How Shareaholic Reached 2+ Million Installs Of Its Browser Add-On - <AUTHOR> http://mixergy.com/shareaholic-jay-meattle-interview/ <comment><AUTHOR> Several YC companies have created browser add-ons as well. Would be cool to get a discussion going here about browser extension distribution and getting to scale.

\---

Shareaholic was just a "nights and weekends project" until its creator reached a big milestone: 1 million downloads.

My goal with this interview was to find out how Jay Meattle, a single founder with no outside funding, got that many downloads for a web browser add-on, when convectional wisdom says that "no one" installs browser add-ons. As you'll hear in this interview, he did it by creating a tool that was inherently viral, and he helped grow that virility by creating stories for bloggers.

You'll also hear how Jay has since blown past 2 million downloads, why he decided to take a small round of funding, and why he's ignoring revenues (for now).</comment>


Ask HN: Your experience with PyImageSearch Gurus training - <AUTHOR> I'm an experienced software dev, and very familiar with Python. I am currently working on a vision project and looking further my knowledge in this field. Has any one of you taken 'PyImageSearch Gurus' training? Do you recommend it, or something similar? <comment><USER2> Hey, Adrian here -- I actually run PyImageSearch.com. I don't want to sell you on the course, I think the content speaks for itself. But if you want to talk to members who have gone through the course and see the value they got out of it, just let me know. Send me a message ([http://www.pyimagesearch.com/contact/](http://www.pyimagesearch.com/contact/)) and then I'll connect you with graduates. Also, if there is a specific topic you're looking to study just let me know and I can see if the course is a good fit for you.</comment>


Ask HN: I'm owed 8k by a startup that's going under. What do I do? - <AUTHOR> I contracted (development work) for a YC startup for over a year. About a month ago, they went radio silent after I decided to end my contract with them and pursue other work. I'm now owed about $8,000 for my final two invoices (which apparently was "on the way" via ACH and must have been retroactively cancelled once I told them those would be my final invoices).
They are not answering my calls or emails. I still have access to all of their code and deployment environments (which I have not touched), and they haven't worked with anyone else since my departure. I believe they're going under.
What are my options? Unfortunately, I am in NYC and they're in SF, and our contract provides for all disagreements to be settled in SF court.
Throwaway account because disparagement, NDA and all that.
EDIT: For everyone that thinks I have ideas about doing something malicious to their site, of course I'm not stupid enough to do that. I mentioned the access to code to show how I'm sure they're going under (I know they haven't had any active development since I left). <comment><USER2> Take a deep, deep breath, then stand and look at some water until you've made peace with the fact that you'll never see that money.

It's worth noting that you _can_ insure yourself for unpaid invoices, at which point should this situation occur again, you tell the insurer, they pay you, and they will then do all the nasty legal stuff they need to to cover their loss - and you don't have to worry about it.

Not much help for this time around, but if you're working with fly-by-night outfits, it's a must.

Above all, don't do anything malicious, as you could then find yourself on the end of a criminal CFAA case, which would probably mean years in jail.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Not much help for this time around, but if you're working with fly-by-night > outfits, it's a must.

Yeah, I guess in our community we don't think of funded startups as "fly-by- night" outfits, even though any bank or mainstream institution would absolutely think of them as such. I guess I had a little more confidence in the kind of person that has convinced well-known investors to give them money.

FWIW I've had other founders treat me very well in going-under situations, so I know it's not everybody.

<comment><USER2> Totally, but even nice, well-intentioned people may find themselves in a situation where they're utterly unable to pay. If anything, that can be a harder situation if you're trying to deal with it personally, because going in guns blazing "fuck you, pay me" with someone you like isn't easy.

Have been running an agency for the better part of a decade, we've grown from two to thirty-something people, and while we started with no insurance whatsoever, we now have policies coming out of the wazoo - and it's a double positive, as:

a) We no longer have to deal with "bullshit" situations. More often than not we notify the insurer and let them deal with it according to our wishes.

b) Because of (a), we can deflect most relationship damage that goes along with "bullshit", as it's not us being the aggressive assholes demanding payment, it's our insurers.

We spend maybe £10k a year all-in on insurance, but with several £M of turnover and several £Bn of client revenue (i.e. revenue they take through their sites) in the mix, it's an absolute bargain. We've only had to make two claims - most of the time, they make situations go away (negotiated settlement, etc.) before we have to make a claim, as it's in their interest (cheaper resolution) to do so.

<comment><USER3> Tell me more about this all-in insurance. Where would you find these types of insurance companies. I run a small digital studio and run into similar problems from time to time with startups - it's always startups.

<comment><USER2> Our policies are mostly with Hiscox, brokered by Willis. Honestly, talk to a broker, you'd be amazed at what you can insure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Too much work to do real flowchart in ascii, alternative version:

      Are they incorporated?
       -> No: sue founders personally
       -> Yes:
          -> Will they go under in < 6 months?
            -> Yes: your money is lost
            -> No:
              -> Do they have assets?
                -> No: Your money is lost
                -> Yes: sue asap

Alternative: some companies buy debt at a discount. Some collections agencies do it, since they're in the business of chasing debtors already anyway. Not sure in US who would do that.

Do not do anything to website or whatever else you still have access to.

Those are pretty much your options. You seem to have some ideas of yourself (judging from you mentioning 'YC', 'access to code', etc.). Those are all bad, ineffective, stupid - or all three courses of action.

<comment><USER5> I think the reason "access to code" and whatnot are mentioned is that it would be indicative that he wasn't fired but not told he was fired. If your client stops communicating all of a sudden it's often the case that you're not hired anymore and nobody there wants to tell you because that's never good news. And ultimately not telling someone and not paying them and not returning their calls will eventually let them figure out that they're fired. But in that case you'd definitely lose any kind of access that you once had. Passwords would be changed, your git privileges would be revoked, etc.

Prior to assuming that this person wants to blackmail them, think perhaps if there might be another reason it's mentioned.

<comment><USER6> I can imagine they went silent because it's an awkward issue and they are trying to avoid it. I know I am more likely to respond to the problem emails I can solve quickly than those that are more difficult.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Maybe its time to level up and try using a collections agency like: [http://www.olddebts.com/](http://www.olddebts.com/)

Whenever a client seems to be giving me the run around I pay for a simple `Instant Collect` + `Credit Bureau Reporting` (should be around $10-$15) and its amazing how the threat of destroying someones credit can change the scenario ;)

I actually used this strategy to effectively get paid back from a law firm! No lawyer needed.

It might just put you at the top of the list of people to repay.

Not vouching for olddebts here, though I am happy with their service. There are other options.

Definitely don't give up on ANY amount of money.

<comment><USER8> Comcast's automatic billing system overcharged me by a dollar when I canceled. (I moved to a town without Comcast.)

Yes, I gave up on the money even though they sent me monthly reminders that they owed me a dollar. Not worth sitting on the phone...

Comcast eventually sent me a check.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Charge more. Your rates need to have credit risk built into them. Unless I miss my guess, they don't, and they're at a discount to market to boot.

How are you sourcing "They're going under"? If it is true, you won't be able to collect -- if the bank account is bare then it is bare, and there is no reason to expect the founders to backstop this invoice for you.

If you're simply being fobbed off, then the usual escalation options are a) restate demand for immediate payment via certified mail and b) lawyer sends them a nastygram.

But either way, charge more.

<comment><USER10> I second "raise your rates". I'm 90% sure you are significantly undercharging because a) you live in NYC b) you are getting work for SF companies, and one that's YC c) you care a lot about a $8,000 debt.

Double your existing rate immediately and don't look back!

<comment><USER11> For reference, I'd kick myself for undercharging if I billed that much for a week, and correspondingly consider it "annoying but not business-critical" if I had trouble collecting it. Charge more.

Your rates should not be pinned to a lowball bid for an annual salary for a newly minted CS student. You're assuming far more risk, and hang around just long enough to deliver major value and get out, rather than being just productive enough that it's not worthwhile to hire someone to replace you.

You need to operate like a business that is delivering a high-value service in exchange for a reasonable fee. And you should probably narrow down your offering & marketing to the point that you have very few direct competitors, and practically none once you account for location and availability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you are individual to corp 1099 contractor, let the YC startup know that if you are not paid within certain time, you will be filing a report to State Dept. of Labor and State Attorney General. Labor claims get much higher priority during liquidation. The $8K might be too high for small claims court other wise a lien through court judgement is very effective.

Don't just walk away thinking it was cost of doing business and cost of your "stupidity". Such actions just enable people and companies like these to exploit others. As it is a YC startup and in SF, when you talk to anyone (offline) in SF area, just sneak in the mention how you were wronged by YC startup and founders. SF startup community is connected and words get around. Reputation is important.

As a lesson for the next time, don't ever work for anyone on contract without taking advance payment and/or have more than one pending invoice.

I work in financial data analysis and I use a saying. Never ever give someone benefit of doubt in discussions or business transaction or believe someone because of their background, pedigree, and how well known they are. If you do, there is a Madoff and LTCM waiting around the corner to clean you out.

