><USER4> Indeed, I had opted out of Normandy, SHIELD studies & co after the Looking Glass/Mr. Robot promotional ad fiasco.

Tentatively re-enabled, it's now 2 hours since the announcement but I haven't received the preference flip study yet. A couple more hours before my fox's lastUpdateTime rolls around and my extensions get disabled, patiently waiting to see if I'll have to take manual action!

Edit: Funny, my app.normandy.run_interval_seconds was set to 24h for some reason, the new default seems to be 6h. I wonder how many people are also in that situation.

<comment><USER5> I found that setting app.normandy.first_run to true and then restarting firefox triggers the hotfix study to be installed (and the pref then automatically sets itself back to false)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I understand that this isn't a backdoor, it's a frontdoor insofar as there is a wiki page about it. What concerns me is that Normandy isn't communicated in the UI of the browser settings, and that Firefox is allowing Mozilla to target me based on any of these:

      Targeting can be based on many criteria, including:
      Firefox version
      channel (release, beta, nightly)
      a percentage of users
      country
      Firefox locale
      installed add-ons
      profile age
      any preference value
      many keys in Telemetry

_Any_ preference value? Is this targeting being done locally or remotely? Once I've been 'targeted' what information about me is then sent to Mozilla?

I'm not sure I want any of those shared, especially the last several. Yet this was enabled by default and the only way to disable Normandy is through about:config? Does disabling that also stop whatever allowed the targeting in the first place?

It just seems like there was a real lack of informed consent regarding this feature and it only came to light when the team used this as a shortcut for fixing the add-on disaster.

<comment><USER7> Unticking "Allow Firefox to run and install studies" under Settings > Privacy & Security should disable Normandy.

<comment><USER8> I have all of the privacy options unchecked including studies but Normandy (which I've just found out about via this issue) is still enabled.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't get it. Is someone going (and I don't really care if is from mozilla or microsoft) to RECONFIGURE my browser without my consent? This is unacceptably bad idea.

<comment><USER10> Yes, sort of. The change is made to _default_ configs, so if you changed something, it won't touch it. And while I get that changes to that can be annoying, I also find them necessary to keep the application easy to use and productive and cannot think of any piece of software that never have changed their defaults.

The reason for Normandy to exist is to allow the developers to check if some change to that defaults is production ready yet. For example, you can start enabling by default hardware video acceleration for some people and compare the number of browser crashes they experience compared to the general public and use that knowledge to know when this feature is stable enough to be enabled for all.

<comment><USER11> It should be mentioned that Mozilla had once wrecked their reputation by allowing a corporate-supported study [1] (yeah, Mr. Robot one). It was a really bad PR disaster for Mozilla, and I think Mozilla has at least learned their lesson by not abusing the studies system in such way (as far as I know).

[1] [https://drewdevault.com/2017/12/16/Firefox-is-on-a- slippery-...](https://drewdevault.com/2017/12/16/Firefox-is-on-a-slippery- slope.html)

<comment><USER12> So they'll put it directly in Normandy instead of wrecking Studies?

<comment><USER11> Not sure, but Mozilla had taken another PR risk by sponsored contents to the Packet integration [1]. So we need to keep our eyes to Mozilla.

On wrecking Normandy, you can actually see all enabled recipes [2] and nothing seems smoky. It even seems that the hotfix (id=721) was used to unbreak Office 365, supporting the positive uses of this system. But I strongly agree that there should be more approachable list of them.

[1] [https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2018/01/24/update- on...](https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2018/01/24/update-on-pocket- and-firefox-integration/) (HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16229927](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16229927))

[2] [https://normandy.cdn.mozilla.net/api/v1/recipe/](https://normandy.cdn.mozilla.net/api/v1/recipe/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I absolutely hate this because it is so tone deaf.

What is the point of people like me using Firefox Nightly? Do your tests on me. Don't do stupid shit with people who choose Firefox Stable. Who came up with this idea anyway?

<comment><USER14> Unfortunately the population of Nightly users is too small to get relevant data in many cases.

<comment><AUTHOR> That would seem to be a market signal indicating people generally don't want to be experimented on by Mozilla.

How is a lack of data for Mozilla my problem? Why does it mean that can inject default preference changes?

<comment><USER15> >How is a lack of data for Mozilla my problem? Why does it mean that can inject default preference changes?

It would mean they can't roll out things like hardware acceleration or Stylo or Webrender as quickly despite their numerous manifest benefits.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't understand. If users valued those things more than having the browser be a stand-alone piece of software after it is installed, then users would opt in to testing.

By not opting in, users would indicated that experiment-avoidance is a feature that gives them more value than the fast rollout of those other features.

<comment><USER16> Would you prefer stable only getting crucial security updates and never release updates to speed things up? Eventually Nightly would be completely different from stable, especially with the switch to Rust. So then Mozilla would have to maintain 2 completely different versions of FF - that's a lot more work!

A better middle-ground is to let things get tested by those who opt-in to it (using Nightly and Beta versions), and slowly trickle changes down. That way none of the published versions are so different that Mozilla needs more staff to handle the different versions. And of course, stable users have far fewer issues than nightly/beta users. Certificate expirations throw a wrench in the whole system, but even if you made FF stable never update, you'd still have a problem because the cert expired.

<comment><USER13> GP said

» It would mean they can't roll out things like hardware acceleration or Stylo or Webrender as quickly despite their numerous manifest benefits.

You said:

» Eventually Nightly would be completely different from stable, especially with the switch to Rust. So then Mozilla would have to maintain 2 completely different versions of FF - that's a lot more work!

As unofficially mandated by the new owners of the Internet - the Google Chrome team - the time between two "major" versions of Firefox is six (to eight) weeks. Yes, we can wait six to eight weeks for new features or twelve to eighteen weeks from trunk to stable (x2 of six to eight).

