Why doesn't findstr use the standard regular expression library? - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20151209-00/?p=92361 <comment> X-Istence > For example, Safari uses PCRE, but the PCRE copyright, licensing terms, and > disclaimer do not appear in the Safari EULA or any other Safari > documentation I can find.

Open Safari -> Help -> Acknowledgements -> Cmd + F -> PCRE

Bam, PCRE license found!

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

</comment><comment><USER2> So basically for the same reason make still cares about the difference between 0x20 and 0x09.

Which honestly never made sense to me. I mean, we all know the story about how the original author realized having leading tabs, rather than leading whitespace, as a syntax element was a terrible idea. But I never understood why he couldn't modify make to accept the latter instead of the former -- more specifically, why "there's already an existing user base" was cited as a reason not to make this _non-breaking_ change.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, two reason for this, one of which I didn't expect (the first).

1\. Because the code is so old we don't want to have an intern figure out how to do it. (Adding a switch for a new PCRE, such as /P, is hard) Oh, and reading and understanding licenses is HARD?!?!? WTF?

2\. It would break backwards-compatability if we did it. (Well, duh).

I understand now it may not be worth it (powershell/.net is the future or whatever), but really, at no time in the 90's and 00's did you think it may be worth some time?

<comment><USER4> > did you think it may be worth some time?

So how much would you pay for it, roughly? I'm sure if we find enough people to chip in, it will happen.

<comment><USER3> Don't be so obtuse, getting a feature in a proprietary operating system when the vendor has a shitload of customers doesn't work that way.

For example, the windows command prompt has been shit forever, only after more than a decade does resize and copy/paste work properly.

Changes happen when they want and on their schedule. You can feel free to throw money in the millions at them, then you might at least have someone talk to you about their direction/plan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder why the duplicate detector didn't go off on this. This URL is exactly the same as the one noted in the flagged comment (show hidden).

@Dang: Have HN changed the way in which dupes are detected? Also, should we be flagging comments that point to previous submissions btw? It seems a bit harsh to flag a comment in this way, although I agree that the previous post doesn't add anything to this particular discussion. Wouldn't a downvote be more appropriate?

<comment><USER6> Yes, the way duplicates are handled has changed, here[0] is dang's post on it from a few months back. And the mods are actively trying to give good posts another change, as shown by nikbackm's comment. I like the change, but perhaps people flagging should be more aware that not everyone has seen the memo about.

[0] - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10223645](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10223645)

<comment><USER7> Here's a more recent comment that describes the evolution of this feature: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10705926](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10705926)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I honestly thought this would be talking about a startup pronounced "Findster".

</comment><comment><USER9> "Besides, you can't change the regular expression language accepted by a program after it has been released, because that would break all the scripts that used the old language."

Lie. In my world, this is commonly referred to as an "option".

Many command-line programs have options that disable or enable some standard to perform their operations.

And guess what program does that? Grep.

Grep option switches allow the user to choose between basic, regular and Perl expression engines (-E -F -G -B options).

Breaking the existing scripts would have been caused by setting another regular expression by default in findstr, which is basically something that nobody would ask.

The real reason findstr is not improved is because Bob left the company and probably took the source code with him.

<comment><USER10> > Lie. In my world, this is commonly referred to as an "option".

It seems a bit unfair to call Chen a liar on this point since _the very same paragraph you quoted from_ ends like this: "A change in the regular expression syntax would require a new switch to opt into the new behavior."

(I do think it's pretty weird that he portrays this as a major problem. I suppose the point is that if you care about backwards compatibility your options aren't "crappy old RE syntax" and "nice new RE syntax", they're "crappy old RE syntax" and "crappy old RE syntax as default, and nice new RE syntax with an option" and that's not so appealing because (1) now maybe your program needs two regexp engines in it and (2) even a trivial inconvenience like remembering to add the option is something of a nuisance.)</comment></comment>


Why Do Tourists Visit Ancient Ruins Everywhere Except the United States? - <AUTHOR> https://priceonomics.com/why-do-tourists-visit-ancient-ruins-everywhere/ <comment><USER2> I'm often struck by how arbitrary our nation's tourists are. Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, etc.: packed with tourists every single day they're open; while dozens of surrounding National Monuments and National Parks and National Forests (mostly free to visit), are often nearly devoid of visitors.

I live in an RV and travel most of the time...I make it a point to visit any National anything (park, forest, monument, as well was BLM lands that seem interesting) and state parks, within 50-100 miles of my route (depending on my schedule and ability to go off the grid at that time). There are places where you'll see maybe a dozen people on your hike; while in the "big" parks, you can't spit without hitting somebody taking photos from an obvious vantage point. I've stayed in BLM campgrounds that are _stunningly_ beautiful, and I may be the only person there for a week or more. These places often have historical significance; as much of the US does, since there were great civilizations that rose and fell here before Europeans arrived.

There's like a weird need for there to be a gate with a ranger taking entrance fees and such, for someone in the US to want to see and experience a place.

<comment><USER3> I have a week to explore areas near San Francisco in the first week of December (driving there from Vegas via LA) can you suggest anything for an Australian? all I've heard is "Big Sur"

<comment><USER4> Yosemite is still worth-while, at the top of the list, but it's a four hour drive. Mount Diablo is nice, and you can drive to the peak. Fremont peak is nice, and is a hike. Point Reyes is great hiking (I've seen a white deer there!). Pinnacles is great. Henry Cowell redwoods park is great, you've never seen redwoods like that.

Going south across the golden gate bridge, sometimes I just drive along the coast all the way south to half-moon bay, it's a great drive, and in December the Mavericks waves might be big. There is a black-sand beach along that drive, too.

<comment><USER3> I'm a little worried Yosemite might be closed in the first week of winter or something? does it get snowed in?

<comment><USER4> Winter is a great time to visit. I recommend avoiding the weekend if you can, because it does get crowded.

This year, since the rainfall has been good, there will probably be some frozen waterfalls.

<comment><USER3> Thank you :) I'll try check it out. 4 hours is fine after flying there 14 hours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One particular reason is that historic sites that contain Mississippian culture mounds aren't that interesting - they are very hard to interpret, and there isn't much known about the underlying civilization.

I visit many of these sites when I can (for instance, Hopewell Culture National Historic Park, Emerald Mound, and Poverty Point), and there just isn't really much to really bring in tourists. There's absolutely no comparison to something like Tikal in Guatemala. I wouldn't recommend them to any casual tourists. The only reason I went to these sites is that I'm in the process of visiting all of the national park system units in the United States.

The Anasazi ruins in the Southwest are much easier to understand - Mesa Verde and Canyon de Chelly have extremely striking settings, and the lack of vegetation means that the underlying structure is easy to see. When I visited Hovenweep, I found a pottery shard that rodents had dug up, and when I visited Mesa Verde, rodents had brought an ancient corn cob to the surface - so it's a lot more fun to visit these sites.

Also, Mesa Verde is pretty close to Durango, CO, and is on the "Grand Circle" tour of southwest US national parks, forests, and monuments. So it's going to get a lot more tourists than something like Chaco Canyon which is way off the beaten path, and doesn't have much infrastructure.

<comment><USER6> Exactly - reading this I was thinking "You are surprised that what are now basically small hills are not tourist Meccas?" And while I don't know the exact numbers, places that _are_ at least superficially interesting, like the cliff dwellings, have lots of recognition and are known as cool places to visit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I guess the conclusion is that because the history was rewritten to mean this content was mostly unpopulated, ready to receive the settlers, with some pockets of Indian tribes here and there.

Anything that contradicts it is difficult to accept.

Also most people don't know, and most importantly they don't want to know. The later is most important. I think even if told, or specifically taught in school, people will try to forget it quickly. It is uncomfortable to think of this country as great and glorious and then put the killing of all the Indians and slavery next to that. It just doesn't fit.

Even on a more superficial level, people don't care because they don't feel it is part of their ancestry.

It is a bit strange to me (but it is just me being weird) that a lot of Americans talk about themselves as Irish, Italian, or German. So I ask usually "so your parents are from Ireland?". And they'd say something like "Oh, no they came in 1850". Yet they have a kilt and go to "Irish" festivals. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it explains why on vacation they want to go to Europe to visit "history" and not to Cahokia.

<comment><USER8> Well, there's also that there isn't much history to talk about with Cahokia, since not even the Indians knew what it was for by the time North America was colonized. I don't think people would care much about Stonehenge if it was just a round dirt mound, no matter how old it is, since we know so little about the people who built that one, too.

A big part of the appeal of historic sites is the connection with a familiar narrative. There are stories written on the walls of chichen itza, or tikal. We know almost nothing about the people that built the mounds in St. Louis.

No narrative, and not particularly visually appealing, and you're not going to have much of a tourist site.

<comment><USER9> Yup. The UK _is_ covered with artificial mounds and earthworks other than Stonehenge, and most of them aren't that well understood or much of a draw for tourists.

It doesn't help matters when the article starts comparing Cahokia with sites as visually arresting and technically impressive as Macchu Picchu or Angkor Wat, wondering why it doesn't get as many visitors as an architecturally marvellous cathedral in the middle of a large city in a heavily touristed region or suggesting that it was bigger than London. (London's population was a _lot_ more than 10k in the 12th century, and for that matter the 1st century AD, and we still build supermarkets on top of the old city's rather more substantial ruins)

<comment><USER10> > London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century

Yea, how are we supposed to trust the authors of this article on qualitative judgement calls when they are so misleading about basic quantitative stuff. According to Wikipedia, London was 60k people by 100 AD, dropped to 15k around 1100 AD, but then was back to 80k by 1300 AD, which are all very pre- industrious times.