 _Edit: clarification. You should start with a letter /email to founders requesting payment within a certain time frame, for example 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, send founders another email/letter requesting payment within 3 days and mentioning you will take further actions if not paid such as reporting to DOL and AG both in CA and NY as well as reaching out to advisers, investors and shareholders of the startups. After 3 days, start a letter/email campaign pleading for intervention by the advisers, investors and shareholders of startup mentioning you prefer not having to resort to legal and regulatory means and hope they can intervene to resolve the situation and it doesn't reflect nicely on them personally being associated with such startup and founders... blah blah blah. Wait a few days and then file complaint to DOL/AG mentioning the steps you took to resolve the issue, mention names of all people you contacted._

</comment><comment><USER13> Don't believe everyone here saying, "You're screwed, you'll never see it." Screw that... $8k is a lot of money. Sue them in small claims court.

Generally if you have a legal claim under $10k, you can get your money back in small claims, without even hiring a lawyer. Gather up every piece of documentation, email/IM/SMS correspondence, proof of work, etc, and bring your case in front of a judge.

You'd be surprised how quickly some people can come up with money when they're staring down the barrel of a legal motion.

<comment><USER14> His debt will be with the corporation, so by the time he'd be ready to see a court room, the company would be gone. Suing a collapsing startup is a waste of time.

(The small claims limit in California against companies is $5k, FWIW).

<comment><USER13> As far as the debt being with the corporation, if a judge decides the founders acted negligently, s/he can "pierce the veil" of liability and hold them personally liable.

Good to know about the Cali small claims limit.

<comment><USER14> That's true of all torts, but not paying a consulting contract is very unlikely to be considered a tort; it's a contract dispute --- like, the archetypical contract dispute. The whole point of limited liability is that contract disputes end at the company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> You are probably out of luck. I had a similar "learning experience" years ago but mine cost me over $13K. Here are 2 things I do to mitigate the risk of this sort of thing:

(1) Never lend the client more than 2 weeks (80 hours) pay. Make payment due in 10 days with a step to a higher rate after that. I think for my next gig, I will spec the rate at the higher figure with a discount for paying within 10 days i.e. $200hr or $150hr if paid within 10 days.

(2) Draw up a client services contract. I scoured the internet and drew up a rough version of what I wanted along with a list of goals [example: "I don't want _any_ liability"] and sent them to my lawyer to draw up a contracting agreement. I think it cost me $6-700. The beauty of this is that you can reuse it for multiple clients.

Lets see how this might have avoided your current situation. For one thing, you wouldn't have gotten to $8K outstanding before you stopped working. Your contract would also have specified that disagreements be settled in your home state. $5K is the limit for small claims in NY.

<comment><USER16> Actually, by your own standards he easily could have. 80 hours at even $100/hr is....$8k.

<comment><USER15> True. I almost never work 40 billable hours in a week at least not for the same client.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's a little late for you, but Mike Monteiro's "Fuck you, pay me!" talk has a lot of good information.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U)

<comment><USER18> Fuck you, pay me!

Those are magic words!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I was in a similar situation with a company I had previously worked for owing me around 2k for some side work I did after I left. I emailed the owner many times, and I eventually started ccing managers who had liked me. I never saw the money, and they went into bankruptcy restructuring shortly thereafter. When they were in bankruptcy I contacted their lawyer and the paper work he sent me implied I could only register debts incurred within the last 6 months and at this point I had been trying to get my money for a good year and a half. They've stayed open after the restructuring, but I don't think I can claim the money now, I'm not sure, I'm not a lawyer.

<comment><USER20> "YOU" contacted their lawyer. "YOUR LAWYER" should have contacted them or their lawyer.

<comment><USER19> I don't have lawyer money. I was doing the side work because I needed money.

<comment><USER21> Most likely there is legal advice available for you for very little money. Ok, I am not in the US, but in Switserland you can have an 30 minutes of lawyer time for 50/100chf via local services. Similar things exist in the Netherlands. In the US, talk to one of the "ambulance" chasers, that is unlikely to cost you.

Legal options can cost a lot, but not for the first conversation. That first conversation is 90% of the value of a layer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Without presuming too much, it could be that their situation is a lot more than -$8k. Your money is probably a lost cause, to be honest.

</comment><comment><USER23> I know it sucks. My advice:

0\. Don't take it personally. It's just business.

1\. Be thankful it was only $8k. A lot of money when it's yours, not much in the big scheme of things.

2\. Start requiring a retainer applied against final invoice. Clients who won't write you a check upfront, are less likely to develop the habit of writing you checks later.

3\. Start stopping work when you are not paid promptly. The first people not to get paid are those for whom there is the least bang for the buck. Paying for something that is already in hand falls into that category.

4\. Become more selective about clients. Prompt payment at high rates is all there is to a good client.

It's all part of the consulting landscape. One of the things I have come to believe is that people will red-flag their intent not to pay early on because it allows them to rationalize it via "I warned them" later on. To me, insisting that the disputes are settled at the payers convenience (in SF) rather than the consultant's is such a red-flag. Then again, once you contract with a corporate entity in a high risk business, you're accepting the idea that your payment can be easily avoided.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER8> Call a lawyer. Sometimes a nasty letter from a lawyer is all you need to get someone to pay up.

</comment><comment><USER24> If nothing else, use this as a lesson not to do more work for a company that already owes you from a previous invoice.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've thought about that a lot - what do I take away from this?

I'm not sure there's anything I really could have done. I was working on 30 day terms (quite common), and I'd worked for them with quite prompt payment for over a year. I probably had ~12-15 paid invoices from them for similar amounts that were paid within 7-14 days of issue.

I stopped working for them upon the issuance of the second invoice in question - so I had two invoices outstanding at that point, 1 that was 15 days past issue (but not contractually due) and 1 just issued.

Do people in multi-invoice contracts really stop work until they have proof of remittance? I've never heard of such a thing - that sounds crazy to me.

<comment><USER25> If it's a company that's that small before taking work have their owners co- sign liability on your contracts.

So if their LLC(Whatever) fails, they're still on the hook.

Banks do this for every loan my small business has taken. You sign for your company, but you also sign personally. If they won't do this, move on.

Lesson learned.

<comment><USER26> No offense but I'd never sign a personal liability contract if I were contracting somebody even if I had millions sitting in the bank account. In my opinion that's just a silly idea, akin of asking a VC to sign a NDA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> IANAL: If they're really going under then you probably aren't going to see a penny of that money. I would do what you can within reason. Make sure your claim is known if there are bankruptcy proceedings, but don't expect to be successful. $8k may be enough to be worth contacting a lawyer about.

</comment><comment><USER14> If the company goes under, you're not getting your invoices paid.

<comment><USER28> You can get a nice chair or something though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> If they are truly going down and are a LLC or otherwise incorporated, there's probably not much you can do. Going forward, there are a few options:

\- If you are doing project-based work with specific deliverables, delay delivery of the project until payment is received.

\- Ask for a deposit from the client up front to cover such an eventuality. Depending on how much you want to cover your risk, this could be somewhere between 1/2 to a full month's worth of pay. To the client, if they ever want to terminate your consulting agreement, this becomes part of the last month's pay.

\- Ask to be paid in advance for your work, stop working if payment isn't made in advance.

\- Setup your consulting agreements so you are paid more frequently and stop working if you aren't paid when agreed. This limits the amount of money that could be owed to you.

If you are going to seek legal options for compensation in your current situation, you should try to do it before they shut down and still have assets. Of course you should consult a lawyer and get real legal advice from someone who knows the law before pursuing this option.

</comment><comment><USER30> Sorry about your luck. Kiss it goodbye, and move on towards making up for the loss. Court is a waste plus will cost $$, and all you would likely get is a judgement (AKA a piece of paper) telling you what you already know. Then it's still your job to collect that money even w/ the judgement. 8k is def a nice chunk of change, thought at least it wasn't 80k. One positive thing is you can report this as a loss for your business which should help w/ your 2015 taxes.

Then theres always taskrabbiting a ninja in the bay area to help you collect ;) Good Luck

</comment><comment><USER31> You find another client. This one is not going to pay you, and a bankrupt company will, in the very best scenario, give you a few pennies on the dollar, a long long time from now.

</comment><comment><USER32> I had a similar experience. What saved the day was reaching out personally and relying on that personal relationship. The founder made sure we got paid as the business reorganized even though it took a while and was nerve-wracking for us. It took extra effort on the founder's part but he came through for us. Have you tried calling and speaking to the head there or whomever you had the strongest relationship with?

</comment><comment><USER33> If you are ultimately unable to collect. You can send them and the IRS a 1099, at year end. They will end up owing the IRS taxes for your work performed, but not paid. Something my CPA does for clients she can't collect from.

Not a solution for you, but a headache for them.

Small claims is possible as well. Just file two claims, one for each invoice.

</comment><comment><USER34> Have a read of this info here which might be useful to you ...

[http://www.shrm.org/templatestools/hrqa/pages/wagesandbankru...](http://www.shrm.org/templatestools/hrqa/pages/wagesandbankruptcy.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER35> Divide the loss by the gain and call it cost of doing business. Do what you have to do and move on. Maybe next time don't advertise your intentions before getting paid?

What concerns me the most is that you just had to mention access to code AND that you had not touched it.

</comment><comment><USER36> My suggestion would be to agree to some sort of compromise. Tell them you'll take computer hardware or less money in exchange for debts settled. Do it soon before everyone else does it and there's nothing left.

