Google Web Toolkit 1.7 - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/doc/1.7/ReleaseNotes_1_7.html <comment><USER2> Is GWT frontend only, or is it a full stack front and backend thing?

<comment><USER3> It is both, as it is both a front-end development platform including a full set of widgets and an AJAX implementation that handles all the plumbing of exposing and invoking AJAX services.

It doesn't tell you how to implement the back-end application though so it is not an application framework in that sense.

(I don't mean to pimp, but I have previously mentioned <http://www.teampostgresql.com> which we develop using GWT)

<comment><USER4> You're contradicting yourself then. If it doesn't implement the backend then it isn't both.

<comment><USER3> It implements the unmarshalling of incoming AJAX requests on the backend. The application developer takes over from there.

There is GWT code running on both the server and the client. That was what I meant in my comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like it, but it's still java-only.

That makes it a private static final No go, for me.

<comment><USER6> What do you mean by java-only? This toolkit is, at its most fundamental level, a Java-to-Javascript compiler. Are you hoping that they write a Python-to- Javascript compiler and still call it GWT?

<comment><USER7> no, they call it pyjamas:

<http://pyjs.org/> <http://code.google.com/p/pyjamas/>

<comment><USER8> Pyjamas is a port of GWT to python by a different team, by the way (you probably already know, just making it clear)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How does this make things easier? I find FF + FireBug to be a pretty good dev environment for the front end. The problem is integrated debugging with the back end of things, whether that is PHP, Python or whatever.

<comment><USER9> It sounds like you might be confused about what GWT is. It's not a replacement or alternative to FireBug. They do completely different things.

GWT is basically a set of widgets and controls. It allows you to write Java code that generates a slick HTML/Javascript/AJAX frontend without having to worry much about things like requests and HTTP. It's a web development environment that feels more like a desktop environment.

In any case, it also solves the debugging problem because the whole thing is now in Java. Just use your Java debugger.

<comment><USER4> That's exactly what I'm asking.

Is the backend also in Java then? So that debugging front and backend is all integrated? My impression from what I've read is that it is strictly front end Java to Javascript conversion, not both sides.

(in my original comment I could have been a bit clearer I suppose -- I currently find the pain in web app development to be debugging the interaction between the UI and the backend. I see how GWT can make UI development easier, but not the full stack)

<comment><USER10> Yes. Google released an Eclipse plugin which helps you write setup the toolkit and start developing applications in no time. GWT also comes with an in build server which lets you test run your Client side code with complete debugging facilities of Eclipse/Java. I agree that Firebug is a good tool, but I just can't replace Eclipse with FF/Firebug.

The complete backend can be coded in Java. This of course you can debug even after you have compiled the entire front end of pure JS.

GWT also provides some useful data modeling techniques to exchange data between the server and client (basically an abstraction over AJAX).

I used to dislike the earlier versions of GWT because of its dependency on Java 1.2 and not being able to support the higher versions, but the current versions seamlessly compile Java 1.6 code and its awesome.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Efforts to change the Japanese culture of extreme work weeks - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200114-how-the-japanese-are-putting-an-end-to-death-from-overwork <comment><USER2> I think one of the easiest wins here would be what some US startups with unlimited leave were practicing: a required minimum of days off.

Usually there were two check ins and if you didn't burn a minimum of leave by then, your manager would take your work laptop and send you home on paid leave until you met it.

Once leave becomes mandatory.. you can't judge people for taking it. Obviously the goal is for them to want to use the leave (and plan what they want to do with it) instead of forcing them to take it, but it's a leveling action.

<comment><USER3> > I think one of the easiest wins here would be what some US startups with > unlimited leave were practicing: a required minimum of days off.

Any examples of companies that are doing this? I haven't heard of many, at least in the SF Bay Area.

<comment><USER4> This reminds me of being an employee in Stockholm. You get scolded if you haven't booked thirty days of vacation into the calendar. Someone comes to your desk and makes you pick the dates.

You come back with a lot of energy too :-)

<comment><USER5> Happened to me last week. Had to pick 23 days between now and 13th of April.

I picked at random, the `manager` and I both know I'll be working at home anyway.