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

Compare this to the article:

> Dr. Timothy Pauketat, an archeologist who wrote a book about Cahokia, > believes the city was home to over 10,000 people in 1250, with more > Cahokians living on the surrounding farmland. If that's the case, Cahokia > was larger than London.

So, the author cherrypicks an expert who says the population Cahokia at its peak may possibly have been almost as big as London was at a local minimum over a 2,000 year history.

<comment><USER11> It's a common trope, though that doesn't entirely excuse it.

The claim is technically accurate (the best kind of accurate, as a friend put it). But it also borrows off an interpretation of London as a megacity of millions of inhabitants. The simple addition of "at the time" would make the claim so much more informative and accurate.

In thinking of common vs. technical interpretations of words, there was the case of an article on HN a few weeks back titled "Igloos that don't melt". It turned out the "igloo" wouldn't melt (not without fire at any rate) ... because it was made from plastic. Someone tried defending this usage on the basis that the Inuit word "iglu" simply means "house". But the English usage, and the clear intent of the headline, convey the image of a domed structure built from blocks of carved snow.

The technique in general is a cheap shot and as you note weakens rather than strengthens an author's credibility.

There was a similar

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Tourist do visit the ruins we have, Monk Mound, Mesa Verde, Montezuma Castle, Gila Cliff Dwellings just to name a few. I don't want to be culturally insensitive, but our ruins are not as impressive as the pyramids in Mexico, South America or Egypt for that matter. We have nothing that even comes close to ruins in Itally, China, Burma, Syria, or Iraq.

I've even been to a bunch of ruins and ancient dwellings in the US and I had to look up their names.

<comment><USER13> i think the major difference is the ruins we have in the US are basically just .. really old housing.

and to be fair all the interesting stuff is in the natural history museums, which people visit _a lot_ in the US.

<comment><USER14> > ...are basically just .. really old housing.

Indeed, old is not enough. Old and grandiose (at least for that epoch) is what attracts curiosity.

For example, something like Stonehenge could be assembled in a matter of minutes with modern machinery, but several centuries ago it was more than the state of the art. Furthermore, it hints to a knowledge of astronomy which is daily knowledge in the epoch of Hubble, but is astonishing considerind that the first telescope would have to wait for Galileo to be born.

Another example: in Italy there are plenty of majestic cathedrals. We may discuss about the utility of spending so much money and man-centuries on cathedrals, but they are just so beautiful that you get speechless once inside.

<comment><USER15> >something like Stonehenge could be assembled in a matter of minutes with modern machinery //

I'd visit that, has anyone done it? Would be great to have some of the burial mounds created so you could walk through and see them from the inside too.

You could have a "moving of the stones" festival where people could come and camp and have the opportunity to take part in moving and placing some megaliths. That'd be fun! (Kinda like a Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) project.)

<comment><USER16> Yes they did, didn't take minutes though! There's a Stonehenge replica in the wairarapa in New Zealand.

<comment><USER15> Ah, thanks, should have thought to look on Wikipedia also, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge_replicas_and_deriva...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge_replicas_and_derivatives).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't know about Cahokia, but the oldest ruins out West is Mesa Verde, and there's nothing touristy close to it other than Four Corners.

A buddy of mine from Toronto came to visit California and managed to hit SF, LA, and San Diego in the space of a week and two weekends, but seeing anything older than a mission[1] would've taken ten hours of driving — one way — to get to Mesa Verde.

Sure, you could see it if you're in the states as an outdoorsy type who wants to see all the majesty of the American Southwest, but this wasn't that sort of trip. Stonehenge, by contrast, ought to be less of a detour for someone who wants to hit all the UK highlights in a week or two.

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

<comment><USER18> Telluride, Monument Valley, Canyonlands, Durango+Silverton, Arches, Chaco Canyon, Bisti Badlands, and tons of smaller sites (Aztec, Salmon).

I grew up in the area. You can't really (reasonably) fly within 3 hours, but between the 34th and 39th parallels, Nevada to Kansas, is wonderful, vast, and beautiful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> my brother worked at Mesa Verde. That park is kinda busy.

On the way back east I met up with him and went to see the ruins at Chaco Culture national park (mentioned in the article).

its beautiful but not super popular. Its far away from things and marginally difficult drive. You can stay overnight at a camp ground on site. The ruins are really interesting, but they know very little about the people who made them, and the wildlife is less prevalent, so its not for everyone. All those reasons make it less popular.

I think wildlife is the big draw of the more popular parks.

The directions give some idea of how remote: [https://www.nps.gov/chcu/planyourvisit/directions.htm](https://www.nps.gov/chcu/planyourvisit/directions.htm)

pictures [https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?id=9CAF0AAE-155D...](https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?id=9CAF0AAE-155D-451F-6734567B7B7CB737)

<comment><USER20> Chaco is definitely on the remote side. I think you are right about the reasons for it being not as popular.

I'll also throw out that Chaco can be incredibly gorgeous right after a snowfall. I was lucky enough to see it right after a few inches fell: [https://roundme.com/tour/23482/view/57102/](https://roundme.com/tour/23482/view/57102/)

<comment><USER21> Chaco also has some of the darkest skies in the US. It even as an astronomy program during the summer months with several telescopes people can look through. It is a really amazing place to visit.

<comment><USER22> I live in a rural area, so I'm used to seeing the Milky Way at night. But the night sky at Chaco Canyon still blows me away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself but I guess it's because I didn't realize ancient cities like this existed in the United States. Now that I know they do, I find myself wanting to visit and curious to learn more about the history.

<comment><USER24> My knee-jerk response was "because the U.S. doesn't have any really ancient ruins, duh." Well, guess I was wrong. Now I'm wondering if there are similar things in Australia, too.

<comment><USER25> > Now I'm wondering if there are similar things in Australia, too.

AFAIK most if not all aboriginal communities were hunter-gatherers (unless you include torres strait islanders), not settled agriculturalists, hence didn't have large fixed-place communities (and thus no source material for ruins).

<comment><USER24> That's my understanding too, but then I was taught similar about the Native American people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I grew up a few hours away from St Louis and visited Cahokia a few times when I was young. I figure(though may be wrong) most people who grew up in south to central Illinois have been there at least once.

It was hugely fascinating and it does spark the imagination about how life would be living in such a community, but IIRC it was mostly a big mound and a museum which was mostly reconstructions.

And the big reason there's not all that much interest is that there was never any direct European contact and it was not as advanced as the Aztec/Maya/Incas.

</comment><comment><USER27> I often spent time in New Mexico to visit family as a child and we would often find unmarked sites of Indian culture. I found them to be absolutely wonderful. Some where marked with little flags noting sites. I have never been to a place more exposed and ready for discovery in my entire life. Most place I have lived are overgrown and their secrets even more hidden. Getting to the point though, I feel that the most Americans have the perspective that cultured, and ancient sites are beyond America. America is something new and the rest of the world is older and more cultured. Sadly, we have hidden a lot of the culture and history that existed here before our country. We are not the same a civilizations that has been rooted in the land like China. They have 3,500 years of written continuous history. Our tourism in America is and has always been Westernized, not a continuation of something old but an idea of something new.

</comment><comment><USER28> Most countries founded on invasion and genocide don't want to think about the victims, or acknowledge they had a 'real' civilization. Especially when their nationalism and Constitution-worship glorifies the genociders.

<comment><USER29> But hey, at least the one in the article is thought to be Objectively Not Our Fault, having collapsed pre-Columbus.

<comment><USER30> But notice how the entire angle of the article is Our Fault (well, your fault, I'm not American). That's what people want to hear nowadays. So the fact that it is "objectively not our fault", as you say, is actually a liability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I visited Chaco Canyon ("Anasazi" ruins), which requires driving some 17 miles over a dirt road. The ranger told me the state had offered to pave the road so more visitors could attend, but the park service declined, citing the fragility of the ruins.

</comment><comment><USER32> An anecdote related to ruins. I made a pit-stop at the Timbisha-Shoshone tribe's reservation when visiting Death valley. They clearly had a long- running feud with the federal government about land (often mentioning that they felt like cattle when someone erected a fence around them).

I asked them where I could see some historic Indian artifacts in the area - paintings, burial grounds and the like and they were pretty offended that I had the gall to enquire such stuff.

I guess for most native Americans not enough time has passed for the wounds to heal and there is a sense of humiliation when folks show up expecting a good photo op as if they are some extinct civilization.

<comment><USER33> I mean, those wounds continue to be inflicted to this day. Currently in the news is the Dakota Access Pipeline which is being built against the wishes of the inhabitants of the area and the conflict has turned violent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> They do, and they bring a lot of vandalism with them. Rampant in the southwest, unfortunately. One of many very good reasons to support the creation of a Bears Ears national monument.