What we should do is enourage a wider swath of the population to adopt Firefox developer edition and Firefox nightly.

» A better middle-ground is to let things get tested by those who opt-in to it (using Nightly and Beta versions), and slowly trickle changes down. That way none of the published versions are so different that Mozilla needs more staff to handle the different versions.

Thank you. This is exactly what I want. I am not saying things should never change. I'm just saying don't experiment in stable. We are already hemorrhaging market share as is and this nonsense doesn't help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I had never heard of this Normandy nonsense. I have certainly never willingly enabled it. Yet according to my preferences, it's enabled. And apparently it's a feature that lets Mozilla remotely mess with my preferences. What the actual fuck? When did Firefox go from being a privacy-conscious browser to being this pile of nonsense? I'm not amused.

<comment><USER18> Most large software projects have something like this. The typical use case is rolling out a feature gradually, to limit the number of users impacted if a new feature has problems: first you include the feature in a release, but disabled by default; then you turn it on for a small percentage of users. If instrumentation from those users reports crashes, you abort; otherwise, you enable it for everyone else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Dear Mozilla, Please, please, please stop the automagical updates. Is it really so hard to prompt your users if they'd like to allow a temporary fix/feature to be installed? You use webcompat to push quick fixes for specific sites (hidden) you use Normandy to push future features/fixes (hidden), when your users check their version number via the help/about option you automatically d/l and update the next version(!!??). Why is it so hard to ask if this is something that your users want to do???

<comment><USER20> >Is it really so hard to prompt your users if they'd like to allow a temporary fix/feature to be installed?

People might say no, and that would likely very much anger a PM somewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's okay to change certain settings if they don't touch privacy, for eg testing WebRender on some subset of users. But it shouldn't touch Privacy related settings. They should separate the settings into Privacy Sensitive and non Privacy sensitive and be only able to remotely change the latter ones

<comment><USER22> Technically, this is just a lightweight way to package up minor settings changes as an alternative to pushing a normal update to do the same. Both are perfectly normal and I think today's situation totally justifies using this to fix this. They do offer a way to turn this off just like you can opt out of security updates if you insist. For the vast majority of users, automated updates are a good thing.

It's kind of cool that this worked without a browser restart. My extensions just reappeared while I was watching some netflix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So I have Normandy turned on and 'install and run studies' turned on and STILL my extensions have been disabled just now, hours after Mozilla pushed the temporary fix through Normandy which I presumably haven't got, despite having it turned on. Latest Firefox on Windows 10.

<comment><USER24> I had Normandy enabled, but Studies disabled. Same version and OS. A couple minutes after I enabled studies, my add-ons came back online. Maybe try a toggle/pause/toggle?

<comment><USER23> Indeed. Toggling app.normandy.firstrun from its usual false forces a check upon next browser restart and the addons are back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Changing default settings when upgrading the version of a software can be useful sometimes (especially if the new default value is a value that was not possible before), although you should be allowed to force a setting to have a specific value even if that value is the same as the old default value, and be able to require a list of changes to be mentioned so that you can individually enable and disable them before installing the new version of the software.

</comment><comment><USER26> "Pref Rollout is a feature that allows Mozilla to change the default value of a preference for a targeted set of users, without deploying an update to Firefox."

Maybe if we put this in terms of _user stories_...

As a user, I don't want to be "targeted".

As the person deploying updates, I don't want the deployment updating without an update having been deployed.

<comment><USER15> An example of "targeting" in this context is "windows user with an Nvidia graphics card". For example, enabling WebRender (the new rendering engine) for those users once it is determined to be sufficiently stable.

<comment><USER26> That sounds like a new version of the software and should be deployed as a new version, with release notes noting that WebRender is now enabled for Nvidia users, so that users are prepared for the change.

<comment><USER15> The point is gather information on whether it's ready for a full scale rollout. The Firefox developers might know that it _might_ be ready, but the sheer number of software and hardware combinations out there might reveal unknown issues. So instead of rolling it out to 100% of targeted users, you roll it out to 1% of targeted users, and measure regressions to your metrics amongst that group.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm one of those users who had data collection (including studies) disabled. Changing `app.normandy.run_interval_seconds` to 60 (via about:config) didn't work until I restarted Firefox AND enabled data collection including studies (via Preferences).

Then all my plugins came back, and I disabled data collection once again.

</comment><comment><USER28> Does the fix reach tor browser as well? Is Normandy available in tor browser?

<comment><USER28> Seems like tor browser is unaffected.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I didn't realise Firefox came with that sort of backdoor.

<comment><USER30> Browser updates can also change default preferences, and change a lot of other things too. How is this a backdoor any more than auto-updating of the browser is a backdoor? The one issue I can think of is that if you turn off browser auto-updates, this should probably be turned off too.

<comment><USER3> it's one step closer and more direct control, which is why this is now being used to deliver the quick fix.

The downside is that the process of updating the software becomes a bit fragmented, which is probably confusing users now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I don't understand the criticisms in this thread. Why would anyone trust Mozilla's code but not their preferences configurations?

<comment><USER32> Trust isn't a single static Boolean value. It depends on the situation, reputation, and many other factors. Trust is continuously re-evaluated; just because someone's coding ability was trusted in the past does not imply that their _current_ or _future_ actions will also be trusted.

However, the current problem people are criticizing is _not about Mozilla 's choices for default preferences_. The specific changes they ship with the browser or update with Normandy are not (currently) particularly interesting. The problem is that a new way to remotely control the browser was added unannounced that bypassed existing update methods.