</comment><comment><USER37> This lawyer will take care of it on your behalf and will only take a cut if they are successful: [http://justtelljulie.com](http://justtelljulie.com)

<comment><USER38> The word lawyer does not appear on that site, and I am pretty sure she's not a lawyer.

It looks like she's an awesome AR clerk -- but her value prop is collecting while keeping a very good relationship -- it's not as effective when the customer has no ability to pay and you don't want to work for them any more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Email them again, include the URL to this page.

Name them in 24 hrs when they don't reply (don't threaten them with that, just do it)

</comment><comment><USER40> While this is advice after the fact, anybody doing contracting should spend 30 minutes and watch this video.

It's a presentation from Mike Monteiro who's the co-founder of Mule Design Studios.

[https://vimeo.com/22053820](https://vimeo.com/22053820) \-- "F*ck You. Pay Me."

</comment><comment><USER41> Wonder why people place so much trust and value just because two guys with a one trick pony got into YC.

I just love hearing "We are a YC backed startup". First thing they tell me. Okay? You want a cookie now? What the hell? It's fucking meaningless, it actually tells me you don't know what you are doing, and that I should be divesting.

At the end of the day, if it's still a one trick pony, add any two random capital LETTERS, still won't save a startup, because it can fail for so many reason.</comment>


Ask HN: What are your app ideas that have not been created yet? - <AUTHOR> What are your app ideas that have not been created yet? <comment><USER2> a service to place phone orders for extra spicy dishes from ethnic restaurants with calls made by people who speak the language or at least have the right accent to ensure authenticity

a text processing algorithm to alter a document just enough to defeat stylometric analysis without changing the meaning

a service to connect people who need to write anonymous threatening messages with native speakers of Eastern European languages to get all the grammatical errors right

a discussion forum called "who would win", wherein participants nominate fictional or historic figures to compete against each other in a fight and explain why think one would beat the other</comment>


Our world is in danger, not of becoming too dangerous but of becoming too safe? - <AUTHOR> http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/15/milktoast-nation.html

<comment><USER2> Content-free "blog" entry about an original:

[http://ceae.colorado.edu/mc- edc/pdf/Milksop_Nation_Jack_Gord...](http://ceae.colorado.edu/mc- edc/pdf/Milksop_Nation_Jack_Gordon.pdf)

From the guildines:

      > Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports
      > on something they found on another site, submit the latter.

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html></comment>


How Twitter Uses NoSQL - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/2011/01/how-twitter-uses-nosql.php

<comment><USER2> The search section is out of date now, they use the Realtime Lucene branch (with modifications). The link to the slides seems to 404 now, but you can see a video of their presentation at Lucene Revolution here: <http://vimeo.com/16063395>

</comment><comment><USER3> I thought that the 55 minutes to watch the video with linked slides was very worthwhile. For me: I need to use pig more often rather than write custom map/reduce jobs; custom pig UDFs deserve a look; liked the explanation of how they tried to use Cassandra to store tweets, decided not to, but how the will be using Cassandra for other tasks; etc. Really interesting stuff.

</comment><comment><USER4> Haven't heard of FlockDB before, it looks really interesting</comment>


Ask HN: A free payment gateway API for testing - <AUTHOR> I want to build a WooCommerce payment plugin for learning how a payment plugin is built. I don't have a real banking system behind it and I am looking if there is someway to build the plugin and test it without the need of a real system behind it. Does anyone offer a testing payment gateway for free? <comment><USER2> Most payment APIs like Braintree give you a sandbox API for testing. You can build your payment plugin on top of those APIs or build one similar to that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Maybe Stripe?</comment>


Can China Contain Bitcoin? - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609320/can-china-contain-bitcoin/ <comment><USER2> In a word, yes. If it goes after the mining operations based in China, it's game over.</comment>


Asa Dotzler: Firefox and more: why do they think this is OK? - <AUTHOR> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2010/11/why_do_they_think_th.html <comment><USER2> Anyone else get weird back button behavior when visiting this site? I clicked "back" but nothing happened. When I looked at my recent history, there were 3-4 entries for the site. Anyone else get this issue?</comment>


My book 'Programming Windows Azure' from O'Reilly is available - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596801971 My night and weekends project for over a year - 'Programming Windows Azure' published by O'Reilly is finally out.
When I started off, I've tried to write a book I'd like to read myself. That means a sense of humor (hopefully), lots of code (especially code that doesn't involve the Microsoft stack) and in general, being very deep technical. The code samples are mostly in C# but they are easily translatable to any language/platform you like. I've snuck in a chapter based purely on Python too.
I've tried to make this book not as dry as a lot of other technical books. You'll find , among other things, hidden references to Star Trek (TNG and TOS), BSG and atleast one Office-based code sample.
I feel a bit bad about plugging my own work on HN but since this essentially took over my life for over a year, I thought it was justified :). <comment><AUTHOR> I felt bad about a plug for my book but felt that it was justified given that it has taken every night/weekend for over a year :)

I've tried to write a book that I would like to read. This means humor (find all the hidden Trek, BSG references), deep technical under-the-hood stuff and lots of code.

And in specific, code written in a non-Microsoft stack. All the C# code samples are easily translatable and there's an entire chapter on crypto stuff written purely in Python.

Do let me know what you guys think.

<comment><USER2> Azure and its companion products look compelling. Unfortunately, I'm a cheap dude who doesn't want to spend a penny to try new shiny toys. That, and the marketing stuff in Azure website is a little bit confusing to me at first.

If Azure is free in the future, and if your book is still relevant in terms of code/API and stuff, I'll buy it first.

I wish you the best sir.

<comment><USER3> If you have a business you can sign up for Microsoft's Bizspark program (bizspark.com) and you can get access to Azure for free (not to mention all of MS's other development tools for free as well).

<comment><USER4> Nice, I hadn't heard about this yet and I'm in a start-up with just 3 people total that just formed. So yeah, this is looking like it will work for us. Hopefully vs2010 is a free download, that would save us a nice chunk of our limited startup dollars. Thanks for posting this.

<comment><USER5> evo_9 I didn't see any contact information in your profile. Send me an email and I'll get you guys into BizSpark.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Congrats! We're actually using Azure quite a bit with our Startup. We might have to grab a copy :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Do let me know if you need any help. I do work on the Windows Azure team and we're always interested in what people are doing with our stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Serious question, any specific reason you went with O'Reilly and not Microsoft Press? Seeing as you do work on the Azure team and this would be a perfect match for MS Press.

<comment><AUTHOR> I contacted a lot of publishers including MS Press and O'Reilly was the first to respond. Besides, I really like O'Reilly books and thought it would be great to be a published O'Reilly writer. They've been amazing to work with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great, just bought it with the $9.99 discount. The platform is great (as everything there are some caveats you have to deal with), but it's very reliable. We are using Azure since July for a custom MapReduce implementation, using up to 200 instances daily for several hours, [http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?...](http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=4000005802)

</comment><comment><USER9> Congrats! I plan on doing some WP7 stuff and I'm thinking that Azure seems like the right place to host the cloud infrastructure. I'll take a look at this book.

</comment><comment><USER10> The cover looks like a manual designed in the MS-DOS era. Something more modern may do better justice to your content. Lose the italic times new roman, try Helvetica. Dog/wolf is giant, this isn't a Jack London novel. I'll design you one if you would like.

Edit: as absconditus pointed out below, it does look like a lot of other O'Rielly books. Suppose the highly analytical people that read these don't mind.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I don't have too much control over the cover design - O'Reilly does that.

I did pick the animal. The animal is a 'dhole' which is popularly called a 'red dog'. 'Red Dog' happens to the original secret code name for the Windows Azure project.

How that code name came to be is an interesting story in itself and I open Chapter 1 with that.</comment></comment>


A Lawyer Who Is Also A Photographer Just Deleted All Her Pinterest Boards - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/pinterest-copyright-issues-lawyer-2012-2

<comment><USER2> So what she's saying here is that pinterest is trying to have it both ways. In their legal agreements they say you can ONLY post things you own or have a license to while the common practice on the site is exactly the opposite.

She's right: having it both ways doesn't work. And if this is your business model, then your best bet is to carry on anyway, take out liability insurance, and lobby for the laws to be changed. Because pinterest isn't writing their legal terms this way just for fun.</comment>


Working at a different startup every Friday for a year... - <AUTHOR> http://www.gonefreelancing.com/

<comment><USER2> This is a very good idea. Europe absolutely needs to showcase our startups, even if this is only for UK now.

<comment><USER3> your right, and i would love to get out to europe as well!</comment></comment>


USPS Site Exposed Data on 60M Users - <AUTHOR> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/11/usps-site-exposed-data-on-60-million-users/ <comment><USER2> What's even worse than exposing the data is that they knew about it for a year and just left it exposed.</comment>


Bitcoin Is Broken - <AUTHOR> http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/04/bitcoin-is-broken/

<comment><USER2> I've read the paper. The title is alarmist. "selfish" mining seems to work, pools should implement it as fast as possible. When a majority of them do, the problem cancels out. The given solution suggest propagating all chains and choosing a random one to mine on. Their proposed solution is immediately exploitable, as a "selfish pool" could disseminate as many competing forks as possible to dilute the processing power of the "honest" system then collaborate on a single chain.