</comment><comment><USER35> That's what happens when you focus too much on STEMS education and forget about Humanities ;)

<comment><USER36> I think that's the idea behind STEAM, but the reality is the A there is meaningless until people following the A can reasonably hope to make a halfway decent living.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Tourists do visit archeological, ruins, & historic sites in the United States. U.S. National Park Service statistics report over 307 million people visited sites in 2015, ~24 million of whom visited National Monuments [1]. Travel & Leisure [2] lists three of those Monuments among the top 38 visited ancient ruins in the world [3]:

      #19. Canyon De Chelly, >800k visitors
      #25. Montezuma Castle, >500k
      #26. Mesa Verde, >500k

[1]: [https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/An...](https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/Annual%20Visitation%20by%20Park%20Type%20or%20Region%20\(1979%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year\))

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_%2B_Leisure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_%2B_Leisure) An American travel magazine published since 1937.

[3]: [http://www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/worlds-most- visit...](http://www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/worlds-most-visited- ancient-ruins)

</comment><comment><USER38> "The concept of tourists flockingto American Indian archeological sites may seem strange if you learned in school—like this author did—that America was sparsely inhabited wilderness before Europeans arrived."

Are people actually taught this? I don't think I was. Perhaps on some level there was an unspoken assumption of this but I really don't remember anyone ever explicitly making this argument.

<comment><USER37> I was not taught this.

As a young student I was first taught to be thankful to the Native Americans for helping the first European settlers learn how to farm and live on the continent. That idea is enshrined in the national holiday of Thanksgiving.

Later, as teenage students, we learned more of the gory details of the displacement of Native Americans. There's no way to undo history, but we definitely learn that behavior was wrong.

The evidence, in the form of renamed sports teams, place names, and the pending $20 bill redesign, along with tourism numbers that far exceed those implied in "Why Do Tourists Visit..." article, all indicate that attempts to teach Americans about the tragedy of our past behavior are making a positive difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> There are quite a lot of tourists in New York using our subway system, every day.

</comment><comment><USER40> Actually ruins are just that - pieces of broken stone at best. They are not that interesting on their own in my view, but they are often in great locations - old towns with cafes and museum or top of the hill, with great views etc If it's just ruins with no infrastructure, then there is simply not that much to do. Actually the same can be said of Stonehenge or Egyptian Pyramids - they are really in the middle of nowhere and there is not that much to see. I'm not saying you shouldn't visit, but given we all have limited time on earth and 'free' time is even more scarce, it woudln't be my top choice. Source: I have visited 70+ countries so far, lived in a few of them.

</comment><comment><USER37> Maybe the answer to the question posed by the article's title is given in this line found near its conclusion?

> By 1492, American Indians had created a giant park whose beauty and riches > inspired thousands and thousands of Europeans to cross a continent.

The park, not the ruins of buildings, is what North America's ancient inhabitants left us. People continue to conserve, visit, and learn about our natural lands today (even if we've only recently begun to understand how to care for them as past civilizations did). Not to minimize the value of archeological sites, both ruins and hieroglyphics across the United States are fascinating to visit!

</comment><comment><USER41> I grew up living in a small village surrounding by national forest.

Good, and lets keep it that way. Tourist are the most destructive force I have ever seen, they pollute and litter and break things and have no respect.

One of my favorite shirts as a teenager was a picture of a bear chewing on some bones that said, "Bring more tourists... the last ones were delicious!"

</comment><comment><USER42> Because there is none as far as I know.

</comment><comment><USER43> Because there is nothing ancient in the U.S. .... It has only been a country for a few hundred years.

<comment><USER37> Canyon De Chelly as an example of a place in the United States where people have lived "for nearly 5,000 years" and people visit there. [https://www.nps.gov/cach/index.htm](https://www.nps.gov/cach/index.htm)

And many trees are thousands of years old, which is pretty awesome and makes them fun to visit :-)

It's possible we may learn more about these places as part of the grade school curriculum in the south western U.S.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'm heading to new york,colorado and austin in october, are there anything under appreciated ruins/monuments/national parks to visit there? So far I'm only penciled in to visit dinosaur ridge in colorado. Thanks.

<comment><USER45> I would say:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_National_Monument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_National_Monument)

It is about 6hr drive from Denver, however, and I don't know what kind of time you have available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> tourist attractions have fashions and trends.

places are popular because they are popular. either because of wanting to see what so many people have talked about or because they want to be able to impress people with where they have been.

</comment><comment><USER47> The pueblo sites in the southwest are relatively popular, aren't they? I've been to Bandelier and it was far from empty.

IIRC they're <1000 years old, do they not qualify as "ancient"?

</comment><comment><USER48> The ruins _are_ there, depending on what you consider to be ruin.

Take for instance the Hetch Hetchy. It is the the sister valley in Yosemite that was flooded to provide water to the San Francisco Bay area.

</comment><comment><USER49> Preliterate versus historical site: European sites not in the Greek, Egyptian or Biblical histories are often a mystery too and not heavily visited, with the exception of Stonehedge.

</comment><comment><USER50> Huh - about an hour ago I watched a show on Cahokia on the Smithsonian Channel, and I was amazed at how I had never heard of it before.

</comment><comment><USER51> effigy mounds in iowa vs karnak temple in luxor.

Yea its obvious.

</comment><comment><USER52> It's still possible, and relatively easy, to discover new ruins in the southwest. Especially around Cedar Mesa.

<comment><USER21> I read there are tens of thousands of Anazasi sites in the Four Corners area. Mesa Verde and Chaco are obviously two of the largest but there are also small sites like graineries and single family ruins out there waiting to be found. I've done a fair amount of exploring in canyon country and coming upon a ruin unexpectedly gets my heart pumping. I find unrestored ruins to be far more interesting than the reconstructed affairs found in the parks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Because they look more impressive. Duh.

<comment><USER2> Do they? I mean, sure there's some great stuff all over the world, but the US has some really interesting stuff, too.

Casa Grande is incredible, the Gila Cliff Dwellings are awesome, the Cliff Palace at Mesa Verde is something to see, Monks Mound and several other mound/pyramid structures are pretty fun, too. One of my favorite things to find when I'm out hiking is ancient man-made stairs or tunnels cut into mountains, or other evidence of habitation...and there's a _lot_ of those, including in places you might not even know were historically inhabited.

I also think it's amazing to roam around a bunch of structures built 2,500 years ago, and that were occupied and in use for about 1,000 years (the Casa Grande site was inhabited from around ~450BCE until 1450CE), by a massive and advanced civilization. There's some really cool stuff to see in the US, is what I'm trying to say.

<comment><USER54> Would there be some sort of a list of sights like these to visit for someone outside of USA?

<comment><USER37> Here is a directory of National Conservation Lands maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management [http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/nlcs.html](http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/nlcs.html) (I didn't find a way to search by features, like presence of ruins).

Edit: I found another page with a helpful written overview of the National Conservation Lands [http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/NLCS.html](http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/NLCS.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


People start hating their jobs at 35 - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-21/people-start-hating-their-jobs-at-age-35?m <comment><USER2> I think its because through experience people have figured out a lot of unspoken things about what its really like being an employee.

They have figured out that its much more about connections and office politics than hard work.

They have figured out that there is really no job security, and they could be one layoff wave away from unemployment.

They have figured out that its much more about face time and spending long hours at work rather than actually being productive.

They have figured out that the majority of their work, to their surprise is not actually that important or necessary.

They have figured out that its important not to take too much vacations, because its an opportunity to loose the little work they have to someone else.

They have figured out that they are never going to get payed the true value of their work,and that is almost the definition of being an employee.

They have figured out that its all a system of serventry not too different from the medieval relation between master and servant.

They have figured out that its a system that they are being grinded through and discarded, and that they are condemned for life to making someone else rich, never getting a chance to trully furfill their dreams and ambitions.

All of this takes a lot of time to figure out and piece together, it takes over ten years, and so the age 35 seems about right.

<comment><USER3> > They have figured out that the majority of their work, to their surprise is > not actually that important or necessary.

I used to keep wondering when I was going to get found out for not contributing to the company's bottom line like the other thousands of employees around me seem to do every day.

But then I realised that everyone else is probably doing exactly the same. And either a) none of us are doing anything valuable b) a small % are the driving force or c) we are greater than the sum of our parts

I hope it's c), feel like it's probably b), but maybe a) really is a real world scenario.

<comment> m-i-l I used to (half) joke about another option: (d) it could be cost effective for a company to spend money hiring and wasting excellent talent if it prevents their competitors from doing something genuinely valuable with that talent.

<comment><USER4> Unlikely. No "talent" would agree to waste their life in such a scenario, worrying about "being found out for not contributing to the bottom line".

That's kinda what _makes them a talent_ — almost a tautology.

<comment><USER3> I dunno, money talks

<comment><USER4> For a short while, maybe.

"Excellent talent" means a strong inner drive, it takes something like an obsession to put in the grind to get there. The feeling of contributing and creating and playfulness and attacking new frontiers is non-negotiable. You lose it, you're no longer "excellent talent".

No money can replace that (though life circumstances may force a detour — that's why it's _almost_ a tautology, but not quite).

"Being found out for not contributing"? You know you can do better.

<comment> m-i-l There could be cases where exceptional talent is kept motivated on exciting cutting edge projects, but those projects don't "contribute to the bottom line", either because the project is canned or doesn't generate enough profits (or cut enough costs) or some other reason. The chances are that these cases wouldn't be an intentional waste of talent, but if you've been around a while you sometimes start to wonder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can't stress this enough - if you're not happy with life, and you feel like you aren't moving closer to your goals and dreams, make a change!!!