<comment><USER6> I honestly do not understand this mentality. You're given 23 paid days off, why would you donate that time back to your employer?

<comment><USER7> So that the employer will see him more favorably than the other employees at the same level when making decisions in which all other things are equal.

From the candor of GP's comment, I would venture to guess that both he and the manager are type-A personalities who want to be at work all the time. My dad was and is like that. He progressed much further in his career than he would have otherwise and our family was none-the-worse for it. Not everyone is like that, but I don't see it as incomprehensible (or even a problem).

Although I'm not the same as my dad, I've long felt an individualist stubbornness that leads me to a similar conclusions. When I was a kid, we had a birthday party at a bowling alley and the attendants put the bumpers[1] up in our alley and wouldn't take them down. I was so incensed that I instead made a game of trying to whack the bowling ball hard enough against the bumpers to bounce over them. I was elated when I got one all the way into the next alley.

My gut reacts to the idea of "mandatory days off" in an intuitively similar way, even though I probably wouldn't be incensed about it the way I was about the bumpers in the bowling alley as a child. I'm probably on the extreme end of a cultural and value difference between Americans and Europeans.

[1]: [https://cdn.mykidlist.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/04/0211010...](https://cdn.mykidlist.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/04/02110106/kid-friendly-bowling-alleys.png)

<comment><USER5> > So that the employer will see him more favorably than the other employees at > the same level when making decisions in which all other things are equal.

There's a bit of that. The main reason though is that I am way out of touch and unable to separate work/whatever life for a bunch of different reasons. Let's say I am a mess right now and not caring much about losing vacation.

> From the candor of GP's comment, I would venture to guess that both he and > the manager are type-A personalities who want to be at work all the time. My > dad was and is like that. He progressed much further in his career than he > would have otherwise and our family was none-the-worse for it. Not everyone > is like that, but I don't see it as incomprehensible (or even a problem).

Not really, maybe. I am a teamplayer and a people pleaser but I have some type A tendencies (types only tell a part of the story anyway). I have nothing to show for that though (not a top leet coder, not a top lead manager, etc. I am good, reliable but I am not shining).

I think if I was more "type A" I would not let such things happen.

> [1]: [https://cdn.mykidlist.com/wp- > content/uploads/2017/04/0211010...](https://cdn.mykidlist.com/wp- > content/uploads/2017/04/0211010..).

How did you do that :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This law change is a first step but I don't see why you can't pass a law which forces companies to make a worker take the full minimum annual leave.

When I worked in Germany the company I worked at did that. You had until the end of the first quarter of the next year to use all of your vacation days. If you still had vacation left after this date, they forced you to take them until the end of the second quarter - this was frowned upon and managers made sure it wouldn't happen.

I'm not sure if this is a law or just something the company did but the problem here isn't peer pressure. It seems to be part of the business model of Japanese companies because implementing and enforcing such a policy is easy.

<comment><USER9> As strange as it may sound, passing that law might be really difficult. The article mentions "In September, Shinjiro Koizumi, Japan's environment minister, faced widespread opposition and even calls to resign over his plans to take paternity leave after his wife gives birth."

Things are changing in Japan, but progress appears to be moving at a glacial pace.

<comment><USER10> Ironically enough, Japan has one of the most generous paternity leaves in the entire world. It's just that no one* uses it.

[https://qz.com/1084591/despite-japans-generous-paternity- lea...](https://qz.com/1084591/despite-japans-generous-paternity-leave- only-2-3-of-men-take-it-because-they-think-their-peers-would-disapprove/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> One additional challenge that will need to be addressed in Japan is unreported overtime (サービス残業). Often my friends, upon preparing for a day off, will work about 8 hours of overtime beforehand and not report it on the time and attendance systems at their companies. From my understanding, unreported overtime is not always reflected in most statistics; even when self reporting I bet many people forget all the unreported overtime they do. Another example is rounding down: work 2.5 hours of overtime but only report 2.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but one idea is to lock out work laptops after a time limit, or at least record overtime when a work laptop is being used.

Until we can begin to accurately track and measure the unreported overtime, we won't be able to improve it.