If you want to change _other people 's property_, you get permissio9n first. If someone doesn't want to give you permission and you change their property anyway, we usually call that something like "trespassing", "vandalism". It doesn't matter if you think it's an important change or if you don't understand (or even know) their reason for not granting permission; their computer is their property, and they don't have to justify why they want to use it in any particular way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Firefox has done so much lately to hurt its image, that I wonder if Google has double agents working inside Mozilla to sabotage Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER34> about:config > app.normandy.enabled > false

<comment><AUTHOR> One thing that's still unclear to me is whether you must disable this entry of about:config even if you go through the traditional privacy & settings drop down menus and disable the Firefox studies and usage stats options.

If the _only_ way to prevent having a remote entity modify your settings unannounced (even if not for malicious purposes) is to enter about:config and change app.normandy.enable to false, that seems like a situation where the absolute best case, most charitable interpretation is to call it an incredibly deceptive dark pattern from Mozilla.

<comment><USER35> This. After extensive reading about studies and Normandy here and elsewhere, I'm unable to find a straight answer about this. Does anyone know?

<comment><USER34> Studies and Normandy are different things, the former often using the latter. Only 'studies' has a checkbox in about:preferences, 'Normandy' is hidden in about:config .

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Oh, I get it now. "Look how fast we could fix an issue with our _Normandy_ preference rollout feature!" Best keep Normandy activated at all time, eh?

<comment><USER37> Isn't this an abuse of the system, breaking the contract about what kind of changes will be pushed on users without their knowledge?

<comment><USER36> I don't know. Ironically, I had Normandy enabled (without my knowledge) and that "hotfix" they supposedly rolled out didn't reach my own client. So, what ever that feature is for - it doesn't even work. Apparently you also need to have "studies" enabled as well. It didn't work either. So, I'm waiting for official updated release. If they don't fix this soon - I'm done with Firefox and Mozilla.

<comment><USER15> The client checks periodically, they can't really "push" out that change immediately to everyone.

<comment><USER36> I'm willing/trying to _pull_ the fix manually, but that doesn't work either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Why not just update their SSL certificate?

<comment><USER39> Because it's not an SSL certificate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I switched to Vivaldi today.</comment>


Apple will take away your OS X root access, and soon - <AUTHOR> http://matthewblo.ch/53

<comment><USER2> To save you some time in deciding whether to read, you should know that this hyperbolic post title is a hypothesis and not a report of any new facts.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Rob Hague responded with the "Apple would never dare…" defence:

>> developers, designers, and those who see themselves as power users … must still be a significant source of profit for Apple, and so they'd need a good reason to abandon them.

> A locked-down OS X would not be an abandonment of those users, but Apple > already ask $99 a year for the privilege of being a developer.

Developers and designers aren't necessarily developing and designing OS X apps. I'm a developer, and I love OS X to do my job, but I have never written a mac app, and I probably never will.

Quite a few people buy their hardware and software because it makes development so much easier. Take away root access, and half of the advantages go away - Apple isn't that stupid.

</comment><comment><USER4> So... the honeypot plan was accepted? Linkbait title, no content.

<comment><USER3> There's content, it's just very speculative without admitting it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd feel claustrophobic if I didn't have root on my Mac.</comment>


Families 'cheated of Boeing crash compensation' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48953892 <comment><USER2> This is unacceptable. Boeing and the insurance companies do owe these families more than that.

<comment><USER3> This is not the first time and will certainly not be the last time such companies do this. I have seen a documentary where insurance people bluntly asked relatives how much their beloved husband/wife/kid was worth.

I think it's very strange people can actually sign their rights away. That should be illegal worldwide.

<comment><USER4> You walk into a store, grab a beer, pay the clerk, and walk home. The moment you finish drinking it you get a knock at the door--it's the store owner demanding his beer back.

Version 2: a knock at the door--it's the original brewer demanding his beer back.

The abstract notion of "contracting" your rights away isn't bad on its face. In situations as with the crash victims, the real issue here is informational asymmetry, and specifically that the insurers are abusing this asymmetry in a particularly reprehensible manner. The asymmetry is that the families know very little about how much compensation the insurer is capable of paying while the defendant probably knows rather well the economic circumstances of the family. And the families might be incapable--i.e. time limited, because they lost their head of household--of expending the resources to discover this information. By contrast, the beer example is unobjectionable because these factors didn't exist, at least not to the same extent.

Various legal systems have mechanisms for dealing with these issues. Categorically banning the relinquishment of rights, however, means there would never be any finality to the exchange of goods and services, or to legal disputes.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. Of course i meant in regard to the news item.

Products is a whole different kind of thing. I am well aware people/pets/other living things/who knows what more might be considered products in some kind of legal mumbo jumbo.

In regard to the news item: The company bloody well knows how vurnable and unstable these people are. The company also knows it can actually legally persue this morally and ehtically bottom low tactic in order to pay as less as possible and maximise profit as much as possible. That is a well known process for many years.

So, in order to protect these people from these processes it should be made illegal to sign away rights. Maybe a cool down period is more than enough, but there needs to be some form of protection from this process.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Intriguing Properties of Neural Networks [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.6199.pdf

<comment><USER2> The reason the Neural Networks are suffering from blindspots is because they were never trained as generative models. A straightforward classifier cannot be expected to correctly identify something it has never seen before---so of course you can find adversary examples. Generative models are computationally more expensive to build, which is why they are not always used.

</comment><comment><USER3> This paper demonstrates that deep neural networks have surprising blind spots when inputs are only slightly perturbed in a certain manner.

I wonder if these algorithmically determined adversarial examples can be fed back into the network in the training set with correct tagging to make the network more robust with regard to blind spots?

<comment><USER4> I think the problem will remain because the "bits" (perceptrons etc.) of representation are always less than the sum of the inputs. So the training is lossy, which also means not perfect.