<comment><USER3> That was my thinking as well. All pools should behave selfishly. If they all behave this way, then there's no incentive for the miners to move towards a single pool, therefore avoiding centralization. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER4> Yes, the strategy works better if you have a lower-latency network at your disposal. What it creates is a winner-take-all situation where the mining pool with the best optimized network, some function of latency-vs-cost, gets a disproportionate reward even when all miners are pursuing this strategy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I haven't read the paper, and I'm certainly no expert in game theory, but I don't think we have to worry _too_ much about this. The assumption seems to be that selfish miners will collude to control the network. However, it still seems to be in their best interest to compete. If the coin starts losing real- world value due to a bad controlling group, rational miners will stop helping the controlling group mine.

In addition to spending time/money/resources on mining hardware and power, miners now have to spend time/money/resources on finding and implementing better strategies. This just shows that there's another variable.

(I could be, and probably am, wrong.)

</comment><comment><USER6> I think their attack doesn't work.

It relies on "publishing their newest lbock" before the others discover it. However, there is no way to know when the others found the newest block. Since they just try some Hash IV (afaik), it is well possible they discover the next block within seconds of the first. So there is an incentive to publish their latest block as soon as they found it.

Also, what I read here and what I agree with, selfish mining seems self defeating which reinforces the first point. The second selfish miner pool should publish its newest block just before the first selfish miner pool, pushing the equilibrium of "latest block release" to ASAP.

Any comments?

</comment><comment><USER7> What happens when the honest miners fluke it and solve a block early, before the dishonest miners decide to publish theirs...?

Wouldn't this ruin any and all gains the honest miners have, nulling all the blocks they have mined 'ahead'...

<comment><USER5> I think in the long run (repeat the process hundreds of times), there would still be an advantage to the selfish miners.

Edit: Here's a simulation written by Dan Kaminsky. [http://pastebin.com/PfBhLc7r](http://pastebin.com/PfBhLc7r)</comment></comment>


Lea Kissner's job is making sure Google products protect the privacy of users - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/meet-the-woman-who-leads-nightwatch-google-s-internal-1825227132 <comment><USER2> Google could easily protect the privacy of their users but it would need to be a directive from the top down and they would have to actually mean it.

All this is is an attempt to show themselves as the good guys relative to Facebook whereas Google is in many ways just as bad, just along different axis. At heart both Facebook and Google are advertising scum of the very worst kind that hold the world hostage with some free functionality.

The problem with Google is that that functionality is of a grade that it is hard to get around them, Facebook you can do without just fine.

<comment><USER3> I couple of years ago I went to bed with the computer on. I woke up in the middle of the night with hard drives in full rage. My first thought was that Vista is probably doing a defrag, but I was pretty sure I had turned that feature off. So I ran perfmon to see what was going on: googleupdate.exe was scanning all drives, not only the system drive, but all of them. I purged all Google software from the computer (Google Chrome, Earth).

<comment><USER4> I don't know if it's related or even on the right place in the timeline, but at some point Chrome started doing virus scans on Windows.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well, they definitely do fail at the very core. For the non-enterprise Gmail accounts, there is basically no way for account owners to reattain control over an account if it was hijacked. Google product forums full of people blocked from the recovery of their account by sudo-AI recovery form and all the support they get is repeated "use recovery form" from some kind of "google community volunteers" (or something like that).

E-mail account is basically a concentration of personal data and doing so little to protect that negates everything else.

<comment><USER6> Whenever you make the recovery process easier, you make it easier for attackers to "recover" victims' accounts.

Switching from pseudo-AI to humans isn't necessarily better. I had an attacker successfully social engineer a support person into changing the email associated with one of my videogame accounts which had some valuable items.

Preventing attackers from getting my password is something I can do myself. Preventing attackers from "recovering" my account is not something I can do myself. So I prefer services to have difficult recovery.

<comment><USER7> >Whenever you make the recovery process easier, you make it easier for attackers to "recover" victims' accounts.

Only if you define easier as 'badly designed process'.

> I had an attacker successfully social engineer a support person into > changing the email associated with one of my videogame accounts which had > some valuable items.

That is unfortunate, but why do you believe this will always be the case?

>So I prefer services to have difficult recovery.

Maybe this can be an opt-in for the more 'security-minded' minority. There is no reason to have the same process for every user. Both of the positions "Preventing attackers from getting my password is something I can do myself." and ". Preventing attackers from "recovering" my account is not something I can do myself." rely on humans not making mistakes. We can improve on both (service & user) sides to reduce mistakes.

<comment><USER6> >Only if you define easier as 'badly designed process'.

I'd be interested to know what a good process is.

>That is unfortunate, but why do you believe this will always be the case?

I don't believe most (if any) online accounts that I have provide enough profit to the service owner to hire and train employees with enough expertise, time, and resources to properly determine a valid recovery attempt from a fake one.

Social engineering employees just seems so easy from what I've seen. It's so reliable it can be done on stage:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SstZAIxl8wk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SstZAIxl8wk)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc7scxvKQOo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc7scxvKQOo)

It just takes a single slip up and you lose. Whereas attackers can just keep trying.

>Maybe this can be an opt-in for the more 'security-minded' minority.

Yeah I agree it's a good idea. In fact that's what I've done on my primary google account

[https://landing.google.com/advancedprotection/](https://landing.google.com/advancedprotection/)

But that implementation isn't perfect, it requires giving up some features and buying U2F keys. Preferably you could opt into exactly the protection you want, so you could get the recovery security without having to buy security keys for example.

I agree there could be better implementations, but they would cost more. I think it's a three way tradeoff between cost, easy recover, and security. When I hear someone advocating for easier recovery without advocating for higher cost, then I immediately think there will be a lowering of security.

<comment><USER7> >I'd be interested to know what a good process is.

IMHO, A good process would have several tiers, each being more manual, less automated, and more time consuming. The basic tier would be security questions, alternate email, SMS, 2FA, etc. The next tier could be establishing identity and would mean communicating with a real person. You can send a signed affidavit along with a government issued ID and the person would verify it. Then they would have to establish that the account itself belongs a specific person, and that that person is you. This can be done in various ways - billing address, CC info (if applicable to that service), etc, etc. A more real answer would be dependent on the actual service and what information the service captures at signup, etc.

>I don't believe most (if any) online accounts that I have provide enough profit to the service owner to hire and train employees with enough expertise, time, and resources to properly determine a valid recovery attempt from a fake one.

Well, then that is a different argument and I'd agree that it takes time and money to get a good process in place.

But if you think about it your logic can be applied to anything right?? I don't believe most (if any) software companies have enough profit motive to test their software for security bugs or hire people who have expertise in security.

>Social engineering employees just seems so easy from what I've seen. It's so reliable it can be done on stage:

Yeah, that is an example of a bad process.

<comment><USER6> The cost of hiring security engineers and testing for security bugs is constant with regard to number of users. Whether you have 1000 users or 1 billion users, your service has the same security if you spend the same amount on testing an engineers.

But the cost of human intervention in recovery increases linearly with the number of users.

I agree with your ideas for automation. But human intervention has problems.

One solution for human intervention is to charge a non-refundable fee for recovery. This has the advantage of discouraging attackers from trying to recover. The problem is I think this would cause bad PR for the companies. Now instead of blog posts saying "Google locked me out of my account" there would be blog posts saying "Google is charging me $20 to access my own account" or "Google is holding my account hostage for cash".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > _The fundamental challenge... is making computing systems that people feel > comfortable using. "They don't feel safe, they don't feel trust... Does this > company have my best interests at heart at all?.."_

Making users feel good about surrendering data, defined as "protecting privacy".

Google's positioning on the current furor is pretty interesting.

Specifically the preferred corporate definition of 'privacy' to mean...

> _Being respectful of a user can be as simple as giving her a way to respond > to a product that bothers her, whether its an ad for a chicken recipe that's > not relevant for her because she's a vegetarian or an abusive message that > she wants to report._

... Funnel-optimization ("user trust"), and enhanced personal data collection.

Very Googley.

#changetheworld

<comment><USER9> I find the [x] button on Google's ads annoying. I click the [x] to mean "remove this ad" but that is not one of the options presented. Wouldn't it be better for users and Google if clicking [x] actually removed the ad from the page?

</comment></comment><comment> open-source-ux This article is entirely about security and Google's attempts to make sure user data never leaks outside the company.

While you can't have privacy without security, security by itself does not equal privacy. Not once does this article talk about how Google tracks and records user behaviour on an industrial scale.

When you create a Google account, you're asked to provide your name, your gender, your date of birth, your location and your mobile phone number. Some of your most personal and private details, all of which will now be tied to your online behaviour.

That data capture starts right from school, where millions of students use a cloud-based OS called ChromeOS that records everything they do. It's quite horrible that this is happening - the kids don't even get a say, it's the adults who've decided this.

The G Suite for Education Privacy Notice [1] clearly states that Google collects device information, unique device identifiers, mobile network information (including phone number of the user). Also logged are IP addresses, location information, and app usage using unique application numbers.

Even if this information is detached from individual accounts and aggregated, it equals a phenomenal amount of data captured by Google on millions of students in the US.

And we've seen from Spotify and Netflix how even aggregated data can reveal very private and personal user behaviour.

It's baffling how little scrutiny the company faces, least of all from the tech community who, more often than not, rush to it's defence.

[1] [https://gsuite.google.com/terms/education_privacy.html](https://gsuite.google.com/terms/education_privacy.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> Sounds like the job of protecting the health of consumers at a cigarette factory.