I realized that sitting at my desk for 30 years to pay for a house was not what I wanted to do, so I quit my job and have been driving around Africa for 2 years[1]. I dreamed for years of being a travel writer and photographer, and I am making that dream come true! I now write for five magazines on a regular basis, and I just published my first book, with a few more in the pipeline. I have waaaaaay less money than before, but I'm happier than I have ever been in my life.

I am constantly meeting people who had a similar realization and are now living their dreams - volunteering, working on their passions or just traveling for a while while they figure it out.

Life is too short to spend 40+ hours a week not loving what you're doing!

[1] [http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition- overview](http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition-overview)

<comment><USER6> Sounds nice, but what about your family? Relatives that might need your attention?

I love examples like this one, but unfortunatelly they can't be applied to a general guy.

Though I have to agree that you have to go for a change one way or the other. Some people can do this almost right now, some will have to do some kind of preparations which can take quite some time too.

PS: not to metion that economical\social conditions can be an issue too.

<comment><USER7> I think the entire point of this is to drop what you perceive to be your obligations and to focus on yourself.

You first have to identify what you see as your obligations, and to query them. This can be the keeping up with the Joneses, buying stuff for your partner/kids or being around family. In some cases what you think of as your obligations really aren't, your partner would rather spend time with you happy than get a bunch of stuff from you.

Sometimes what you think of as an obligation is something you really do have to do, like looking after your kids, or if some other family needs care. Though I like to think of these as responsibilities rather than obligations, something I've actively chosen rather than something that I've been lumped with.

I think this critical look at these pressures, and what really should be informing your life is key to being able to re-orient yourself to something that can make you happier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I write resumes for a living and coach on job search strategy (former recruiter as well), so I talk to several people a day who dislike their jobs enough to be looking for new ones.

In your 20s everything is new and most people are learning all the time, and wages are consistently increasing. Often you are working to pay off debt, doing things you'd rather not be doing because you have to. You're too busy hustling to realize whether or not you are doing what you truly want to do.

There comes a time where wages tend to plateau - in tech I think 35-45 is probably about the right window for that plateau to happen.

By 35 you might be lucky enough to have figured out what you'd rather be doing, and at that age some people probably feel trapped in their career and may lack the confidence to retool. So now you have flattened wages and know what you'd _like_ to do, but either lack the courage or feel helpless to make any changes. That can be a pretty upsetting realization for people at that stage in life.

I've seen many people make major successful career changes at 35 and older. You certainly aren't stuck at that age, but the retooling process requires a strategy that might be anywhere from 3 months to 2 years depending on your starting point.

If you hate your job, start planning for what's next as soon as you make that realization.

<comment><USER9> If you develop these thoughts further, let us know. I'd read them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For me it was at 24, about 2 years after I started working. The first two years were exciting vanity-filled ride, because I was proving that to myself and others that I was really capable. I got quickly promoted to a project manager role (that was in a time and organization where PMs weren't just bureucrats, the role was exciting). Delivering my first project was hell of a ride (coffee and red-bull powered one), but after that, I saw that I'm just going to have to repeat that experience for the next 40 years. I gave my notice soon afterwards, and since then I look for jobs with best salary to effort ratio. Also, there are some kinds of jobs (management, enterprise architect), that are so annoying that I don't know how much I would have to be paid to do them again.

<comment><USER11> At your age (if it's mid 20s) money should be around the bottom of the priolist, later in life that may not be an option

<comment><USER10> I'm nearing my fourties now. I have saved 27 years' worth of living expenses, assuming my current lifestyle (or longer, if I at some point decide to downgrade). Recently, I have given my notice. I want to finally try something else.

<comment><USER12> Financial independence and early retirement?

With 27 years of living expenses if you invest wisely and don't get unlucky, you shouldn't ever have to work again.

<comment><USER10> I don't like the "don't get unlucky" part. It would really suck if I indeed got unlucky around the age of 60 or 70, and then had to support myself working as a janitor till I die. In other words, I tend to be risk-awerse.

<comment><USER13> "Unlucky" in my book would be if you died before having the chance to use any of your hard-earned savings ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> EZ-E About work and happiness : the more I think about the reality of being a full time employee, the more I start to believe part-time is actually the right way to work and be happy.

I see little reason to spend something like 70% of waking hours commuting and working for someone else's profits if you can afford to do less. I've become pragmatic and realized the company I'm I work in is just a tool I use to make money while trying to extract valuable experience for my future. The rest doesn't matter

<comment><USER14> Boy, I wish I could find part time work that paid even a quarter of what I make supposedly working full time. The reality of course is that I'm at most actually working 15-25% of that time and the rest I'm just piloting a desk and being available for people to pick my brain.

Then there's the health care issue to consider, at least for US residents.

<comment> EZ-E > The reality of course is that I'm at most actually working 15-25% of that > time and the rest I'm just piloting a desk and being available for people to > pick my brain

Working remote can solve this, I've realized. One day I was stuck at home so I told my supervisor I would work at home for the day. I ended up doing my work in few hours, and was free the rest of the time since I was free from the "stay at desk" requirement.

<comment><USER14> Sure, if your company isn't actively hostile to the idea like the one I work at is. Lot of places are very butts-in-seats focused.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Just to be fair... according to the article, only 1 in 6 British workers over 35 say they are "unhappy" with their job.

That seems remarkably low, but I think an important life lesson that many learn is that one should not let "the job" determine well-being, satisfaction with life and happiness. I learned THAT in my 40's.

</comment><comment><USER16> I've started to wonder if we're hitting a stage in society where we need to embrace the "mid-life crisis" as a normal stage of development, rather than as a problem.

I personally would love if we had better systems in place to help people shift careers when they felt that their current one wasn't what they wanted. It seems to me that asking a 20 year old which career they are going to love for the next ~40 years is a bit absurd.

</comment><comment><USER17> I mean, the article says that 1 in 6 does. I'd say that is pretty ok if anything.

That some people get disillusioned as they get older is probably normal. That most still are happy with work seems nice - there's a lot of crappy jobs out there.

<comment><USER18> Yeah that's something to keep in mind - there should be an equivalent, positive article saying 5 in 6 people above 35 are happy with their job. That's a really good number!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is much more likely to happen if you didn't manage your career well because you were caught up in 'more important' things that you thought would add greater meaning to life. If that greater meaning has evaporated (or never showed up), it can be a world of hurt.

I realized recently I was trapped in a dead end tech support role and would never grow beyond it, because the job was taking up too much time & energy for me to have enough left over to develop my software development (or any other) skills. I was making decent money, but my household had become addicted to spending it all. If I had managed my finances better and been able to say 'no' more, that might have helped some, but since I didn't, my burnout was accelerated.

Now I struggle against losing all hope that I will ever have either a well paid or a fulfilling career again. But at least quitting the job that was clearly only a faster way to dig my own grave helped my mental health a bit.

</comment><comment><USER20> Contracting has been the answer for me.

Reply to me if you have:

\- worked many hours overtime without any recognition or remuneration

\- been caught up in office politics

\- felt unsatisfied with your job

\- felt like you could achieve more if the company listened to your advice

\- wanted a change of role without sacrificing your career

12 years ago I started contracting in data warehousing and analytics. I've alternated between permanent and contracting over the years.

At 38 I'm contracting for a huge multinational company, working on exciting big data challenges and never been happier...it's literally my dream job.

Between my day job and side project I work around 16 hours per day, but I love what I do. Fortunately I have a supportive wife and kids.

Prior to this I managed a few teams at a big company and struggled to stay motivated.

Contracting is not for everyone, but if you are passionate about what you do and like to work hard knowing there is an end in sight, it is well remunerated and keeps you in touch with the market without the HR responsibilities.

</comment><comment><USER21> At the age of 34 I opted out of having 'a job', set up a company of my own and now contract and consult. I change who I'm working for every few months to a year.

I don't (often) get that bored. There isn't time for the cynicism to develop, I feel like my skills are valued, I bring home a ton more cash, and if I dislike the way my client operates or tries to put controls on my working patterns, I walk.

I know I am extraordinarily privileged, and I don't know how long this can last, but six years have passed and I feel better than ever about my career. Or my lack of it.

<comment><USER22> What kind of consulting if you don't mind me asking?

<comment><USER21> A lot of what I do is contracting, basically just short-term software engineering. But I have done some consulting on development processes and tooling (for god's sake use a standard build system), and have done some small amounts around embedded systems SDKs.

Most of the contracts bring me in as a 'consultant' but the work is software engineering.

<comment><USER23> I´m interesting in transitioning into something similar, did you write how you learned or how you transitioned somewhere? Was it thanks to your network or did you start out cold?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Two years ago, at age 34, she switched careers and learned how to code.

Oh dear.

<comment><USER25> Yeah, that stood out to me too. Out of the frying pan, into the fire...

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> There's too much negative focus on why work is bad here to recognise that it's both give and take. It's not just that work no longer excites, it's that you _want_ to do other things.

I'm 33. I have a 2 year old who demands time. I have a dog that I would like to spend time with. I have a shotgun and enjoy target shooting and wish I had more time to enjoy. I have couple of bikes and wish I had more time to ride them. I picked up woodworking just before my 2yo arrived and I wish I had more time to learn more.

Every year I pick up another _something I want more time to do_ but therefore every year I have to spread that time a little thinner. Time I have to spend working is the obvious target to blame.