As humans, we probably have less "blindspots" because we have learned extra double checking mechanisms, such as applying logic and our world knowledge to analyzing an image. We still fall prey to optical illusions though.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Startup failed, figuring out what to do next - <AUTHOR> Graduated from a university with a social sciences degree in 2015. Came back to Southern California to start an indie game studio. Had a great team of 10 people, but we ran short on money and a deal with a publisher fell through. Most of my work was in art, UI, and production. I've gotten interviews at a couple of places for production work, but have not landed a job yet. Been doing some freelance work in the meantime for the past couple months, but I'd like to do full time work again. Problem is there are a lot of different things I'm into (web dev, game UI/UX, 3D modeling, level design, production), but don't have a strong enough portfolio in any particular one to get a job.
I'm considering getting a course from Udemy (something like this: https://www.udemy.com/the-web-developer-bootcamp/) and going all in on a career in web dev. A lot of what I've learned is self taught, so I'm comfortable with picking up the skills this way. Compared to game development, web dev seems to have the best job prospects and work environment. Long story short, I want to know if this is a bad idea. One of my fears is that by the time I become a viable job candidate, the demand for web developers will have dissipated, I'm still jobless, and have to pursue something else, possibly repeating the cycle.
If I'm being honest with myself, I fear that committing to any single type of work will backfire on me and hurt my ability to get back on my feet. At the same time, if I don't commit, then I'm probably screwing myself over too. I love having so many options at my finger tips, but I'm falling prey to analysis paralysis. I'm sure there are other HN folks who've experienced something similar or are grappling with this problem right now. Do you guys have any advice? <comment><USER2> Pick something and go. If it doesn't work, pick something else.

The demand for web developers will not dissipate in the near future. It also depends on what level of job you're seeking: if you want a senior position, you'll need senior skills: how you _acquire_ those skills isn't terribly relevant if you can show that you actually have them. For example, I don't have a portfolio of any kind save for some minor GitHub stuff.

When I interview (or interview others) I don't look too much at their commit history, and people haven't looked much at mine. If you know what you're talking about that will come across in an interview. If it doesn't, then it's a social, not technical, issue.

</comment><comment><USER3> Roll the dice. Also, no web dev position listing ever read "javascript developers need not apply."</comment>


Optimal Employment - <AUTHOR> http://lesswrong.com/lw/43m/optimal_employment/ <comment><USER2> If you're disciplined about it, English teaching in Japan / Korea is also a decent option, depending on whether you end up with better deals. (Humming a few bars: JET salaries in this prefecture are $45k per year post-tax, rents are subsidized in this town to $80 a month, and the Japanese equivalent of the social security tax which your employer is paying ~10% of your salary to is 100% yours when you leave.)

That said: generic non-JET English teachers have it kind of rough (worse salaries and conditions), people's enjoyment of their time is all over the map (depends on who you are and where you end up), and English teaching is notorious for having few forward paths out of it.

<comment><USER3> i've also heard that JET experiences were all over the map. for example, i know one guy who spent most of his time cleaning.

on a slightly different topic, do you have any thoughts on the availability of non-teaching positions for people who don't have business fluency? i know there are some, but the bulk of jobs for foreigners are clearly in language and cultural instruction.

<comment><USER2> That actually isn't correct: the bulk of jobs for foreigners are in factories. Assuming we scope this to "licit jobs a middle class American would actually consider doing", illiteracy is about as big a barrier to gainful professional employment as one would expect. The exceptions are English teaching, service work at particular bars/etc, and doing weddings as a fake minister (orders of magnitude rarer than teaching).

In particular, so help me, I was ready to kill interviewees at a Japanese megacorp who expected to be placed as engineers despite total inability to read a design document or discuss technical topics. ("No! It is not _kawaii_ that you cannot describe what the black boarded algorithm does in Japanese. No! Knowing the word " _kawaii_ " is not worth points on your application.")

<comment><USER4> Or you could work for an American company in Japan where they work in English. For those who want to write software in the middle of Shibuya, my team and a couple others at Amazon are hiring :)

<comment><USER3> the difficulty there (as it relates to this article, at least) is whether or not they'll sponsor someone's visa. it seemed difficult for a friend of mine to find something that would.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's the thing though. You're _way_ better off earning your money in a place with a high cost of living.

There are lots of things that cost the same regardless of where you buy them. New cars, flat screen TVs, plane tickets to Thailand (and 6-month winter climbing trips to Thailand), and pretty much _everything_ else besides housing all cost the same everywhere.

With that in mind, your best bet is to find a job in LA/SF/NYC then dig in and find the absolute cheapest way to live while you're there. My personal angle was to take short (3-6 month) contracts in LA and find cheap rooms for rent while there. You can save up a ton of money in a short time, then head back to whatever low cost place you prefer to call home.

So to modify the author's idea, instead of setting up shop in Oz full time, go work in LA for half the year. Using his numbers you'll save the same as you would working an entire year in Australia. Then go back to Australia and spend the other half of the year doing whatever you want.

End result: you spend the same, save the same, and get an extra 6 months off work with which to improve your surfing.

Sorted.

<comment><USER6> _There are lots of things that cost the same regardless of where you buy them. New cars, flat screen TVs_

Not really true. You're ignoring local taxes, import tariffs and other markups. I nice car costs at least 3 times as much in Norway as it does in Germany for example. A lot of countries have tariffs on electronics meaning TVs and computers can cost up to twice as much you'd pay in the US.

<comment><USER5> You're right. I wasn't thinking about crossing borders when I wrote that. Within the US, it's essentially true. Comparing US to Europe or anywhere else and it's all over the map.

I guess that's just another variable to throw in when working on your arbitrage strategy. Personally, I'd opt to take that contract job in Oslo if it were an option. Given how much they charged me for beer when I was there, I can only assume the wages must be nice and high!