</comment><comment><USER11> So no PRISM ? And analytics and google font don't collect my data when I'm not on a google site ? And no scanning of my gmail messages ? And I can install updates for my Android apps easily without linking my personal email to my phone ( and risking cloud contact/photo sync if I didn't do this right) ? And ads don't get personalized to my profile according to all those data ?

<comment><USER12> I logged into "my activity" on Google recently for the first time. I was pretty annoyed to see they have tracked all my Duck Duck Go searches made through chrome.

<comment><USER13> What's so annoying about this?

DDG does use Google search for a lot of things.

<comment><USER14> > _DDG does use Google search for a lot of things._

Source? They use Yahoo/Bing in the backend, but Google?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's interesting to me that the article mentions Yonatan Zunger, since he left Google in July 2017. Before working in the Privacy team (as a Distinguished Engineer), he was Chief Architect for G+.

His short stint in Privacy (8 months) before quitting Google for a startup makes me nervous. But maybe I'm reading too much and he just needed to move on from Google after 14 years.

[https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger](https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger)

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/yonatanzunger/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/yonatanzunger/)

[https://twitter.com/yonatanzunger](https://twitter.com/yonatanzunger)

<comment><USER16> You can always ask him directly, rather than work in imagination. He is a friendly person.

<comment><USER17> > _You can always ask him directly, rather than work in imagination_

He has a lot of professional incentive not to disclose privacy problems at Google...

<comment><USER15> Exactly.

He is approachable on G+ and Twitter, but plain game theory means I'd doubt any reassuring answer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Reads very propagandy esp considering the timing. The fb drama is justcooling off, what better way to promote an fb competitor than talking about this.

<comment><USER19> Reminds me of this pg essay: [http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Reads like a press release from Google's PR department trying to differentiate themselves from Facebook.

If you care about user privacy, you don't deliberately build a panopticon.

</comment><comment><USER21> I must say, she's doing a bad job then.

Where is the opt-out for reading GMail content? Or better written: why is the scanning of emails activated by default and not as opt-in? What about the preinstalled Android Google Services, which upload data continuously on Googles' Servers?

<comment><USER22> Google stopped personalising ads based on your e-mail (e.g. 'reading your email') last year: [https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction- in...](https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in-the- enterprise-g-suites-gmail-and-consumer-gmail-to-more-closely-align/)

<comment><USER21> what about Google Assistant / Google Now?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think it's fairly standard that larger tech companies have privacy teams. Apple has one, facebook has one, google has one. If I bothered to search for more, you probably can find a news article about that company's privacy team.

</comment><comment><USER7> Isn't this just about who 'other than google' can access your data? Its sort of like creating an API and allowing only one person to use that API. The API itself is the problem, not the fact that only one person can access it. But I don't get the pressure on Google here. What do people expect them to do if their entire business model is based on data harvesting. The only way to fix this would be to have a legally mandated opt-in policy on data collection. This will let Google charge money from end users, and maybe make them feel much better about it too.

</comment><comment><USER24> If they actually care, then force OEMs to provide Android security patches, instead of hand waving with Treble and still leaving the process to OEMs.

</comment><comment><USER12> She ain't doing a very good job.

</comment><comment><USER25> Is there someone at Facebook that does the same as Lea Kissner?

</comment><comment><USER26> Good luck Lea

</comment><comment><USER27> This is satire right?

<comment><USER28> More like Google PR team planted "you can trust us" propaganda.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This will probably go about as well as Alex Stamos protecting the private data of Facebook users (and, I suppose, Yahoo users before that).

<comment><USER30> Interesting, I noticed as well that Alex Stamos has a record of data breaches that he leaves behind. What's his next gig? Does anyone know? Will be curious to follow.</comment></comment>


From Whale Jaws to Corsets: How Sailors' Love Tokens Got into Women's Underwear - <AUTHOR> http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/how-sailors-love-tokens-got-into-womens-underwear/

<comment><USER2> The mention of whale oil being superior to "canola oil" for lighting purposes is rather anachronistic. Canadian-grown rapeseed oil was only called Canola in the 1970s, and (at least according to wiki) cultivation of rapeseed for oil only began in the 19th century - a far cry from the 17th century mentioned in the article!

<comment><USER3> I learned recently that "Canola" is actually a portmanteau of "Canada" and "oil", named such as calling your product "rapeseed" was seen as a liability.

[http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-secret-history-of- ca...](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-secret-history-of-canola-oil)</comment></comment>


Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology - <AUTHOR> https://lsspjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1 <comment><USER2> The idea of something like a Right of Neural Sovereignty comes to mind, which brings up issues with advertising. Physical assault is illegal in the modern legal system, so why not ban assault on the visual cortex? Advertising is designed to trigger neurological responses in the brain that we may otherwise not want, damaging peoples sense of self image or unconsciously encouraging them to act against their own interest, so why on earth should it be legal to plant these triggers at random throughout our lives if they can do just as much damage as physical assault?

<comment> th-ai [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa) (Portuguese for clean city law) is a law of the city of São Paulo, Brazil promulgated in 2006 that prohibits advertising such as that of outdoor posters. 15,000 billboards were taken down.

<comment><USER2> That's great, but why shouldn't this be extended to computer displays? If we're going to acknowledge determinism, and that people's behaviors can be steered by triggers and feedback cycled through both ads and browsing activity orchestrated in tandem, why should this form of assault be legal if it has the same effect as intrusively injecting neurotransmitters into a victims brain physically? The sophistication and effectiveness of these techniques are only going to get more and more dystopian.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hopefully by the time this tech matures, any type of advertising that is not purely informational (i.e. tries to manipulate you without your consent or even your knowledge) is abolished and outlawed as the greater public starts to fully understand just how pernicious advertising is.

Otherwise, there's no way I'm getting a neuralace. Can you imagine the neurotech equivalent of a pop-up?

<comment><USER4> > Can you imagine the neurotech equivalent of a pop-up?

Something along the lines of targeted advertising in Minority Report.

<comment><USER3> I imagine it'd be worse than that. Those are just personalized ads. You ever have a dumb jingle that you can't stand, but you can't get it out of your head? Imagine that not only with a visual component, but as a fully unfiltered thought you did not consent to.

In all honesty, that description sounds like a mental disorder.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You have the right to keep up at all costs. If capitalism force-feeds you optimization, you swallow aderall. If computation mandates neural interfaces, you have the right to open your head and cut out all the trash. If the world doesn't like your attitude, you have the right to be adjusted. You have the right, to paint on what you have no choice what so ever in a pretty color.

<comment><USER4> > If computation mandates neural interfaces ...

And if almost everyone has that to enhance their abilities and you refuse - you would be unemployable.

<comment><USER5> Yes, you dont volunteer for the singularity.</comment></comment></comment>


You can now watch Ustream live on your iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/16/watch-the-obama-inauguration-from-your-iphone-with-ustream/

<comment><USER2> Think about the possibilities - being able to watch any major speech on the go, watch the major news as it breaks...

I'm interested to see how people use this. Mobile broadcasts will become mainstream.

</comment><comment><USER3> I want to know why slingbox is taking forever to launch an iphone app. They've been supporting other phones for over two years now. I suppose this is what happens when a company gets acquired.

<comment><USER4> streaming video on the iphone is not easy, at all. At least, not without really clever hacks. It takes very smart people to get something like this working well, and perhaps slingbox doesn't have that talent in, or the talent is not motivated enough to do the impossible.</comment></comment>


Most Germans don't buy their homes, they rent - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/167887/germany-has-one-of-the-worlds-lowest-homeownership-rates/ <comment><USER2> So in Germany, the interest on a mortgage is non tax deductible. The article doesn't mention it but I understand that property owners are also liable for capital gain tax if they hold the property less than 10 years.

I think that makes sense. There is no reason to favor individuals investing into an unproductive investment (property) over productive investments (stocks and bonds, which enable companies to raise money to start new projects, create jobs, etc). Over-borrowing to bid the maximum amount one can to buy a nineteenth century house doesn't create any job for anyone, it just transfers wealth to the hands of the seller.

<comment><USER3> > There is no reason to favor individuals investing into an unproductive > investment (property) over productive investments (stocks and bonds).

I beg to differ. I think that real estate, like farming, has critical societal benefits that are worthwhile to develop and maintain.

Namely, it is very difficult to raise a family of four in a mutual fund. Investing in a home may is absolutely "productive."

See, there are significant societal benefits to home ownership that you are not considering. For example:

1\. A paid off home is a social safety net against homelessness for an entire family and many of their social circles. Even if all of them are unemployed, all of them have a roof over their heads.

2\. A paid-off home frees up cash flow. It allows the owner to divert his earnings into other activities or investments or reduce the amount he has to earn monthly.

3\. Real estate can be borrowed against. Try that with stocks. If you are an entrepreneur, your home is likely the asset you will use to acquire bank financing for your business.

4\. With unskilled / low-skilled jobs vanishing left and right, homebuilding is one of the few markets which still relies entirely on a giant low-skilled workforce. It's one of the few sectors that can keep a lot of people productively employed. I think there are valid arguments against stimulating homebuilding to reduce unemployment among low-skill workers, but there is nevertheless a societal logic here.

5\. In a time when wealth is centralizing as never before, investments in real estate distributes wealth locally. I think there are valid arguments against public policy to distribute wealth, but there is a societal logic here.