Finally, I think working in multicultural teams helps. When you see your peers have diverse beliefs and actions about work and life, you may be more willing to take more time off, and more accurately report the overtime you do take.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm always curious to what extent work hours correlate with productivity. I think it was patio11 who shared his story of a salaryman co-worker fixing his bike in his cubicle on a Saturday he was "working" in the office.

And while I haven't seen first-hand the Japanese style overwork, I have seen Silicon Valley startup "overwork" up close and have similar concerns. My pet theory is that in early-stage startups it's so unclear what is actually valuable and productive work that the overwork becomes a proxy for productivity.

<comment><USER13> The issue is that most startups are in survival mode and hence has a natural pressure from that. The trick is to manage expectation at IC level. Knowing that there is this natural pressure commit to only what you can deliver in 15hrs/week. Then work "hard" and overdeliver equivalent of 30hrs/week. Spend 10hrs on above the weed activity (evaluate, measure, communicate, course correct etc.). Be religious about this template.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Both Japan and US/Vacation should have more yearly vacation at least 4-5 weeks. I think it would be very beneficial to general mental health. Also to have less exposure to advertisement which recently has also shown to have a negative effect on health - [https://hbr.org/2020/01/advertising-makes-us- unhappy](https://hbr.org/2020/01/advertising-makes-us-unhappy).

It used to be in Japan that you would not leave the office before your manager left whatever time that was.

<comment><USER15> > It used to be in Japan that you would not leave the office before your > manager left whatever time that was.

"used to be"? has this changed? I thought this was still the case in the older salary-men type companies.

<comment><USER16> My sister-in-law works in a tiny company doing graphic design. It's the same thing. Can't leave until the boss does.

She recently came to visit us in my home country for Christmas whereupon I learned that she has a 2 hour commute each way on purpose because of this. I asked her isn't commuting 4 hours a day just awful, why don't you live closer to work? And she replied that if she lived closer to work she would simply be at work longer and having a long commute means 4 hours a day she can spend not doing work stuff but doing things like listening to music and playing games on her phone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "When asked about colleagues' reactions to taking time off, he adds: They would react negatively. They will not say anything directly to that person but they will speak ill of that person behind their back"

This nails it. That pang of guilt and horror knowing you'll be reacted to in such a seemingly viscous way just stops you dead in your tracks.

I think the silly thing is it's always framed as "maintaining the group harmony" but it's more like maintaining the group misery.

Why do the co-workers react the way they do? It's such a bitter way to react. "I can't take time off because you'd be mad at me for doing so, because it would put you out, yet you're ok with taking time off and putting me out? What kind of bullshit is that? I'm definitely very mad at you!".

So the idea is that you don't want to do anything that would make anyone mad at you because "that's not what Japanese do".

It's just so circular.

<comment><USER17> I think it's much simpler than that. They are rewarded to stay late by you keeping a job. The guy who leaves early will be the first to get let go. That is the real problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I keep hearing that Japanese workers work very long hours, but every time I've been in Tokyo the rush hour on the trains is about when I'd expect it to be -- between about 5 and 7 pm. I don't see how that would be the case if everyone was still at work.

<comment><USER11> There's another rush hour between 9 and 11 pm.

Another way to confirm this is to compare with the morning rush hour. Way more crowded as most people start work at around the same time (most companies have a starting time of 9 or 10 am).

<comment><USER19> I can confirm. I used to live in Kawasaki in 2010 and I regularly visit Japan from California for vacation and business. The morning rush hour is relatively short (roughly 7am to past 9am) but intensely congested due to the fact that most companies start work around the same time, and lateness is verboten. However, the evening commute is not as sharply congested, although it can still be standing room-only on the trains. The evening commute begins as early as 5pm but could last until the last train, typically around midnight. This is not only due to people working overtime, but also due to coworkers and colleagues going out at night for drinking and other activities. This was a regular occurrence for my colleagues and me back when I was interning at a Japanese company a decade ago in Kawasaki.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > "While Western society is individualistic and non-hierarchical, Japanese > society is collectivist and hierarchical," explains Hiroshi Ono, professor > of human resources management at Hitotsubashi University, who specialises in > Japan's work culture.

i am not a researcher, but i dont think that's the root cause, since

1\. there are many types of "western culture" and 2\. if it were a sign of collectivist vs individualistic the the u.s should be fairly low on the list but appears above japan! [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#OECD_ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#OECD_ranking)

——-

just my opinion from working in jp for more than 10 years, but the only thing that will truly fix the overwork problem will be to officially change the workweek to 4 days... they tried something like this with "premium friday" [2] which went absolutely nowhere...