<comment><USER6> Wages in Norway are quite flat compared to the US. The low end wages are much higher and the high wages are lower. If you're making $20-30k in the US you'll earn a lot more in Norway. If you're making around $100k you'll probably make the same. If you're earning over $200K you'll probably make less.

<comment><USER7> Wages usually depend on supply and demand in the local market, unless your niche is so specialized you personally compete globally (in which case you're probably earning a lot more than $100K). I'm not intimately familiar with Norway, but I'd bet heavily that a $100K job in the Bay Area probably would not translate to a 570K NOK salary. Healthcare, pension and cost of living differences also make it hard to compare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love the idea of bars in the Australian outback coming to be staffed exclusively by rationalist aspies.

<comment><USER9> "G'day mate. What'd you like?'

"Some amber would be ace!"

"No, are you aware of the caloric value of beer and the negative effect on longevity found by a recent JAMA study? Here, have some nice red wine."

<comment><USER10> I am highly amused that the colloquialisms applied are exactly opposite to reality.

<comment><USER9> I got them wrong? Are you sure? I looked them up in an Australian dictionary, and amber was supposed to mean beer, and ace mean great.

<comment><USER11> Nobody would ever order an "amber." Beer is always ordered by brand name, and by size. In Victoria and Tasmania, beer is usually served in a half-pint glass called a "pot." Beer bottles are usually called "beakers." In every state, Foster's is by far the most popular beer. There are usually other unpopular regional beers available for old people and sheilas, but the national love of Foster's goes so deep, you risk starting a fight if you try ordering something else.

So in most of Australia, you'd want to say something like "Cheerio Mate, beaker of Foster's willya?"

<comment><USER12> Umm? Fosters? Really???? The only people who drink Fosters are the English.

I do not know a single friend (yes, I'm Australian) who drinks Fosters. I don't even recall if many of the bars/pubs here in Brisbane even have it on tap.

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosters_Lager>:

      "While popular in many countries, particularly where it
       is brewed locally, Foster's Lager does not enjoy widespread
       success in Australia."

<comment><USER11> Shhh.... you're ruining the joke.

<comment><USER12> Ha! The trouble with the joke is only Australians would get it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Alternate data point:

I make 90k a year.

+$5,000 net income (after taxes, healthcare, and 6% contribution to my 401k)

-$1,400 for rent (pertty high)

\- $400 for food

\- $120 for car insurance

\- $200 for gas

\- $200 for internet, TV, and cell phone

\- $200 for electricity

That leaves me with $2500 a month that is discretionary. That's $30,000 a year. I save $2000 a month.I play with the remaining $500.

Give me an extra $10k and get me to the $100k number and it would be pure discretionary for me.

I live in CT, so it isn't _that_ cheap. There are certainly places in this country with lower rent. And moving to NYC probably would only up my rent to $2,000 which wouldn't really change the numbers becasue I'd dump the car insurance and gas. (No car payments because I paid cash for my car 2 years ago).

<comment><USER14> You might save more money in NYC, even. 1,400 will also get you a 2 bedroom an hour commute from Manhattan (Ozone Park, Forest Hills), or a one bedroom with a 30 minute commute to Manhattan (Astoria, certain parts of Brooklyn).

<comment><USER15> Where's the best place to find a place to rent in NYC? And how would I tell if it's a relatively safe neighbourhood?

<comment><USER16> Craigslist, as the answer to both questions.

You can tell the safe/desirable neighborhoods by getting a good neighborhood map (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Manhattan_neighborhoods>) and paying attention to which neighborhoods CL ads lie about being in (for instance, in Brooklyn, it's common to see ads for apartments that are physically in Gowanus saying they're in Park Slope or Carroll Gardens instead).

<comment><USER15> Thanks! Are there any neighbourhoods that I really want to avoid?

<comment><USER16> Yes. YMMV as to which those are, though. Safety-wise, just do a little research before heading somewhere, especially at night (to get you started, in Brooklyn, don't go to East New York, Brownsville, and large parts of BedStuy).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting, and I think people should definitely consider "off the beaten track" opportunities like this more.

But for most of us here... it doesn't account for the fact that you're _working as a bartender._ I don't know about everyone else, but I want to enjoy and be fulfilled by my work. When I'm building awesome software I loose track of the workday... slinging rum for 8 hours a day sounds like some terrible purgatory.

And from anecdotal evidence, I don't think there's nearly so many great income arbitrage opportunities in the high tech sector.

<comment><USER18> I think you are undervaluation the benefits of being a bar tender.

Granted you are not writing software but after the first couple of weeks you should be able to start hacking/innovating new drinks and since you properly became a software developer because you like creating new things, this should give you some of the same feeling.

But an additional huge plus: unlike being a code geek, being a bartender is not a low status job and there is going to be a lot of females around - combine the two and you should have a relative easy time getting laid (and plenty of chances to practice).

<comment><USER17> > hacking/innovating new drinks

Not that this can't be fun, but my ambitions are a bit higher.

> being a bartender is not a low status job

I'm pretty sure being a software developer is a higher status job than a bartender. Of course being a bartender can be more fun for the "partygoer" demographic - which, I suspect, has a narrow intersection with the LessWrong or HN demographic.

<comment><USER19> _I'm pretty sure being a software developer is a higher status job than a bartender._

I'm pretty sure you are wrong, at least if we take ability to get laid as being an indicator of status.

<comment><USER17> I don't think most people would consider that a very important indicator.

<comment><USER20> i think most (non-computer) people would consider that the reason for achieving status in the first place.

<comment><USER17> Status is a combination of desirable things - Money, power, sex.