6\. Finally: taxing a home is very counterproductive to the well-being of the middle class and the poor. I'm sure in Germany the interest on a mortgage isn't tax deductible as you say, but I'd also guess that steps are taken to refund the property taxes for the lower classes. Otherwise you simply tax the poor out of their homes - a form of confiscation.

I think there's a lot of sense in _NOT_ taxing one's first home, at least not if it's below a certain reasonably high value. All things considered, home ownership is empowering. A second home or income-generating rental property is a different story, but one's domicile should be unconfiscatable by the state.

<comment><USER2> > _Namely, it is very difficult to raise a family of four in a mutual fund._

It is difficult to ski without skis. But most people don't buy skis, they rent them. Renting skis do not mean that no skis will be manufactured. There is a need for house, houses will be constructed, irrespective of whether people will over-bid on them or not.

> _A paid off home is a social safety net against homelessness_

Stocks and savings are equally a safety net against loss of primary income.

> _Real estate can be borrowed against_

Borrowing against your home to finance your business is no different than selling some stocks to invest into your business. In both cases you are using previous savings.

> _I think there 's a lot of sense in NOT taxing one's first home_

Why? Again you are assuming that the alternative to owning a home is renting one and having no savings. The cost of housing (renting) would be much lower in a country without massive over-bidding on property. There is no reason to give a tax benefit to this particular type of investment (property) over any other types of investment.

<comment><USER4> > > A paid off home is a social safety net against homelessness > Stocks and > savings are equally a safety net against loss of primary income.

Landlords and letting agencies can be kind-of funny beasts, they're not necessarily happy to have an unemployed guy as a tenant even if he owns a pile of shares.

<comment><USER5> So? It's not as if they can kick you out of the house you live in. Not in Germany, anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Being German I want to pPoint out that the article leaves out one cruicial detail: Building your own home puts you into debt for quite literally the rest of your life. We do not like debt.

<comment><USER7> Yup.

Germany has one of the lowest adoption rates of credit products such as the humble credit card out of nearly all Western nations.

Debt is not liked.

Edit: From the same site, the linked article at the bottom has the answer: [http://qz.com/262595/why-germans-pay-cash-for-almost- everyth...](http://qz.com/262595/why-germans-pay-cash-for-almost-everything/)

A better link: [http://www.businessinsider.com/you-have-to-understand- german...](http://www.businessinsider.com/you-have-to-understand-germanys- long-standing-fear-of-debt-2012-7?IR=T)

<comment> premium-concern Yep. "Don't buy things if you can't pay for then." sounds reasonable, but some other countries seem to disagree.

Not surprised that those countries suffer from government shutdowns over how much the debt ceiling is raised.

<comment><USER8> >suffer from government shutdowns over how much the debt ceiling is raised

On the other hand: The government shutdown because of the debt ceiling seems just like "Stop hitting yourself" on the playground.

And Germany's budget is far from balanced.

<comment><USER9> Nominally Germany has a balanced budget. I agree it isn't really balanced and the big zero is just achieved via some shifting around of things.

However the fact that the government jumps through all sorts of hoops to be able to say the budget is balanced is at least an interesting indicator that it does seem to matter to enough people.

<comment> premium-concern Even government budgets have to adhere to some standardized schemes of reporting. See also rating firms.

Otherwise even the US would have a balanced budget and no debts. (Ignoring the fact that the US is the main force behind trying to change the account rules to make them look less bad.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am a German CS-Student and currently renting in a shared flat with 4 other students. We call it WG (living-community) and its really popular not only with students, but i know a lot of young professionals and even middle aged ones that share an apartment (it gained popularity in the 60s, so i think its more of an culture thing that older do not share a flat). If you are in a partnership, you can move out and share a smaller one with your partner, but if your not in a partnership (or not that close yet) i wouldn't want to miss living in a shared apartment. You come home, talk about your day, cook together and on the weekend you can go out together. There is always something going on. I can't imagine living in my own apartment all by myself. Working long and then coming home into an empty, dead, dark apartment with no one to talk to.

Serious question: Why is it not very popular in other countries?

<comment><USER11> > _Serious question: Why is it not very popular in other countries?_

Because some countries have much, much worse tenants rights.

I moved from Ireland to Germany and in Ireland:

* There is basically no protection for rent increases, some people are being told their rent is increasing by 50%

* Can't change your apartment. Not allowed to paint the walls, nearly all come with furniture, better make sure you don't damage any of it.

* Oh the landlord/landlord's relative wants to live in the apartment. Eviction time for you.

* You give your landlord your deposit. Let's hope they can find it again if you move out.

* By default, no pets allowed. And many landlords will say no.

* Did I mention about the rent increases?

<comment> premium-concern In Germany:

\- Rent increase limits

\- Larger changes need landlord's approval (changing walls and stuff). A lot of smaller stuff can be done on your own and doesn't require asking the landlords. (Many landlords are happy if you want to paint the walls etc., though.)

\- Only smaller apartments (often intended for students) come usually with furniture

\- The deposit has to be put on a special, locked bank account. The money can only been withdrawn if both sides tell the bank in writing that the rent contract is over

\- Depends on the size of the pet

<comment><USER12> Actually IIRC the law was changed so tenants only have to make sure the walls have a neutral appearance (i.e. usually white woodchip wallpaper) when moving out, so they're pretty much free to decorate the place as they want as long as they don't outright demolish or damage the walls.

There used to be a requirement for tenants to renovate the apartment (i.e. thorough cleaning, new wallpaper and white paint) before moving out but that requirement has been reduced to "besenrein" (literally "broom clean", i.e. no rubbish or dirt). Damage to windows and existing fittings etc is deducted from the deposit but tenants have the right to a formal inspection with a signed report to avoid dubious claims.

The "Kautionskonto" (the special bank account) is widespread but not universal. However there are also co-operatives that invest your deposit and actually pass on the interest to you when you move out (these apartments are rare though).

Some specifics on pets: fish and caged pets (e.g. rodents) are generally allowed within normal quantities. Cats require approval but disapproval is practically impossible unless there are very good reasons. Dogs always require approval and disapproval is more likely. Many contracts explicitly allow specific pets (including dogs). If another tenant was given permission for a dog, it's hard or impossible to make a case for forbidding a similar dog. "Kampfhunde" (attack dogs) may be more problematic.

<comment> premium-concern > However there are also co-operatives that invest your deposit and actually > pass on the interest to you when you move out (these apartments are rare > though).

This is not optional. It is required by law. Interest from deposits belong to the renter.

<comment><USER12> Sure, but the difference is that they actually invest it. Normally the money pretty much just sits there.

<comment> premium-concern Given the size of the deposits, and the ROIs of available low-risk investments, does the difference really matter?

Skip a single CappuFrappeGingerPumpkinLatte (or what people buy in cafes in SF) and you just got more money than any investment on the deposit can ever make.

<comment><USER12> Depends on the size I guess, but generally that feeling of "oh, look, my money did some work for me" leaves tenants with some happy thoughts on moving out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The Germans seem to be far ahead of the curve here. From a financial planning perspective, buying a home results in:

1) The vast majority of your assets becoming concentrated in a single plot of land, in a single neighborhood, in a single city

2) Your future mobility to pursue jobs in other cities, becoming significantly constrained

If you want to invest your savings, then invest them in the stock/bond markets. If you really love real estate investments for some reason, invest in a REIT fund where your assets will be diversified across thousands of properties, and fully managed by others on your behalf. Pursuing a national policy of home-ownership makes little sense.

<comment><USER14> > _Your future mobility to pursue jobs in other cities, becoming significantly > constrained_

Perhaps the idea of people who haven't adopted this is that, unless they like doing so, humans should not have to live like nomads moving here and there to pursue this or that financial opportunity, but instead should be allowed to grow roots in some place, help shape it and improve it, connect with their neighbors, etc.

<comment><USER15> People are allowed to grow roots, shape and improve a place, and connect with their neighbors all they like. This is the state of places like the USA today.

People aren't allowed to demand that the economy provide them with all the means they might wish for to do these things in any arbitrarily selected location.

<comment><USER16> > People are allowed to grow roots, shape and improve a place, and connect > with their neighbors all they like.

Well, their landlord may disagree.

That is, if they are renting... what is what this discussion is about.

<comment><USER15> That's covered under the second point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The idea that owning a home is a great investment is an article of faith, not evidence.

Imagine if large public companies owned most of the housing stock and rather than buying a house you invested in these companies. Instead of bearing all the location and liquidity risk of owning a house, you would spread that risk over large numbers of markets. In fact being stuck owning a house in an unfavorable market can keep someone from moving, which reduces labor mobility.

<comment><USER18> It really depends on where you live. I live outside of Philadelphia. My mortgage, taxes and insurance is less than $1200 dollars for a 3 bedroom house. I'd pay at least $1200 to rent a crappy 2 bedroom apartment and rent just keeps going up around here. Consider, even If my homes value stays completely static (according to Zillow it went up a 5 percent this year), in ten years time I will be paying considerably less mortgage than what that apartment will rent for.

<comment><USER19> Yes, but there's a reason why the crappy 2br costs as much as your house. That reason might not appeal to you, but it exists and has a specific monetary value.

<comment><USER20> Could you explain the reason?