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

</comment><comment><USER21> I feel very fortunate and grateful that I was able to send this Slack message to my team on December 19:

" @here I want to thank everyone for a great year. We've accomplished a ton, and I think we need to stop and recognize it. My ask for everyone is to take the week off next week. We have a few things we need to be on-call for, and heaven knows we could use the time to write more tests, but I think it is important to pause, rest, and reflect."

Im so glad that this is totally cool in our company and our culture. I wish this was the rule and not the exception.

<comment><USER22> Your team might have appreciated more notice! Then maybe their SOs could have coordinated spending time with them, childcare, etc.

<comment><USER21> That's a fair point. The reality is that they all could have taken the time off individually anyway, this was just a small gesture to show my thanks for a great year!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> USA gets bashed a lot on employment front, but only because we are way more transparent about our problems than Japan. Yes, the extreme work culture causing karōshi is a big issue. However, Japan also has _serious_ workplace discrimination issues that never get talked about.

For example, how many here have ever heard of Burakumin[1]? It's a taboo subject to talk about in Japan, so it is rare you'll hear of it through mainstream news.

Basically, in many places in southern Japan, when you apply for a job, employers will look up your surname to see if your ancestors were burakumin (held "impure" occupations in the feudal era like butcher, tanner, etc). If so, they won't hire you.

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

<comment><USER24> Can you not change your surname?

<comment><USER25> It's actually exceedingly difficult. The family registry, koseki, is steeped in a thousand years of tradition. You can't simply walk into the nearest city ward office and fill out a form.

There are also restrictions on the kinds of names you are allowed to choose, if for example you are naturalizing. The list of allowed names clearly distinguishes you and your family from "true" Japanese.

<comment><USER26> That seems a bit crazy? When I married I also had the option of taking my wife's (Japanese) name, so that would make me indistinguishable from a native.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> There's a lot of sitting around and doing nothing in East Asian office work culture. It's similar to investment banking where you are not necessarily using your brain/energy but you are still at the office for insane hours churning out 100 different versions of the handouts.

</comment><comment><USER28> > "While Western society is individualistic and non-hierarchical, Japanese > society is collectivist and hierarchical," explains Hiroshi Ono, professor > of human resources management at Hitotsubashi University, who specialises in > Japan's work culture. "Thus, many people refrain from taking holiday because > their bosses do not take holiday, or they are afraid that it will disrupt > the group harmony."

Just FYI, this is complete pablum. While it's true that Japanese society has a collectivist bent, that this by default maps to some authoritarian business culture, elides the political and ideological project of the right wing in Japan.

Prior to the war and up into the 1970s, Japan was a hotbed of radical politics and labor activism that roiled the country. Unions dominated many industries, socialists and communists won major parliamentary victories, and Japanese thinkers and activists were on the vanguard of many left wing movements.

This state of affairs was, however, completely unacceptable to the US. And so they proceeded to massively subsidize right wing politicians, work with organized crime to intimidate and disrupt unionized workers, and gather intelligence against opposition to the LDP's rule.

[https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent- millions-...](https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-to- support-japanese-right-in-50-s-and-60-s.html)

So if you want to understand why the country has devolved into this kind of crushing exploitation and culture of suffering, you really need to begin with the fact that the US rehabilitated a bunch of fascists, helped orchestrate their rule over the postwar order, and crushed all meaningful challenge to this state of affairs. There's nothing inherent to the Japanese people that makes any of this necessary.

<comment><USER29> Similar thing happened in Italy after WW2. There's a small wiki entry for it [1] but for those curious I guess a quick google search will reveal lots of related articles.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Italy#Cold_W...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Italy#Cold_War)

<comment><USER28> Yes, it was actually Europe-wide. Secret weapon caches were spread across Europe so that right-wing paramilitaries could stage coups if leftists ever took power:

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I wonder if there is opportunity to set up a startup in Japan where you actually treat your staff like real human beings and set the precedence of an inclusive and sustainable culture from day 1

<comment><USER26> You would face an uphill battle against culture, and people might honestly be uncomfortable working for you.