Bartenders have somewhat more access to sex. But they have less money than a software developer, and less potential for power (there's no ceiling on being a developer - you can run your own business, and potentially become extremely influential. If a bartender gains that much influence/power and owns their own establishment, it becomes disingenuous to continue to call them "a bartender").

Furthermore, this aspect of status is irrelevant when a person is in a long- term relationship, which at some point in their lives most people are.

<comment><USER18> On the contrary, having a status is a great way to keep your long term relationship going.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Maybe I'm missing something, but what if I _want_ to work as a software engineer?

Spending the rest of life as a bartender or receptionist doesn't seem like a good prospect, regardless of pay.

And if I ever have the chance to go back to work as a software engineer, the years working as a bartender or receptionist won't help.

Or maybe I just don't like money that much.

<comment><USER22> I think the problem with most software jobs is that's where you spend all your mental resources. I tend to think about work projects a lot outside of business hours, and it takes a lot of work to stay on top of your game in the industry. This is fine and well unless you want to do real research in your spare time. Especially when you get older and have other responsibilities, it gets very difficult to find contiguous blocks of time when you are fresh.

<comment><USER23> Or if what you do at work qualifies as "real research".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I highly advocate people going to work or travel abroad for a year or two, but it's important to note that this article is specifically recommending going to work in the Australian Outback. I've been to Australia and it's a lovely place with lovely people, but living deep in the Outback also means relative isolation, dust, and probably more boredom than you're expecting. You'll be at the mercy of the mix of long-term travelers in your location at that particular time, which might be good or bad.

Some folks (like myself) much prefer living in a bigger city with access to music, art, cuisine, culture, green space, and limitless people.

Though that's not to say you can't enjoy living in the Outback--lots of people choose to live there and love it--but just be aware of what you're getting in to. There's a reason one place pays so much more than the other!

<comment><USER25> Exactly, and Aussie cities are VERY expensive to live in. Sure wages are higher, but Sydney especially is one of the most expensive and congested cities to live in in the world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I like the article for the added perspective of going elsewhere. But, like recent anti-tax blog posts I have trouble believing a $6-figure salary is that bad. No way you only have 4k of disposable income. How is that calculated? Even in NYC you do not need to spend 30k a year on housing like his percentages would suggests. People should stop trying to describe the plight of the 6-figure earner.

<comment><USER27> I think the author tried to justify those figures by way of "Keeping up with the Joneses" and the societal pressures that come with 6-figure salaries, but I agree with you that the numbers are not particularly optimistic. It seems like one of the basic assumptions he makes is that people in this income bracket buy nice things and big things.

When I was a teacher, earning a low salary (even by teacher standards), I still had over $10k of disposable income. I can't imagine that'd go down at all if my salary tripled or quadrupled (thereby bringing it into the range he discusses).

<comment><USER19> Not quite. In his comment posted at 31 January 2011 09:44:16PM, he explains:

 _I'm presenting what happens by default in both options, not one optimized and one non-optimized option. What you discovered here is that, the plan to save money in the outback is robust and succeeds by default, while the plan to save money in the US is fragile and fails by default._

<comment><USER28> That's flat-out cheating. In one plan, you are willing to act like a rationalist, in the other you are a sheep. That's a useless comparison. The relevant comparison is "rationalist in the US" vs. "rationalist in the Outback".

For instance, the US rationalist has an easy solution to the keeping-up-with- the-Joneses problem: Don't. I've had great success with this. It's not that hard. While there is always a dick waving contest going on somewhere in a neighborhood it's really quite easy to opt out, and for the most part nobody comes and chases you down; the dick wavers simply classify you as a loser and you decline to correct them. QED.

That whole post is rationalist fail; he knows the forms, but he isn't dancing the dance. It isn't just another brand of marketing to slather over your preexisting point or desire. Well, actually it can be used that way just like any other good thing and this is far from the first self-proclaimed rationalist I've seen to fall into this trap, but hey, we all do it somewhere. We're all still human, no matter how hard we try.

<comment><USER19> I don't think it's cheating. It's recognizing that you are only rational some of the time, and attempting to bind your future irrational self to the rational decisions you make right now.

I view his plan as being similar to not purchasing ice cream while you are dieting - if you were perfectly rational, you could rationally choose not to eat the ice cream in your freezer, but why give yourself the temptation to be irrational?

<comment><USER28> I must concede it is possible I'm simply having a hard time feeling what it is like to be so compelled by your neighbor's purchase of a stupidly expensive car that you must purchase your own stupidly expensive care in response. No sarcasm. I've never been that responsive to peer pressure, and from the very youngest I remember my response to the peer pressure culture was to simply leave the culture entirely in spirit, if not physically (though if I had realized that I could have I so would have). This is not normal.

... still, I really do find it hard to believe that you are so weak willed that you would do such a non-optimal thing, but you are willing to fly all the way around the world, where, I might add, such temptations will still be _present_ even if they aren't quite as _pressing_. This whole argument, if it's going to apply to anybody, sure strikes me as sailing through a narrow window at best, while proclaiming the window to be far larger than it actually is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I can buy most of these points, but it seems to ignore that people have subjective preferences for some cultural environments over others, so the Q/A answer citing Australia's education and secularity doesn't necessarily answer that question. Presumably not every intelligent person will subjectively find Australia's culture versus the US's culture either a win for Australia or a tossup; some may prefer American culture. Some people may also place utility on things like "living in my home country, where I don't feel like a foreigner"; though of course other people may consider living in another country to be an inherently positive experience.

I'm currently an American living in Denmark, so clearly I don't think it's impossible for the utility functions to work out that way. =] But it's not just a matter of weighing the income, the expenses, the commute times, etc.; living in Copenhagen is subjectively fairly different from living in, say, Boston or Los Angeles, and I could imagine some people putting very large positive or negative utility scores on that difference.