<comment><USER21> I'd guess it was referring to the fact that there are geographical, cultural preferences etc., not to mention employment opportunities that cause the Bay Area, NY, and other extremely expensive cities to be much more popular compared to Philly.

Not to knock your choice, but many people including myself would never consider living there.

<comment><USER18> I don't think that explains why the apartment building 5 minutes away in a worse town (higher crime, access to lower rated schools) rents a 2 bedroom for more than the cost of my mortgage, taxes and insurance. My belief is that the people in that building don't have the access to capital to buy a home, and thus the landlord is able to arbitrage his access to capital via a bank in order to charge rents that are rather high in comparison.

<comment><USER17> It's the opposite: the cost of mortgage is fake-subsidized via tax exemption and since everyone thinks ownership is the "goal" the supply of rental properties asymptotes to the equivalent price. Plus because of the bias to home ownership there is less rental stock.

The reason I say it is "fake-subsidized" is straightforward: say you make $100K per year. A reasonable expense on housing is 25% of your income -- 25K per year or about 2K/month. Luckily for you, you can use the full 25K because you won't be paying income tax on the money when you buy the house. So you can buy more house...except all other buyers making 100K can do the same. If you had to pay after-tax dollars you could only pay, say, $1500/month -- but so would everyone else you're competing with. In essence the tax subsidy only helps real estate agents and those who want to live off the appreciation of their house...which is a risk (yes the long term trend is upwards, but not necessarily where you live, and not necessarily when you plan to retire).

And let's not forget that almost all the mortgages are held by the US government. It's a highly distorted market, and while I believe it developed with good intentions, it's not at all clear it's good for the majority of citizens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> On the other hand, many Germans believe: renting is paying someone else, buying is paying yourself (which is nonsense). Especially in more rural areas, buying/building a house is considered a big achievement in life. People are even willing to move from a smaller city to little towns just to be home- owners.

Buying a house can be a net loss over the years, if you're not located in a major city. Especially in East Germany, house prices are declining. See this graphic [1]. Everything yellow basically doesn't yield any returns. Housing prices in orange and red areas decline over the years.

But even in green areas, there are so many knobs you can turn to make buying or renting more feasible than the other. It boils down to lifestyle decision: Do you want to live in your own house or not? If you prefer to rent: Are you willing to save money by other means? Because buying a house works for many people simply because they're forced to "save" a certain percentage of their income every month.

I prefer renting, because of the flexibility. I put quite a bit of money in stocks instead.

[1]: [http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-726182-galleryV9-uttw-72...](http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-726182-galleryV9-uttw-726182.jpg)

<comment><USER23> Frankly the only people who say this are investors. If you look at it from a purely investing perspective it makes sense to buy a house and then rent it out, rather than buy a house and live in it as an investment.

But most people are not investors, they want a home to raise their kids and be a place they belong. That's the disconnect

<comment><USER24> In Canada, there's a capital gains tax exemption for your (owned) primary residence. If I wanted to live in a given place, it would be stupid to buy the place, rent it out, and rent another place myself with the rent money minus the income tax I paid from it. When selling the place, I owe capital gains taxes on it. Taken together, that ends up being a worse deal for me than merely buying what I need and using it for myself, tax-free.

Of course, what renting gives you is the flexibility to live in a smaller place and avoid overpaying for extra space that you _might_ want to use at a later time. Still, the savings from renting a smaller place have to be greater than the tax expenses that I get charged for renting out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Germany is a two-class society divided into landlords and renters. A landlord will usually not own only one but ~3-20 houses that total to ~15-100 flats. The landlords often are renters themselves.

When compared with big housing companies, private landlords require bigger profit margins, leading to low quality maintenance of existing houses and ex- orbital rents. Especially in crowded cities, rent regulation is non existent and its a sellers market, inflated by wealthy students that rent expensive micro-flats during university.

You or your parents don't own houses, and are self sufficient on a regular job? Well, you are shit out of luck then. As much as 70% of your income will go towards your rent, effectively financing the better-off and the further expansion of their inefficient renting businesses.

<comment><USER26> Spending 70% of your income on rent is far from inevitable in Germany.

<comment><USER27> Not only far from inevitable but impossible in a lot of cases. When I was looking for an apartment in Germany most (all? I can't remember) landlords wanted to verify that my income was at least three times the rent.

<comment><USER25> Well, that can't work out in all cases, obviously. Remember that a significant chunk of the people don't make 3x of a low rent in many towns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The only liberty that renting provides is the protection from the whims of the housing market.

Aside from that it takes liberties right left and centre. I cannot structure my house and life as I want from painting and shelving through pets and kitchen appliances.

I cannot fix something without causing a hassle and days off work.

I cannot register a business here.

I am at the whim of my landlord.

Renting in the UK is a pain in the arse. I do to see renting as particularly positive for the individual.

<comment><USER29> On the other hand it eliminates the NIBMY problem. Since the tenants do not own their home they don't have the pressure to protect their investment. The landlord receives returns on his investment through rent on a monthly basis which lessens the risk of a sudden development reducing the value of the home. Home owners that live in their own home on the other hand face the full risk since they can only recoup their costs when they sell the property.

<comment><USER28> Which introduces the problem of "Whatever, it isn't my mine I will just move away when the area gets shit" leading to lower quality stock.

On my current street, opposite the flats further up, there is regular fly tipping and various illegal activities. The fly tipping can take weeks to be dealt with as nobody rings the council (I've started emailing the council when I notice it, but I don't walk that way often).

Renters just don't have enough skin in the game to maintain the communities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's an interesting article. I'm from Belgium, one of the highest house owners countries. Even though it's true it's a life-long debt and it might be risky (in case of crisis), housing is still considered as a Long Term Investment so that you can pass that investment to your children (after heavy tax deduction :)). I find interesting the article does not mention who actually owns all these houses and who benefits in the long term. After all, renting has a guaranteed zero ROI.

Also, recently, I've been looking at housing market in Munich and it's very very expensive. Renting is ~20% more expensive than in Brussels and acquisition is +100% more expensive. So, although I admit I do not know rest of Germany housing market, I have some troubles thinking why Munich would be more expensive than Brussels. And I certainly miss, from that perspective, why German system would be more interesting.

<comment><USER14> > _After all, renting has a guaranteed zero ROI._

A guaranteed zero ROI is better than a negative ROI which you can get with buying a house (e.g. the house you can resell it drops due to the market and you can't afford the mortgage for some reason...)

<comment><USER30> negative ROI on investment is the risk component of your investment. This is true of any investment. Stock being certainly higher risks than housing and still people invest a lot in stocks.

But I should have said renting is a sunk cost. There is no investment component at all in renting.

<comment><USER31> _Stock being certainly higher risks than housing and still people invest a lot in stocks._

I would say low cost index funds are a much lower risk investment than a mortgage. They also have the advantage of being very liquid in the case of actually needing your money. Rent is not a sunk cost, this is a common misconception.

There are many good reasons to buy a home, but do not think of it as an "investment". Compared to other investment options, it's a pretty terrible one.

I highly recommend reading this article to learn more - [http://jlcollinsnh.com/2013/05/29/why-your-house-is-a- terrib...](http://jlcollinsnh.com/2013/05/29/why-your-house-is-a-terrible- investment/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> According to the article, mainly: 1 - Government doesn't subsidize homeowners; 2 - Renting rules are reasonable for renters, increasing supply which makes renting affordable.

There, saved you a click.

<comment><USER33> The government doesn't subsidies home owners in the UK and it is considered very very expensive, apparently, by many.

<comment><USER34> The government does subsidise home owners through nearly a dozen different schemes[1], landlords through a dozen more[2], and the mortgage banks through another score[3], which is the reason why prices are very expensive indeed.

[1] freedom from capital gains tax, RTB, HTB equity loan, HTB mortgage guarantee, HTB ISA, Forces HTB, NewBuy, AFHOS, Shared Ownership Scheme, Key Worker Scheme, Home Ownership Scheme for Cripples, and that is just off the top of my head

[2] rent floors through LHA, tax deductability, ability to flip residence between first and second homes for zero cap gains tax, freedom from inheritance tax beyond the usual limit...

[3] state bailouts for all major banks, gurantees, QE, QE2, QE3, liquidity schemes, credit purchase schemes etc etc

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I agree it is a good thing for Germany to have so much renting. Indeed I think home-ownership will be the #1 driver of inequality in other contries over the next generation or two.

Those countries will have policies that lcaim help poor people buy houses, but the effect is to just inflate prices and increase financial risk -- as the world has already seen. The one thing that would really help -- increased supply is blocked by a powerful home-owners lobby damanding zoning rules and other restrictions.

In Germany the bloc is powerful, and probably gets more goodies than it should. But at least here they are constant building new housing.

</comment><comment><USER36> Having lived in jurisdictions that limit annual rent increases via a rental index and jurisdictions that do not, I prefer the former. In America such action is dismissed as a price control, unfortunately for me.

</comment><comment><USER37> How does Germany handle retirement? In the US, your home is seen as an investment, one that can partially fun retirement or depending on the market, pre-retirement income.

<comment> nommm-nommm >In the US, your home is seen as an investment

Historically a very poor one.

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/05/...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/05/10/why- your-home-is-not-a-good-investment/8900911/)

>"Capital gains have not even been positive. From 1890 to 1990, real inflation-corrected home prices were virtually unchanged."