Maybe younger people?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Can someone explain something to me? I hear a lot about Japan's extreme work culture; I've even heard of a workplace where your contributions were scored -- but only negative (penalty) scores existed.

How can this come out of the same country as the Toyota production system, the popularization of quality control, and the intense study of Deming?

</comment><comment><USER32> I feel like I've seen articles like this for decades.

<comment><USER33> ...though what I hear is that they are really serious about it in Japan, and Korea, too. And slowly the worked hours are decreasing. For sure it is slowed down by the Keiretsus and the Jaebols almost having power of government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> How would people react in the US if the Secretary of Energy took paternity leave?

<comment><USER35> Great! Less damage those oil lobbyists can do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Disclosure: work in japan

What I have realized talking to the native people here is that working late is due to :

1\. Impress peers and managers 2\. Impress wife and her friends that you are important to the company 3\. (For people with young kids) Not be a nuisance to the sleeping schedule of kids by coming early 4\. Nothing much to do after going home because of lack of intimacy with spouse/partner 5\. Actual work requirements 6\. To earn overtime pay since basic pay is too low to cover all the expenses.

People have different reasons at different points in time.

</comment><comment><USER37> After all, wouldn't it help a country's overall economy if more if its citizens took holidays and vacations locally more often?

Japan has an amazing diversity of environments, biomes and subcultures. It's a shame if their own people are usually too busy to enjoy much of that.

</comment><comment><USER26> Note: Working in Japan

The entire company got a mail from HR last week asking people to please take at least 5 days off every year.

My team is international, so we all had a good laugh, but it was a bit disturbing to think enough of my colleagues take so little time off that it prompts this email...

</comment><comment><USER38> Two days off for the whole year?!

Let's remove the Japanese cultural aspect for the sake of argument. Its relevant but lets keep it general.

You'd be amazed how much you can glean from even something as apparently simple as staff leave entitlements.

Based on my experience in a previous type of role interacting with "less than stellar" businesses, here's how I'd review that guys manager and company performance:

That guy's manager is either incompetent or in a high stress environment themselves from on-high. They don't know how to manage people. Likely running all staff at overload. They are therefore underperforming with fatigue an issue. Likely error rate is excessive, or worse, minor mistakes are being covered up and are already on slow burn to becoming larger ones. Fear is a factor in all decisions involving responsibility. CYA is overused.

Leadership is probably running the business poorly across multiple measures. Untested or non-existent disaster contingency plans. Every person is either a critical link or near one. Too much in each persons head because they are too scared to share information. Proliferation of business silos. Entire groups are isolated from each other. Pointless duplication of work or systems. Managers increase headcount for power but then purge when expenses get flagged.

Embezzlement or some other fraud is likely because no one is second guessing the day-in-day-out work. The corrupt group are left to run continuously and uninterrupted because no one honest takes the reins at regular intervals. No rotation of staff at any particular point needed because no one really goes on leave. Financial mismanagement at minimum is likely even if fraud is not present.

Poor social inclusion/cohesion. Staff are isolated from their communities and those links are shaky or broken. This is not good for anyone and the damage will flow back in other ways. Low cohesive people later turn into messes of their own and in turn result in increasing turnover overall or worse they stay and lower performance of themselves or others. Bullying/mobbing are likely present.

Since corporations are legal individuals, this one is a workaholic jerk that doesn't play well with others and at extreme is headed for prison / bankruptcy / or both. Even if the corporation succeeds its still a failure since it had to sacrifice so much to get there it barely got there at all. Dying at the summit is not success when the real success is returning to what matters. Plenty of companies are run this close to failure. Next financial hiccup will cause this company to trip or fall over.

And that's how much you can link from staff leave entitlements. Its a lazy way of identifying red flags for sure. Some of these are only related because a company with bad leave arrangements is of a certain design or style. But the financial aspects have served me well as a rule of thumb. Culture matters. Be very suspicious of short leave entitlements and actual usage as they hide a multitude of sins and dysfunctions.</comment>


Don't ask for introductions to investors - <AUTHOR> http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2011/09/dont-ask-for-introductions-to-investors/

<comment><USER2> The post reads as if investors are these unicorn creatures who hold the balance of power - they must be pitched with optimum precision otherwise you'll go no where.