<comment><USER27> "Presumably not every intelligent person will subjectively find Australia's culture versus the US's culture either a win for Australia or a tossup; some may prefer American culture. Some people may also place utility on things like "living in my home country, where I don't feel like a foreigner"; though of course other people may consider living in another country to be an inherently positive experience."

Fair point. I'd like to add, though, that even within the United States, there's a lot of cultural variation, adn even among larger trends there are quite a few smaller pockets. I find, for example, that I'm happiest in big-ish cities in the Midwest, but only when I can engage with the arts scene and a little bit with the tech scene.

What I mean to say is that I think you're right in that the author does not offer any qualification for those points, but will also say that living in Perth or Darwin is likely to be very different from living in Melbourne, if for no other reason than location, demographic, and the purposes that people have in being there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> You can keep your job bartending in the outback.

I live in the expensive-to-live-in Boston area. I have an hour commute each way. Sometimes I stay late nights. And on days like today the option is either burn vacation time or telecommute because for my own safety's sake there's no way in hell I'm taking the T and the bus in this blizzard.

But... (and this is the clincher) _I program robot submarines for a living_. I'm a significant contributor to the code that navigates and controls AUVs around the world -- Australia included. In short, I get paid to do something _awesome_. If I were still stuck in the webdev ghetto or doing enterprisey bullshit for banks, I'd be on the first plane outta Logan as soon as the snow clears. But the sheer ass-kickingness of my job -- and the doors of opportunity this experience will give me later -- keep me firmly anchored.

And I think that's entirely rational.

<comment><USER31> Ditto...but Seattle, and my toys have wings.

Yes, please, rational people: leave Seattle. Terrible, terrible place. No good at all. Wet, gray, the people are mean. Shoo!

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Working abroad always appeared to me as something hard at the very beginning, especially for a Russian, especially in tired of immigrants Australia. I don't know, maybe it's all biases from my family members and friends.

I'm 19 yo (minus one week), not so bad programmer (a lead developer of a small outsourcing firm with some "CTO" responsibilities for 2.5 years). All my attempts to find a job abroad (in USA especially) and leave the country left me thinking what I should save up some reasonable amount of money and be ready to show something impressive in my portfolio (or get a degree, which I can't even afford now whilst having no desire for spending four or five years doing something useless in cheap and easy college):

1\. I've often been asked to be interviewed in person - its more than 500$ for a one-way ticket, plus some money for bed and breakfast, plus getting a visa isn't cheap and simple adventure. Okay, 20000$/yr is a "wow!" salary in Sankt- Petersburg for 18-25 year olds, do your math

2\. I've been told that employers abroad don't like to hire foreigners because there're too much responsibility required by the law

3\. And [as I've been told, I've read and I believe] due to these problems it's too simple to end up being a "janitor" developer in some heartless corporation just because visa doesn't allow to just walk out looking for a better job, and neither do living expenses.

I only applied for developer jobs, though. Maybe bartenders have more luck.

I don't know if it's really because of some division of the world or due to my narrow-mindedness and cowardice.

<comment><USER33> > I don't know if it's really because of some division of the world or due to > my narrow-mindedness and cowardice.

Mostly division in the world. If you're on the inside of the first-world gate you can hop on a plane and get an instantly approved visa to almost any other first world country. They all have these reciprocal agreements. The article's strategy relies on this --- a US citizen is pre-approved for a 1 year working holiday, unless they've done something substantially wrong.

For people on the other side of the gate, the situation is completely different. Visa applications are expensive and slow, and governed by arbitrary rules and senseless bureaucracy. The message the governments send is, "there's plenty more just like you. We don't care."

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> As noted in the comments, the major problem is that he compares the "rational" strategy of moving to the Australian outback with the "default" strategy of having a US job and spending the statistical average on housing, food, etc. But if you're assuming a highly rational person, the second strategy has loads of room for optimization: you don't need a McMansion, a new car every 5 years, or to engage in status games of conspicuous consumption with your neighbors. With a relatively small amount of planning and discipline, it's easy to save lots of money earning $100k/year in the US.

<comment><USER14> You said it exactly right. If you're single (even in NYC) it's easy to save lots of money making 50k a year.

<comment><USER35> And if you pick _wisely_ , you can keep doing it after married. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Most young people with 100,000$ a year jobs are not in it for the 100,000. They're in it because it leads (if they are successful enough) to a 250,000$ job in a decade or two.

</comment><comment><USER23> US$16500/y transporation costs? What are you doing, buying a new car every year?

Also, "Companies pay professionals more based on their abilities and their age as opposed to their actual years of experience"? Who would want to work for a company like that? Would it even be legal?

Ignoring more subjective points, like the appeal of living in the outback vs. a city or of having a "no responsibilities" job.

<comment><USER37> Here's an additional data point. My 2009 transportation costs in St. Louis, MO.

($220 car payment * 12) + (278.04 gallons of gas * $2.25 avg/gallon) + ~$175 property taxes + ($5 daily parking * 20 working days/month * 12) + (~$90 insurance/month * 12) = ~$5720

This excludes licensing costs and parking tickets, which probably add another ~$200. It also excludes maintenance. For example, new tires added another ~$400 this year. And you've got to change your oil.

I commute only 6 miles each way, drive a cheap, fuel efficient car, do some of my own maintenance, and live in an area with low tax and gas rates, so I don't think it would be hard to spend at least twice what I do.

Edit: added car insurance.

<comment><USER23> If you commute 6 miles a way, 2 ways a workday, 20 workdays a month for 12 monthes a year on 278.04 gallons of gas, you're getting 10.35 mpg. This is not good mileage. I suppose it's more likely that your daily commute is a small fraction of your total travel.