>From 1890 -- just three decades after the Civil War -- through 2012, home prices adjusted for inflation literally went nowhere. Not a single dime of real growth. For comparison, the S&P 500 increased more than 2,000-fold during that period, adjusted for inflation. And from 1890 to through 1980, real home prices actually declined by about 10%.

Not to say that a house is a bad thing. A house can be great! It provides shelter, stability, and can provide a vast amount of joy and pride. Its a very poor investment vehicle. Its a very bad idea to have 100% of your wealth tied up in your primary residence.

Diversification is a key to financial stability everywhere.

<comment><USER38> > home prices adjusted for inflation literally went nowhere

Yes, but what does that mean for money invested in houses? The reason this is not the same question is that money invested in houses is leveraged, at least in the short term.

Simple example of how this can work: You buy a house at 20% down and an interest-only mortgage with a fixed interest rate of 4%. Inflation averages 3% and your house's price grows at exactly inflation. You live there for 40 years and then sell. To make our numbers simple, let's say the initial price was $100k.

So you put $20k down and take out a $80k loan. Each year you pay $3.2k in mortgage interest.

The price of your house after 40 years is, in then dollars, $326k. You sell, pay off the $80k loan, and have $246k left.

Let's consider the alternate situation: you rented for those 40 years. How much did you pay for rent? Chances are, it's no less than the interest on your loan (if only because a landlord would have that interest _and_ other expenses). In practice it probably went up over time, unlike your payments, but let's pretend it didn't. You invested your $20k downpayment in the stock market. What nominal return do you need to get to end up with $246k at the end of 40 years? The answer is about 6.5%. If inflation really averaged 3%, then that's a pretty decent stock market return, and that's all assuming that the capital gains treatment of the house and the stocks is the same (it's _not_ in the US; houses are exempt from capital gains tax to a large extent).

Obviously if you actually pay off your house all this goes out the window. ;) Likewise, if the house goes _down_ in price the leverage acts against you.

Realistically, houses are an awesome investment if you buy at a time of low- ish interest rates, and then before you've really paid off a large fraction of the house inflation spikes. If house prices simply keep up with inflation in that situation, you can really win out. People who bought in the US in the 60s and sold in the 80s or 90s did quite well, on average.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Article misses the hyperinflation of the 20s and the capital markets in the 50s.

By the time the cold war made it apparent that 20s style economy destroying reparations would not be paid, renting was already baked into the cake.

Residential real estate is non-productive and post WW2 Germany had not use for a capital drain if anything they needed capital along the lines of the Marshall Plan so its not like anyone was interested in wasting capital in a modern USA style housing bubble.

</comment><comment><USER40> And how is that working out in Berlin now? Rents in Prenzlauer Berg and Neukölln increasing significantly every year. There wasn't a need to buy before because rent was dirt cheap. That's changing fast. It's obviously going to push out those who are poor but perhaps this will lead to more people realising the benefits of owning property.

</comment><comment><USER41> The culture is so much different in México, the first thing you do when you start working is to buy a house even if rents are cheap.

<comment><USER42> What's the average house price tho

<comment><USER43> It highly depends on the zone, in Mexico City surroundings you could get or build a house for probably USD 100k+, in downtown it could easily be 500k for a full house or 200k for a department flat. It could sound cheap but the average salary is low too, so you can easily be in dept for the next 25-30 years. Many people buy or build outside of the border city and spend 3-4 hours everyday commuting. In general, I think people try really hard (sometimes during its whole life) to buy/build its own but I don't see that happening much longer, specially for young people who start working at an older age and has additional aspirations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I would be curious to know or hear if anyone thinks this trend has been altered since 2008. For close to a decade now we have had extremely low or in some case negative(in Europe) interest rates. Thats a lot of cheap financing. As the article points out the data is from 2004.

<comment><USER45> I would be shocked if it hasn't. Here in the greater Nuremberg area, prices have been going up steadily for the past 3 years or so. It took us a year to make the winning offer on a reasonably-priced house. We got a 15 yr mortgage at 1.6% from the local Sparkasse (think Savings and Loan), though we did put down a traditional (high) down payment.

So why did we buy? My (German) husband's fear of inflation finally surpassed his fear of debt to accommodate my Anglo-American need for my own pied a terre :) Rents are going up around here, and even though there's the 15% over 3 year limit, that's still a lot over the long term.

It was nice not to feel like we _had_ to buy a house, though. That gave us time to save up, to know what we really wanted in a house and to be really certain that we wanted to stay in this region.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I think in small cities people still buy houses. When they cannot afford the price they rent. Or is there really some strong reports that this happens in Germany only

<comment><USER47> Yes, I agree with you. Reading the comments here seems weird to me, because where I grew up owning a house is pretty much normal. I grew up in Southern Germany where there are a billion small towns. So most people are owning for sure and not renting. This may not be true in large cities, like Munich or Berlin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Sure. Housing prices in metropolitan areas are sky high, thanks to the asset price inflation of the ECB. Hey, even a house in a tiny village easily sets you 300k Euro back. The secret of the German export"wunder" is extremely low wages.

"Most Germans don't buy their homes, they rent."

Yes. Because they can't fucking afford a house. Riddle solved. Move on.

</comment><comment><USER49> > more than 93% of German respondents tell pollsters they're satisfied

You only trust the statistic you created yourself. That is not a true statement.

</comment><comment><USER44> I realize that Berlin is nothing like the rest of Germany but I noticed that the rental housing stock there seems to be pretty tight. There's a fair amount of construction going on but it looked like a premium housing stock that was going up. I assumed these were probably for sale but maybe they are high end rentals?

</comment><comment><USER35> Can somone explain what the article means by:

> Germany also loosened regulation of rental caps sooner than many other > countries,

Does that mean the amount of rent control was deregulated? I thought the rent control here in Germany was pretty strict -- at least in the sense that the landlord can't increase the rent during an existing tenancy.

<comment><USER50> Rent can be increased, of course, but only within limits. Limits that the tenant must enforce "manually" by going to court.

<comment><USER51> I know people who live in a flat for about 20 years now and they don't pay that much more than 20 years ago.

So it seems to work fine

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> So who then owns the property to rent out for most of the Germans?

</comment><comment><USER53> Who owns most of the homes then ? Institutional investors ?

<comment><USER35> The home ownership percentage is still 43%, so not that low. Landlords seem to be the usual mix of older, upper-middle proffessionals that you see in other countries. It's just a bit more concentrated.

Also there are many houses which have two or three appartments. The owner will live in one appartment, and either have a different generation of their family in the other ones, or else rent it for money.

<comment><USER54> In my home city (Rostock) a large portion of flats are owned by a single, large-ish company. A stark difference to now (Tübingen) where most flats are owned by individuals. Personally it's much easier to handle contractual stuff (which renting always entails) with a company instead of a person. At least landlords here tend to have trouble distinguishing contractual interactions (reducing rent resulting from unfixed issues, complaints about things to be fixed, etc.) and dealing with them as a person. With the landlord living just two streets away they're sometimes inclined to take things personal and show up on your doorstep.

<comment><USER12> I live in two places in Germany: a city of one million people and a small town of 16,000.

In the city the apartment I live in as well as most buildings nearby are owned by a stock company that owns 42,000 apartments and is mostly (88%) owned by the city.

In the town the apartment is part of a building owned by an elderly couple living a few blocks away.

Compared with the company, dealing with the private landlord is a hassle. He's not very mobile, so every interaction basically takes place in his living room. He's also of course not doing this full-time, so he's not always up to date on all legal aspects or all of the necessary paperwork.

It's nice to see private individuals owning land and houses in principle, but from a pragmatic point of view the company is far easier to deal with. Their scale allows them to have offices with actual business hours and problems can be handled as routine whereas with an individual every little thing is of course special.

Because the company is mostly owned by the city, they also invest in long-term projects and community building -- which a private individual naturally can't do as easily.

So far I haven't had any problems with either of the two, but I'm fairly certain that having an actual conflict with the private couple would be a far greater issue than taking the company to court -- not in the least because in a small town everybody would hear about it and because they're private individuals it would be seen as personal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> It seems to me a huge problem when they retire?

<comment><USER12> If you run out of money, the state pays for your housing. If you saved money like a good citizen, you're paying out of your own pocket.</comment></comment>


Legendary lost game found on Team17's Amiga - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChJr6EB2oy0 <comment><AUTHOR> Tech demo of the MS-DOS version of the game:

[https://archive.org/details/witchwoodtechdemo](https://archive.org/details/witchwoodtechdemo)

</comment><comment><USER2> It's worth going back and looking at Perifractic's previous videos on this particular Amiga, Especially so if you are a Worms fan.</comment>


Funding Open Source by Rethinking the Assumption - <AUTHOR> https://supportedsource.org/blog/funding-open-source-by-rethinking-the-assumption <comment><USER2> We do this at Neo4j. We charge you for a license to the enterprise edition but the code itself is public and available at [https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/tree/3.1/enterprise](https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/tree/3.1/enterprise)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's similar, main difference is that open core has an "internal moral hazard" (as Kent Beck calls it). Projects end up keeping the good parts out of the main repo, so that companies have an incentive to pay you. That's misalignment.

<comment><USER2> Right... except we don't do that because the enterprise edition code is right there.</comment></comment></comment>