The reality is investors need deal flow and want to learn about new companies, especially associates and non-partners.

 _"if the nicest thing they can say about your company is that it "sounds interesting", the intro isn't going to go anywhere."_

Depends on who's writing "sounds interesting", frankly. If it is a successful founder of a portfolio company or entrepreneur who exited with a nice return for the fund, that might be a great seal of approval.

Which leads me to the main reason I still agree with the premise of not asking for introductions - and that is a VC/investor's contact network acts as a gatekeeper for good deals. And so if I'm in that privileged position, I don't want to use up my social capital helping friends with bum-deal companies get introductions. So please don't ask me to.

Sadly, that wasn't really mentioned in the article.

<comment><AUTHOR> Re: investors needing deal flow, I think you'll agree that investors need _quality_ deal flow. The goal of the article is to up your company from being just deal flow in to being a part of quality deal flow.

I think your last point is that if your company is crap you shouldn't expect an introduction. I agree with that, of course, but "What do do when your company is crap" seemed a little outside the scope of this particular post!

<comment><USER3> You need to be something your friend will find worth mentioning. You can get people to drop your name but if you want them to do so positively it needs to be something they can get behind. Your pitch needs to sounds good, from them, or it won't be worth much.

Also, your company needs to be something the investors will believe your friend has an ability to judge or they'll discount the recommendation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _"Furthermore, investor styles differ. Some give you tons of room to > maneuver; some like to work closely with you. Some offer tons of help and > advice; others are just about the cash. Some will want regular updates; > others don't like to be bothered ... figure out what kind of investors you > want, and what kind of investors will want you._ "

Obviously that sounds like a great thing to consider but how exactly does a new entrepreneur figure that out? It might be possible if you're after the Fred Wilson's and Mark Suster's of the VC world (just read their stuff) but it wouldn't be as easy for many others. How would you suggest someone begins?

<comment><USER5> Clearly not every investor is as explicit, prolific (nor as insightful!) as Wilson or Suster, but many, even the most modest-sized and earliest-stage investors, have posted something specific about what attributes in teams they look for and what broad or micro themes they focus on; many have a "Portfolio" page which can yield lots of useful information on the companies they've already chosen to support, and why. Finally, believe it or not, CrunchBase is a solid way to connect the dots - if you think XYZ or ABC investors would be a great strategic fit based on their portfolio co's, go and see who _else has invested in them, since they're likely to care about a lot of the same dynamics.

A tiny bit of homework goes a long way in getting an investor to return your email, and in getting someone to feel confident in making that initial intro..

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Specificity with referrals is definitely the way to go.

I'd make one minor change to Step 4 - instead of "And are there any other investors you can think of that I should be talking to?" (which is a closed question, easily answered "No" without a lot of thought)

try asking "Which other investors can you think of that I should be talking to?" They can still reply "No, your list is great", but the open question prompts their mind to find an answer, which is more likely to lead you to another investor who could match but you didn't know about before.</comment>


Show HN: We made a meeting companion app on macOS to improve remote meetings - <AUTHOR> https://apps.apple.com/us/app/meetingninja/id1527536623?mt=12 <comment><AUTHOR> Would love to get feedback from HN users.

The goal is simple. Help highlight important stuff on the screen during presentations and remote sessions. Drawing on the screen and zooming any text should be easy-peasy.

Quick video link: [https://www.dropbox.com/h?preview=MeetingNinja- Intro.mp4](https://www.dropbox.com/h?preview=MeetingNinja-Intro.mp4)

AppStore Link: [https://apps.apple.com/in/app/meetingninja/id1527536623?mt=1...](https://apps.apple.com/in/app/meetingninja/id1527536623?mt=12)

<comment><USER2> The dropbox link requires a login... can you share publicly? (maybe on youtube or vimeo?)