I'm certainly not saying that every work environment is great, or that some people get the work/life/expenses balance catastrophically wrong, but you can improve your experience of work by making sure you're still learning, expanding and don't fall into the typical ruts.

Similarly if work is _all_ you have, you've got nothing to work for. Find a balance.

</comment><comment><USER27> People here offer many good explanations, but I would like to offer a very simple one.

People always want hope that they have other options. And as you get older, other options (to learn another job, for instance) diminish. So we get unhappy that we are stuck, and start to hate that situation.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm 38 and have been a freelance developer for ~20 years and I'm still really into what I do.

I enjoy what I do now more than 10 years ago.

I suppose it comes down to enjoying what you do to the point where it doesn't feel like a job vs "having a job".

</comment><comment><USER29> I started with 28, maybe earlier, but 28 was when I finally snapped, haha.

I worked 7 for the same company, while studying and a few years after I finished my degree.

It was a small chaotic company, they were a startup that found a hand full of big corps to pay for the day-to-day expenses, but it never really grew up and never got product market fit.

After a big re-write of the product, with much overtime on my side, I asked my manager what my personal growth options are in the company.

Well, there weren't any.

So I quit a month later and did a sabbatical in 2014.

After that I tried freelancing and tried different things, always asking myself "Is this what I want?"

It helped me at least to filter out what I don't want and I'm much happier.

<comment><USER30> Are you still freelancing?

<comment><USER29> Yes, I found out that I don't work as well with "bosses" as I work with "customers" :D

<comment><USER30> Good for you! What kind of freelancing and how long? I know of many who burned out, and I'm borderline there myself since I hadn't developed a passive lead stream.

<comment><USER29> I only work about 6-8 months a year.

Mostly greenfield projects that take multiple months for startups. ("We need an MVP, but have no idea about technology, so do what you see fit")

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I was 23 when I lost all taste for ordinary work. After being borderline homeless to making 300k in 3 months in affiliating marketing, the though of office work made it unbearable. Little did I know the new found good life would crash around me and I'd have to do the unthinkable - work in an office. The next 4 years were the most miserable years of my life. I was saved by a remote job, followed by another remote gig which ultimately ended in a layoff. The whole experience has made it impossible for me to ever return to an office. Instead, I now struggle as a freelancer / wannabe consultant.

<comment><USER31> You didn't invest any of that 300k? I feel like if you even put 100k of that into something like a reit you probably could have just retired and done whatever you wanted.

<comment><USER32> 100k isn't even close to enough to retire on, at least in the US or other Western countries (assuming a standard middle-class standard of living, of course).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Perhaps because people are fathers and mothers around that age?

</comment><comment><USER22> 35 is probably the age where you have accepted the fact that you are just a cog in the machine, and the output will benefit someone other than yourself. For years leading up to it you already know youre just trading your life's precious hours away for money - which seems to have less and less purchasing power by the year. Once you realize the job is just a means of keeping yourself going, the perpetual cycle dawns on you as a sea of misery and despair. Friends fall by the sidelines, opinions shaped into concrete paths, the 35 year old you finds it difficult to see meaning in the never-ending cycle of slavery that we call work.

<comment><USER34> Sounds like you have never had a job outside the office. Go dig ditches for a construction company for six months and you'll run back to your 9-5 "slavery".

<comment><USER35> A part of me misses blue collar work. I'm a software engineer now and love my job but I'm often mentally exhausted, have less time to think, and find it much harder to stay in good physical condition. Besides, in a lot of meaningful ways, it isn't so different. I work for a great company but that doesn't change the fact that I'm giving up a certain amount of practical free will and allowing others to profit off of my work. It's not slavery but it doesn't always feel so great. I've never understood the mentality you're exhibiting. Someone else has it worse so nobody should complain? That's nonsense. Everyone should strive for better. Whether they're at the bottom or the top. That has always been the way of humanity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I am nearing that age, but the displeasure started several years ago. I find myself a bit trapped with a a place where I am marrying 2 specialties that tend to go together, and that in theory should be an ideal job. But hte people, politics, and lack of genearl teamwork have left a sour taste. And it's not like I am ready to give up the money I save (I make a bit more because of the industry but still a lot less then others in this field). And since I am on an immigration visa, it's not as easy for me to hop around from place to place. A bit lost at what to do. Its not as if I am not following my heart because I think I am, I just do not like the environment, nor will it be any better at another unknown place.

<comment><USER37> I'm the same - only just pre-30 but already tired by being the "expert" at what I do (I've tried repeatedly saying that "knowing a bit more about something than other staff here" is a shitty bar for "expert" status and they should get rid of me and replace me with someone who's genuinely good at it, and interested in it, alas, nothing).

Other people might kill for my job, but honestly, it doesn't excite or engage me, and each day is literally just a march to get home and play with building my own stuff.

I've worked in cyclical industries (education and yearly hiring cycles) pretty much since leaving university - I'd advise people to avoid these if you can unless you love redoing the same work time and time again (but with enough enforced differences so you actually do have to do it all again). The "Start > Push > Reset" cycle is inherently demotivating to me.

Ideally, find something that compounds - where your work contributes to some kind of growth - rather than resets to zero again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I start hating my job every three years or so. Then I get a new one making more money.

<comment><USER39> Don't you have troubles finding work? I review resumes at times and I don't expect someone to be married to a company. But three years is a warning sign. Companies fail, there was a bad culture. But job hopping is a reason to not want to hire someone.

<comment><USER40> Not sure what industry you're in, but three years doesn't translate as 'job hopping' to me. If anything, 2 years is an average 'acceptable' job length.

<comment><USER39> Personally I find it a short term stint considering it probably takes upwards of 5-6 months to get upto speed and be genuinely productive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'm 34 and love working more than I ever have. Though I work at a really cool startup and feel really connected to my team. It's not perfect, we have a few issues, but overall I feel good about the work I do.

I do feel drastically different as an employee though. I am starting to feel a real sense of ownership over my own actions. Not sure how to word that properly, but I no longer see my bosses as "owning" me in the way I used to. I never _thought_ that explicitly, but I behaved as if they had complete control over me.

If I were in a job I hated, I'd have far less tolerance for it at this age. Life is too short.

</comment><comment><USER42> I feel extraordinarily lucky to be in a profession where the opposite is true. Although it was demoralizing during my first four years or so to see my superiors leave hours before me and my colleagues, work quickly became both more qualitatively rewarding and more quantitatively reasonable.

I feel like the article's suggestions are a little trite. Just make work friends and find a personal project at work! I suspect that a good number of people feeling ennui feel that way due to a lack of autonomy. If my hunch is correct, it seems unlikely they'll be able to just choose a personal project at work.

<comment><USER43> Which profession are you in?

<comment><USER44> It's not the profession, it's how you feel about it and the hand you've been dealt regarding your colleagues (superiors or not). There's definitely no perfect profession.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Wow, for once I was an early adopter! I started around like age 22, hardened at 30, and started rage quitting at 35.

I didn't actually like my job again until age 38 when I found the right employer, because I got picky.

</comment><comment><USER46> I know switching to consulting (and finding a lot of success in it) has made me 3x happier. I never would have risked the switch if family issues didn't force me to.

<comment><USER30> What kind of consulting? How did you find success in it?

<comment><USER46> Marketing consulting, reaching out to my whole network and doing really good work after 9 years experience. It also tripled my annual income.

<comment><USER29> Cool, where did you learn?

I found many good technical education sites, but only HubSpot for marketing stuff.

<comment><USER46> This article is pretty great, not written by me: [https://brianbalfour.com/essays/customer- acquisition](https://brianbalfour.com/essays/customer-acquisition)

<comment><USER29> Lol, it says there is no certification for this type of stuff, but then quoting HubSpot people who do exactly that :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> This seems counter intuitive to me. All through your 20s, you're working your way up through the bottom of some crappy bigco, paying your dues and getting experience under your belt so that you can jump to better jobs later.

By your mid 30s, at least in our industry, you can get to a position where you can choose a nice gig at a good company, and pretty much steer your destiny as you choose.

So it's surprising that you'd hate your job more then than when you were younger.

<comment><USER48> "and pretty much steer your destiny as you choose"

Generally no - every rung up the ladder gets about 500% more competitive, and even worse, it's political competition.

Middle management is _the worst_ kind of work beyond raw labour.

When you're young, usually you're learning, doing 'actual work' and you can make no mistakes really.

If you have a protected executive job, and can handle politics, there can be stability there.

Bug upper manager and Director ... my god - you still have to show hard results, and you're not always in position to do it. It's thankless. You don't even get to make the big decisions.

<comment><USER47> Why move to management then? Software Developer is the best gig imaginable right now, in pretty much any dimension you can measure.

\- Senior level pay is pushing $500k for employees, ( and higher for consulting)

\- Pretty much any gig can be remote

\- Hottest job market in history

\- Lots of fun work to be found if you don't want to go the BigCo track

So yeah, why fight all that stuff you list on that path when you can stay in individual contributor and have it easy?

<comment><USER49> > Senior level pay is pushing $500k for employees, ( and higher for > consulting)

At a handful of elite, highly-competitive companies.

> Pretty much any gig can be remote

The defense, health care, finance, and embedded sectors would beg to differ. Also, _can_ be remote often does not equal "allowed to* be remote.

> Hottest job market in history

"In history" is too strong, but it is definitely a hot market (in most areas).

> Lots of fun work to be found if you don't want to go the BigCo track

If you choose this your first bullet doesn't apply.