For the opposite extreme, I live in Manhattan, where $1248/y gets me unlimited subway and bus. Add a few hundred for visiting friends and family scattered around the country. Yes, I'm paying about $30k/y for a (rather nice) one bedroom apartment, but that's my only big expense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Has anyone here had experience working in Australia (or as an expat in another developed country) as an actual software developer?

I do enjoy what I do but I'd love to be able to see a different part of the world while I do it.

<comment><USER2> I worked in Japan for 3 years as a technical translator and the better part of 3 years as a software engineer at a large software consultancy. Software engineers do lots of things, but theoretically the main reason I was there was to develop software (mostly Big Freaking Enterprise Java web applications, for universities, and software which supported the development of the same).

I would be happy to talk to you about that experience at length. The capsule summary is that I cannot recommend working for a Japanese megacorp as a means of broadening one's horizons unless one has the very specific desire to learn about Japanese megacorps. The work/life balance works out such that -- even if you enjoy software development very, very much -- you will likely have insufficient time/energy/health to see much of Japan in your rather few non- working hours.

<comment><USER38> That's the impression I've gotten from a lot of people who have worked in Japan. It isn't really an option for me anyway (since I don't know the language and wouldn't have too much of a reason to learn it) but it is certainly interesting how incompatible many people find Japanese workplace culture with American workplace culture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Trades are booming in Australia. I've been traveling in Australia since January. I meet loads of tradesmen from places in Europe who come down here because the wages are high and there is a lot of work. My sister's husband is a builder, and his friend are electricians, and they do as well or better than any salaried programmer in Silicon Valley or New York. The electrician in particular makes about double what I did, and I was making well over $100K a year.

Regarding being a bartender in the Northern Territory: The advice in the article is pretty good if you are in the USA and under 30 and don't have any prospects in the USA. The wages are pretty good for most types of seasonal service work.

One downside the article doesn't mention, is that I think you can only do this visa once. Thus, it's not really a long term career plan.

</comment><comment><USER39> There is a reason why people endure higher costs of living to be in locations of higher population density. I'd also like to see the same cost benefit analysis over a 5-10 year window. I guess the alternative US scenario mightn't be much better.

</comment><comment><USER40> Bartending: a part-time job that provides the lazy with easy access to alcohol and a stable social life where the only requirement is to have passable looks and the ability to show up, stay awake and not steal (too much). It looks like fun, but it's a very dangerous occupation if you're thinking of actually doing something with your life post-booze dalliance.

The fact that someone would promote dropping out to live in the outback serving beer to a bunch of tourists is insane. To back it up with tax- reimbursement math is ludicrous. Working as a slave for more than one tourist season should dispel any rational thinker of the notion that they're better off scraping by on minimum wages than working at a real job. To be successful in the real world, you need to acquire domain experience, competent skills and build lasting relationships with people who also work in your industry, not to mention developing your talents in order to have access to higher- paying/rewarding employment. All of them take time and none can be done while you're picking your nose at a tiki bar in Florida, Thailand or Australia.

Don't kid yourself. Work is hard and there are no easy way about it.

<comment><USER41> I upvoted this by accident (meant to downvote), so I might as well respond:

      > The fact that someone would promote dropping out to live in the outback
      > serving beer to a bunch of tourists is insane.

I know several career bartenders who love mixing drinks and the social aspect of being behind the bar. What's insane for you is absolutely heaven for them. Quality bartenders can make fantastic money, but let's discount that and say that, for some folks, being happy with their job is more important than how much they earn doing it.

      > Don't kid yourself. Work is hard and there are no easy way about it.

You yourself say that bartending for tourists during the busy season is so horrible that you can't survive one season before bailing. That doesn't sound easy, but if you love bartending, it's not so bad. Similarly, some of my clients are hard to work with sometimes, but I love developing software, so it's not so bad.

tl;dr: grow up and learn that there are valid viewpoints that differ from yours.

<comment><USER42> > _tl;dr: grow up.._

I'd liked your post up to that point.

<comment><USER43> At least the parent post to that one knows they got _someone's_ attention.

I think Abbie Hoffman once said, "If you ever raise someone's hackles, then you've struck gold!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Something is wrong about the author's numbers here.

The Consumer Expenditure Survey the author cites says the 25-34 year old that spends 37.1% of their salary on housing is only making $58,946 per year, NOT $100,000 per year.

Whether intentional or not, the survey is being misrepresented to the benefit of the author's argument.

<comment><USER45> Good catch. There are a few other bits that bothered me as well.

The employer's contribution to retirement is counted as a gain in Australia, but the employer's matching Social Security contribution in the US is ignored.

It also assumes that a car is absolutely necessary in the US. I live in the Bay Area, and I haven't driven my car in any material sense in 4 months (by choice).

Regardless, it's pretty obvious that one can earn six figures in the US, but choose to live within the means of a bartender in an Australian tourist trap. Which provides more disposable income?

<comment><USER44> There are other troubling inconsistencies as well. But I decided to stop there. I only want the author to go back and fix his numbers, I don't want to write the article for him.

Without a doubt, this whole thing is a poor abuse of statistics. It doesn't take a genius to figure out you can make $100,000 and keep a lot in the bank by living like someone who makes $30,000. Which, by the way, there are quite a few of those people in the United States.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'm ethnically Chinese. The thought of going go the outback to serve beer to a bunch of racist Australians (I think someone in this thread described it as "tired of immigration" LOL) for a pittance is about as appealing to me as slicing my face off with a cheese grater.

Ans as far as teaching English in Asia goes ... this must be a SWPL thing because to me it just sounds like a giant waste of time.

I'll stay in California and work at my six figure tech job. Thanks.</comment>