<comment><USER47> So to be clear, in response to me asking why a developer in this market would intentionally put himself into a disadvantageous situation, you have chosen to list off a bunch more disadvantageous situations a developer could put himself into.

I'm willing to concede that one can find a second tier company willing to pay sub-market rates for boring work in a cubicle, if one chose.

But again, I'll ask why you would do that to yourself when there are such better options?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Which people?

> _Two years ago, at age 34, she switched careers and learned how to code. > "Your 30s are both personally and professionally a time when people take > stock and make a change," she said._

I left a job I hated to start a robot business at 31. It failed due to lack of financing, so I returned to tech support and system engineering. I've worked my way into a career with many job options and paths of varying levels of excitement and stress.

</comment><comment><USER51> 52 and loving my job. I get to do all sorts of fun technical stuff and get paid well. I don't care that I'm just a cog.

</comment><comment><USER52> I wonder if mid-30's could be a point of going either direction?

At 34 I discovered a career passion around serving others, whereas previously the orientation was mostly toward myself.

Nothing changed in my daily work, just a perspective.

<comment><USER53> I recently went to a workshop demo for working with clay by a potter who'd been working his craft for 40 years. He was spinning the wheel and someone said it looked fun and asked if he still enjoyed it after all those years.

He told us he's gone through several waves of enjoying and disliking throwing pots. He started off enjoying it. Then he stopped enjoying it for many years and just did it because it was his livelihood and the best way to support himself. Then one day, he had no idea why, while he was throwing a pot he had a moment where he noticed his hands and started enjoying it again for many years. He told us this has happened to him a few times and that he currently enjoys throwing pots.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> There are a few things I'd like to know about the survey:

\- What were the jobs in the survey? Were they all office jobs? \- What was the gender split in the survey? The anecdotes in the article were all female.

</comment><comment><USER55> Really? I started hating jobs at 25, honestly.

</comment><comment><USER56> I'm 39, I've been at this job for almost 5 years and still don't hate it

</comment><comment><USER57> I recommend the book "Fire Your Boss" for anyone that has a job :)

<comment><USER58> I find two books with that title on Amazon, which do you mean? Both perhaps? :-)

<comment><USER57> The one by Stephen Pollan and Mark Levine, I haven't read the other one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Thats soooo much an understatement, been hating my jobs since i have them

</comment><comment><USER60> Wait, I thought it was supposed to be Millennials that are spoiled and do nothing but complain about their jobs...

<comment><USER61> The older millenials are over 35 now...

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I'm 35, can confirm.

</comment><comment><USER63> I guess I was precocious then. My hate began at 25.

</comment><comment><USER64> This is me and I'm 34. It started a year ago, so there's some truth to the article.

</comment><comment><USER65> Are most corruption charges in developing countries are well on people over 30? Just curious, i don't have the data.

Hypothesis is that, once people hate their job, they might want to acquire money instantly and quit.

I know this is a sensitive topic but i just want a some facts because here people seem to trust young people less for some reason, i don't know why.

<comment><USER50> It's the "How can I quit my job today" mindset. Each person has a different subset of options, based on their socioeconomic state:

\- Concieve a child and carry to term, then raise.

\- Start your own business.

\- Sell your house and live on the street / forest.

\- Become a farmer.

\- Win a lottery / Bitcoin bubble / IPO skyrocket / other windfall.

\- Move in with your parents / children.

\- Commit crimes.

\- Create pornography (enter a new industry).

\- Start an online store / list items on eBay or Amazon.

\- Move to Alaska, build a cabin, and live off the land.

Etc.

Sometimes a person will find themselves fixated on the most realistic option for their scenario, turning one of these into a plan of action, discussing with coworkers, and trying to make it even more realistic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> thats stupid. most people hate their job before that.</comment>


Andela shuts offices, expands across Africa by going remote - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/africa/1873379/andela-shuts-offices-expands-across-africa-by-going-remote/ <comment><USER2> So it's a pivot from "we're disrupting training software engineers" to "we're connecting freelancers with companies"?</comment>


Under-Investigated Fields List - <AUTHOR> https://matthewmcateer.me/blog/under-investigated-fields/ <comment><USER2> >I'm defining "Necroneurology" study of nervous physiology changes around death.

Wonderful word, I'll be adopting it forwith; going to be hard to deploy in casual chat, alas.</comment>


German court issues first GDPR ruling - <AUTHOR> https://www.natlawreview.com/article/german-court-issues-first-gdpr-ruling <comment><USER2> The Register had an item about this recently [0]. If you read the whole thing and follow the links to the earlier articles it's somewhere in the uncanny valley between fascinating and horrifying. ICANN is a deeply conflicted organization. Basically they have been on notice about this since 2003 and have done nothing. As of now, they don't have a plan to resolve this. ICANN and any registrar with EU customers providing the whois service are non- compliant with the GDPR. So the EU based registrars have stopped and ICANN is sueing to force them to continue.

eta: One of the big reasons ICANN can't do the sensible thing and just discontinue whois is that it is heavily influenced by the big copyright corporations who presently can start enforcement against a domain by lookup in whois. Once whois is gone they will have to use legal process to compel registrars to reveal the identity of domain owners.

[0] [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/06/europe_no_to_icann_...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/06/europe_no_to_icann_whois/)

<comment><USER3> > ICANN can't do the sensible thing and just discontinue whois

Note that this is not about discontinuing WHOIS, but discontinuing the collection of the "technical contact" and "administrative contact".

The domain owner's data are still collected, and this collection is still being carried out by the registrar without dispute (page 3, last sentence).

The argument is that if ICANN needs to contact someone with regards to a specific domain, contacting the domain owner should be sufficient, so ICANN's argument that they "need" the Tech-C and Admin-C aren't valid.

The court agreed with that, but note that at this point, this is only about a preliminary injunction.

<comment><USER4> well you basically can write everything into Tech-C and Admin-C and you would still get a valid domain.

<comment><USER3> While factually correct, I assume that one is contractually obligated to provide valid details, and then, not doing so would then be a breach of contract.

<comment><USER5> You can't be contractually compelled to do something illegal.

<comment><USER3> Yep, and that's the argument that the registrar made in this case, and the court agreed.

Edit:

Well, technically, the court agreed that you cannot be _compelled to_ provide this information.

However, I don't see why not one could _voluntarily_ provide this information, in which case providing invalid information would still probably be a breach of contract.

<comment><USER4> Well what's the problem of providing an Tech-C Email and an Admin-C Email and fill the other values with "technically" correct values. i.e. Name: Personal Blog Administrator Email email@example.com

the other information could be empty [https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=google.com](https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=google.com)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For .nl, the whois information for individuals is hidden except for a) interested parties (manually approved) b) investigative/enforcement authorities c) CAs (need to validate ownership). It's all explained in English at [https://www.sidn.nl/a/nl-domain-name/sidn-and- privacy?langua...](https://www.sidn.nl/a/nl-domain-name/sidn-and- privacy?language_id=2)

The organization handling .nl, SIDN, has worked like this for a pretty long time. It's pretty much a solved problem. The data is available, just not to a lot of people.

</comment><comment><USER7> Since the core issue is about registered domains for natural persons it becomes a bit unclear what administrative and technical contact would mean in the context of this lawsuit. Most registries that I have to work with do not use those fields or have hijacked those for their own local purpose (such as local presence). ICANN however only accredit registrars for a few of the generic TLDs so there doesn't seem to be any meaningful reason to have administrative and technical contact for natural persons. Those that do fill in those fields anyway usually just copy the data from the registrant fields, or put the registrar data in as administrative and/or technical contact. Neither adds anything meaningful to whois.

When the registrant is a company it make sense to have admin and technical contact but then good practice for the last decade is to not have natural persons in those fields. If John Doe leaves the company then its a major pain to change contact information for 100+ domains, so from a pure practical reason it is better to have a company, role and the company address in the fields (except when local policy for each of the country code top-level domain demand something else). That information is naturally not protected by GDPR.

</comment><comment><USER8> Like most Hacker News users, I have a bunch of domains. I'd be happy if my personal info wasn't in whois.

<comment><USER9> As a German who owns domains, I don't really know if who is changes anything. The German Telecommunications Media Act (Telemediengesetz) requires website operators to publish an imprint including snail-mail contact info.

I'm not gonna link it here to not push it up in SERPs, but my blog is linked in my profile and the imprint is linked there.

<comment><USER10> Commercial website operators, no?

One thing that "would be funny" would be having the contact information show up only for IPs from Germany

<comment><USER11> "Commercial" in German would be "geschäftlich" or "beruflich", but the word used in legislation here is "geschäftsmäßig" which probably also translates to "commercial", but maybe better as "in the style of a business".

The word has been chosen specifically and distinctly in this field of law so it can mean something specific, not the run-of-the-mill meaning of "commercial".

You show ads (or Wordpress does for you in the free offering)? Geschäftsmäßig. For certain.

You have a web site with information that is interesting to many people (maybe how to repair bikes)? Geschäftsmäßig. Very probably.

You have a photo gallery of aunt Mary's 80th birthday. It's password protected, and you share the password only with family. Everyone else only sees the link text "Aunt Mary's birthday" and noth8ng more? Not geschäftsmäßig. For certain.

Everything between examples two and three? Uncertain. Assuming "geschäftsmäßig" is a good idea.

<comment><USER10> Ah I see, thanks for the explanation.

Privacy in Germany seems to be complicated, in one way some things are much more private, but you can't have a website without a mailing address.

<comment><USER12> Yes, you can, for personal purposes, as explained above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting that the first case deals with an injunction to _comply_ an EU company to collect information -- not to punish a company from collecting information. I'm actually very surprised that ICANN even tried to do this as it looks like a slam dunk defence. I'll be interested to see the result of the appeal.

<comment><USER14> What this article may miss, is that ICANN's lawsuit isn't exactly hostile: [https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-25-en](https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-25-en) and [https://www.epag.de/en/tucows-statement-on-icann-legal- actio...](https://www.epag.de/en/tucows-statement-on-icann-legal-action/)

The lawsuit was filed in order to get an official legal answer on the books as to how Whois data should be handled for GDPR. The easiest way to get actual precedent on the matter is to sue someone over it.

<comment><USER15> I don't think I came to the same conclusion you did after reading those 2 articles. While you say the lawsuit "isn't exactly hostile", I think it isn't exactly "friendly" either, and it's not like ICANN is neutral and just looking to the courts for guidance. I don't think ICANN is pleased with this ruling, at all.

ICANN clearly wants to preserve the requirement around personal details in Whois data, while Tucows pretty much thinks that requirement goes against the spirit of GDPR. From your second link:

> ICANN's goal, since discussions about the impact of the GDPR on domain > registration began, has been to preserve as much of the status quo as > possible. This has led ICANN to attempt to achieve GDPR-compliant domain > registration via 'process reduction', as opposed to Tucows' approach of > starting with the GDPR and rebuilding from the ground up.

<comment><USER16> > _ICANN clearly wants to preserve the requirement around personal details in > Whois data_

They may just not want to get sued by the MPAA _et al_ over facilitating copyright infringement. Without WHOIS, pursuing rogue domains gets harder.

<comment><USER17> We're not talking about no WHOIS, we're talking about reducing the number of WHOIS contacts, and not publishing WHOIS information for everybody to see it. Which yes, would means now you need e.g. a court order first before you'd get that information. So I guess "pursuing rogue domains gets harder" is one way to put it, or more legally correct another.

For law enforcement this isn't a problem. For scummy copyright lawyers looking to make a quick buck, maybe it is. Guess which of those funds ICANN? And how exactly would not making WHOIS info public "facilitat[e] copyright infringement"? Nobody is buying it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Poor internet. Designed to survive atomic wars. But can it withstand lawyers?

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm curious (and ignorant): how can Europe fine an organization like ICANN? I can imagine that they can forbid them to do any business in Europe if they don't pay their fine, anything else? If it come to this, what does it mean for registrar in Europe?

<comment><USER20> It's arrogance; see the Brexit negotiations for more examples of this.

<comment><USER21> Do you have any examples?

<comment><USER20> [1] [https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2109958/brexi...](https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2109958/brexit- was-stupid-decision-it-would-be-arrogant-intervene-eu)

[2] There has been little if any compromise in the negotiations from the EU side, and much from the UK.

<comment><USER21> 1\. I'm not sure it's arrogance. The EU is big, the UK is comparatively smaller, guess what happens in a divorce? :)

2\. See 1. Also, there have been compromises, the UK wants to get unicorns. Full access to the single market yet no freedom of movement...

<comment><USER20> > The EU is big, the UK is comparatively smaller, guess what happens in a > divorce? :)

A divorce seems an odd comparison to choose, but the UK has a large trade deficit with the EU. If the UK leaders had a backbone, they would walk away or be tougher in negotiations.

> 2\. See 1. Also, there have been compromises, the UK wants to get unicorns. > Full access to the single market yet no freedom of movement...

Do you have any examples?

Why should the idealogical idea of freedom of movement be linked to an economic market? This is an EU idea, and the separate of the two is not a unicorn. See: other trade agreements.

<comment><USER22> > Why

> This is an EU idea

I think you answer your own question. It's a founding principle of the EU.

<comment><USER20> Yes, it is. My intention was to highlight that the separation of these concepts is not a 'unicorn'.

<comment><USER21> The EU is willing to negotiate a trade agreement. The UK wants that trade agreement to include full access to the Single Market, without freedom of movement. That's an unicorn.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Related, with some insights (3 months ago): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16856090](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16856090)

</comment><comment><USER24> The judgement seems to rest on whether collecting data is necessary for the business. But what place is the judge in to decide that? Isn't the fact that ICANN demands the data from registrars good proof that it is necessary to EPAG's business?

<comment><USER25> Then go one level deeper: why is this data necessary for ICANN?

If you there is no good reason, then there's also no good reason for EPAG to collect this information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This seems like the worst first take possible for a policy that otherwise seems to have good intentions.

Basically this is pedantry around something that completely does not matter. Every major registrar already provides mechanisms for hiding this info from the general public should you choose to do so.

Seems like lawyering for lawyering's sake. When can we get rid of that?

<comment><USER27> As much as I appreciate the privacy-first aims of the GDPR, I think that at some point it collides head-on with property records.

Privacy and property rights are interconnected: after all, what is privacy but the right to do with yourself and your property as you see fit without outside observation/interference?

These rights are sometimes at odds with each other: can you really own property if your ownership is not publicly recorded/recognized?

<comment><USER12> Is the balance of your bank account recorded publicly? So it seem there is no need for a public record.

And GDPR does not prohibit voluntary owner entries into a central whois directory, it just prohibits transferring personal data without consent.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are your go-to places for thought-provoking articles? - <AUTHOR> What are your go-to places to find thought-provoking articles that help you learn something new or think about familiar topics from a different perspective?<p>A few places I found so far:<p>* https://longform.org/<p>* https://longreads.com/picks/<p>* https://getpocket.com/explore/trending (some fluffy articles but usually can find a few gems) <comment><USER2> London Review of Books: lrb.co.uk

Their game is this: ostensibly the articles are book reviews. But not quite. Sometimes two books are reviewed in the same article. Sometimes you'll have to read two thousand words until the book "reviewed" is first mentioned.

The book is basically the back story, a hook to the author writing his own longform article on the same issue. Informed by the book, sure, but no "the author then argues that..." recapitulation.

My experience is this: I get a new issue and read the table of contents. Not a single article sounds even mildly interesting. This issue is a dud.

Then I start reading. Some of the articles are boring. Or too high-brow. Or whatever. But in every issue, without fail, there are two to five articles that turn out to be really, really interesting.

See the article about public toilets I submitted here on HN yesterday. Or I remember an article about Heligoland under British occupation. Or about two very strict schools and their pedagogical philosphy.

</comment><comment><USER3> Bibliographies of books I find interesting. New works citing those works (citations index). Further works by the authors in question.

I don't have a problem maintaining a reading list. Quite the opposite.

</comment><comment><USER4> Farnam Street : [https://fs.blog/mental-models/](https://fs.blog/mental- models/)

As a student, it's great to be able to look at problems from different perspectives.</comment>


Open-source Funding and Support Questionnaire - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfAa6-MDjt9Q5Oy0mhWw7J6U5Qsk0v_2O7T-V7AZWUrmErYzQ/viewform <comment><USER2> I am a freelance developer and added footnote to my invoices explaining I donate 1% of the amount to an open-source project used for the assignment. I ask them to propose the projects they prefer but almost no one does.

<comment><USER3> Sounds like a very good idea. Companies should do that !

<comment><USER4> They should. Although I guess in a perfect market with two identical companies.. the one without the donations will have 1% more cashflow and be able to underbid the nice competitor by 1%.

(1% is likely to small to make a difference, but a fun thought experiment).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I donate about $150 to Canonical any time I download Ubuntu - but I'm pretty sure this is a flawed approach.

After all, if I install a package, which depends on something which depends on something which depends on a library for left-padding strings, it's unlikely the library author sees a cent. And each of those levels doesn't just have developers - they have package maintainers, people doing bug triage, people maintaining test infrastructure - and the tools those people use.

Unfortunately I think this would be very difficult to resolve - as the problem of fairly distributing donations would have a very large political element.

<comment><USER6> Canonical themselves are only developing a tiny fraction of even their default suite of software anyway.

If you want to contribute to open source software in general, Software in the Public Interest is probably the best general fund to stick your money in, since they provide financial support to several distributions, LibreOffice, FFmpeg, Postgres, Xorg, etc.

Also, set your amazon smile donations to go to them, since they are a non- profit!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's no indication in the questionnaire of who is actually running it, what is being done with the data, whether results will be published and where, etc. Does anyone have more info? Right now, this just looks like a black hole.

<comment><USER8> Agreed, without some context as to who is behind this survey I am reluctant to fill it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I really think there's an opportunity to make it easier for companies (large and small) to pay for work on open source projects. The complexities I see (as someone who has done it often):

* Knowing who (as an individual or an organization) you can give money to to reliably perform the work. So working out a way of managing this would be huge e.g. I want a feature added to Postgres, who the hell do I speak to? Are they reliable? Is their contribution likely to be accepted upstream?

* The tax/employment logistics can be painful, an intermediary could make that simpler. For large contributions you often have to support multiple people, and this becomes logistical complex VERY easily

* A lot of folks who make their living being supported to work on open source are scornful or outright malevolent towards the things that corps need (e.g. invoicing, statement of work, liability protection)

<comment><USER10> It sounds like you've mostly tried to pay for new development on projects? As opposed to remunerating for existing product? Does that sound right?

<comment><USER9> Yes. Not that I disagree with the other way of paying, but it needs to be handled differently:

* The 'pay someone to do X, which has Y value for us in return' is a very simple value proposition for even the most luddite of finance/legal folks to grok. The details are different, but you're essentially hiring a contractor.

* On the other hand, it's much less clear to those people what the value proposition is for paying for 'past work' or some amphorphus future work that it's difficult to quantify will have any value to the organization.

* That's why the above is much better framed as 'sponsorship' and put under PR/dev relations/talent/HR. They're the ones who can best track value from concepts like community engagement and enhancement, improved standing of the company etc

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I made a one-off donation of $150 and now Patreon $20/month to Ondrej Sury(.org) (who does php/apache packaging for Debian & Ubuntu) which I use for a web hosting business.

I also Patreon to Jon Oxer for superhouse.tv (mainly for his YouTube videos) he's quite involved around various open hardware projects and open source in Australia - maybe not quitenyour traditional definition.

</comment><comment><USER10> P.S. Gittip and Gratipay are the same thing. :-)

[https://gratipay.news/gratitude-gratipay- ef24ad5e41f9](https://gratipay.news/gratitude-gratipay-ef24ad5e41f9)

</comment><comment><USER12> There is one thing I'm not sure anyone has talked about yet. When a corp entity 'donates' or provides funding for a specific feature, they will usually want a timeline for the completion of it. I personally feel there is a distinction between being 'paid' for a feature, and 'funding' a feature. Where the funding route is still in spirit of the project. Sadly it seems that a lot of open source projects even if used widely are still powered by 'spirit' rather than anything else.

</comment><comment><USER13> Apart from having a framework/service for funding open source projects, we need about the people who develop the _dependencies_ used in those projects.

Project maintainers should have the ability to 'forward' part of the received donation to other projects - without which the project wouldn't have been possible.

Which contributors, which dependency and how much to share - these questions are best answered by the project maintainer(s) - they can forward zero or all the funds and make the process automatic, so when a donation is received, the system automatically redistributes it to other accounts, as configured by the maintainer.

I've worked on a design spec for such a system some time ago: [https://github.com/boomhub/design](https://github.com/boomhub/design)

I'd gladly resume work on it if anyone else feels like this is the good way to go. Just start by creating an Issue :).

<comment><USER14> I'm thinking of something automated.

For example, it's possible to gather some metrics of the usage of libraries from a running process (with strace, google perftools, source maps in javascript...).

It can be a process used by a real user or autotests from the project.

A software could monitor those probes and allow the user to reward the dependencies that:

\- use less CPU or energy

\- use less memory

\- contains less bugs

\- ...

<comment><USER15> If it's automated it will probably be gamed.

<comment><USER14> Yes but as it is open source everybody will know who game what.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It would be really interesting to see some answers statistics!

<comment><USER10> Yeah! Are you going to release this survey data, @froztbyte?

<comment><AUTHOR> First to get some more responses.

Later, if possible, I'll attempt to release the raw (albeit sanitised) data.

At minimum I'll post a follow-up with some statistics/analyses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Would love to know the results of this, I'm currently trying to get [http://letsopensource.com](http://letsopensource.com) up and running.

<comment><USER18> What's the scope of letsopensource? It's not clear what the website intends to do from the one page that's there.

If it's another crowdfunding website what makes it different and more likely to succeed compared to others?

<comment><USER17> Good questions and I don't have answers for them as of now, will do a Show HN thread in the coming weeks to get some initial feedbacks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Weird the title changed from "ask hn: do you" to "open-source funding/suppor questionnaire"? And didn't notice the link before but I guess it was there.

<comment><USER19> It was, I think that's why the title changed - AskHNs presumably have to be text questions hosted here?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> _Editorial notes:_

The questionnaire seems to be missing "desktop (GUI) apps" and probably "mobile apps" in "What you'd pay for?" section.

Also, the "time/effort" was weird for me; I don't feel it matches "funding" which sounds like money to me — or I didn't understand what it's intended to mean.

 _Some general thoughts:_

On a related note, personally I don't like paying until I tried an app. But then OSS apps often ask for payment only just before/after downloading. I think a deferred approach is one of the reasons which helped me pay (donate) for the single OSS app for which I've done so yet: Calibre ([https://calibre- ebook.com/](https://calibre-ebook.com/)). While the main reason was that it really struck me that it's an awesome, polished and easy to use app (especially for non-technical users in my family) while I was downloading it to _n_ -th computer one day, it also shows some non-obtrusive but visible _encouragement_ in its GUI (a big heart icon — feels encouraging, not nagging) reminding to consider donation.

From other somewhat interesting approaches, Aseprite ([https://www.aseprite.org/](https://www.aseprite.org/)) is actually GPL IIUC, but it provides the binary only with payment — thus more convenient (esp. for non-technical users, who I assume are majority of the targeted users group, i.e. artists) — although you can still just download and compile the sources _for free_. I'm very curious to what extent it's actually working for the author!

Moreover, I felt quite nice about itch.io's ([http://itch.io/](http://itch.io/)) approach, where a publisher can pick a "payment-optional" model. But as written above, I'd prefer to be _gently_ reminded in-game from time to time ( _@leafo?_ whaddya think? feature idea for Refinery?). Also, I didn't really find a good enough game for me on itch yet, for which I'd feel like paying, unfortunately.

Finally, I think it'd be easy for me to pay for OSS games (dunno about other apps?) which would be parts of a bundle (ideally on gog.com; maybe Humble Bundle too, but as much as it started the bundles trend in awesome way, I feel it's fallen in quality and open-ness for me at some point in the past). I'm already paying for bundles, so if an OSS game got in there, I probably wouldn't even notice I can have it for free (nor I would complain later if I noticed, I believe). Though if it'd be explicit, I think I'd pay anyway (custom? convenience?).

 _P.S._ Now that I think of it, seems what I describe here is kinda variation of "in-game/in-app purchases". Hm, maybe they could be also linked to some specially tricky features of an app, e.g. using some feature would also display non-obtrusive info "this feature was really tricky/took much love to implement/and is unique on market — a donation as act of gratitude would be an awesome gesture of appreciation!" obviously with an easy link.

Also, I think receiving a code enabling personalized label/annotation "Paid for by $DONATING_USER" could be a really cool bonus touch.

<comment><USER18> +1 to "desktop (GUI) apps". I've been maintaining one project since 2009 and from what I've seen, it's pretty rare for desktop applications to receive proper funding. They're generally not a great target for corporate funding and they often end up being very incomplete as developers run out of spare/interested time. It doesn't help that for the GUI side of desktop applications there can be a _huge_ amount of time spent on trying to get the UI/UX right.

I've even tried to fund some work on the open source application I maintain, but I haven't been able to get anywhere close to minimum wage for it. Other open source applications in the same space seem to have the same issues with crowdfunding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> A while ago I did a concept study called [http://opensourcebay.io](http://opensourcebay.io) to create a marketplace for open source services. This approach in my mind provides the most viability for maintainers/service providers and for people who inevitably need services/training/features. Unfortunately I did not have the initial traction nor the resources to continue on this path.

<comment><USER21> FYI want to be clear that I am not plugging my site. I have pretty much abandoned it due to lack of traction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Who are you, @froztbyte? Wanna be part of [https://sustainoss.org/](https://sustainoss.org/)? :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Someone with an interest in the liveliness of open-source ecosystems.

I didn't find enough relevant data out there, so I decided to get some.</comment></comment>


The "Crisis" In Venture Capital - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/01/the-crisis-in-venture-capital/ <comment><USER2> I can't begin tell you how many VCs were more concerned with customer acquisition than the monetization strategy. Furthermore, less focused on early-stage and more focused on growth... does anyone else see the contradiction in that web 2.0 "investment strategy"? Too many finance guys lack operation experience...

These results do not surprise me.

<comment><USER3> The finance guys are buying operational experience by funding you.

Their goal is a good rate of return. They have (or should have) no interest in running your business, because they already have a business of their own to manage.

<comment><USER4> Good point not....

I've worked with venture capitalists off and on over the years and what everyone looking for funding needs to understand is what they think is a "good rate of return"..

They'll never tell you during the application process but what they are looking for is $10 in return in 2 to 5 years for every $1 they invest.

They really don't care how they get it. It can be from capital gain or operating revenue but they always want 10 for 1........

Things haven't really changed all that much since Shakespeare wrote "Merchant of Venice".

<comment><USER3> A good enough rate of return is 10% - most companies operate on 10-15% IRR. What you need to rememeber is that this 10-15% is AFTER adjustment, ie write offs for risk, overheads etc.

In government contracting (fairly low risk), with a target profit margin of 10%, gross margin required can easily be over 25%.

> $10 in return in 2 to 5 years for every $1 they invest.

Over a 5 year period a 900% total return is 58.5% anual return. Assuming they get a hit one time in six this would equate to a profit of about ten percent (gross - before overhead costs etc), which is pretty low. Any less and they would be better off doing something else with the money.

Of course if all six startups are a hit they make out like bandits - but if you take the risk you get the reward. They could just as easilly end up with six losers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Those graphs are a bit sketchy. Kinda deceiving to compare a half year's numbers with a whole year's. The conclusions are right, but there's some psychological manipulation in the pictures.</comment>