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ttgrk8yzwcouxpr/MeetingNinja- Intro...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/ttgrk8yzwcouxpr/MeetingNinja- Intro.mp4?dl=0)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> The dream, for me, would be a companion iPad app that mirrors my screen but lets me draw on it. Sidecar solves the screen mirroring part -- supposedly Mac apps can also make themselves apple-pencil aware, so maybe such a thing is doable?

<comment><USER3> Yes! Sidecar should have the option to show the iPad screen for presentations in OSX. Drawing apps on iOS are much better suited to live-doodling with a pen than OSX ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Slightly tangential but in the spirit of improving meetings: I started using Meeter[0] to notify me of all my upcoming meetings. Between Teams , Zoom and a dozen other apps that have become common now, Meeter provides me a simple icon on the Mac menu bar and I can join a meeting with 1-click instead of struggling to open Calendar/Outlook etc. Worth a shot!

[0][https://trymeeter.com/](https://trymeeter.com/)

<comment> ISO-morphism A similar program MeetingBar [1] made the rounds on HN about a month ago [2] (and is open source).

[1] [https://github.com/leits/MeetingBar](https://github.com/leits/MeetingBar)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23991111](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23991111)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks good. Might be worth mentioning in /r/Mac too on Reddit.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a sweet tool. Which Swift API calls does it use ?

[shameless plugin] I'm developing an app in a similar space (www.get- spoke.com) to be able to share video-conference summaries in seconds.

</comment><comment><USER7> Any recommendations for similar app on Windows?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, but windows users don't pay in general :)

<comment><USER8> This is not a helpful comment, and the person you're replying to didn't mention anything about pricing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Congratulations. Does it work off-line for use say in making a video presentation?

<comment><USER10> Yes, it works offline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The description makes it sound like it only works on one monitor?

<comment><USER12> I think the assumption is that you are sharing your screen with others in the meeting, and then use this tool to add highlights or zoom in, which others then can see too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't mean to distract from the OP's submission, but I came across "Presentify" (Show HN — [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22938604](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22938604)) and absolutely LOVE it!

Outside of my regular consulting gigs, I am also a public speaker, and thanks to Covid, every conference in the US has gone virtual for 2020. So I spend a lot of time teaching online — and Presentify is absolutely a godsend. I routinely get asked by audiences on what tool I am using.

Also, super responsive creator. You should check it out.

Update — I am in NO way affiliated with the creator of Presentify — Just a happy customer

<comment><USER14> Your comment distracts from OP's submission, and your disclaimer indicates that you _knew_ it would before you posted it. Not cool.</comment></comment>


Captcha Advertising - <AUTHOR> http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2010-05-03-n58.html what an awesome idea! <comment><USER2> Explaining a regular captcha is hard enough. I can see my-self explaining this:

Me: You see... you need to enter the quoted text in the small box below.

User: The text? Oh ok... (enters: Dish Networks)

Me: Oh no, I'm sorry I meant the "quoted" text, below all the fancy graphics and logo. The one with the quotes. You have to enter it without the quotes.

User: Oh ok... So, I just enter the text without the quotes? I thought I did that already.

Me: No, no. Just enter the letters within the quotes. i.e: "Hello" you need to enter Hello.

User: Oh I see...

User: Ok, so I enter the quoted text, without the quotes in the box below? (user clicks on the black box where it says: ENTER THE QUOTED TEXT

Is not working. I does not let me enter the text. What's wrong?

Me: Actually is in the empty box below, where it says "Your Answer"

User: My answer? My answer to what? Nobody has asked any questions? Do they want me to says yes or no to the discount?

Me: ... wait one second... (calls developers: take the captcha out of the form. Pronto)

</comment><comment><USER3> The problem is that for captcha to work properly, there has to be an enormous number of possible captcha words and phrases.

If people use advertising slogans for captcha text, then the advertising execs will only be able to come up with a very limited number of slogans (they are, after all, only human and from my experience they are not the type of humans that work too hard). And if there is a limited number of captcha texts, the hackers will easily program bots to recognise them.

<comment><USER4> q. please enter the capital letters from the phrase!

"PEpsi is Best drInk in tHe worLD"

a. PEBIHLD

<comment><USER5> The Corporate Branding team will say that capitalizing PE in Pepsi is a violation of brand guidelines. Welcome to the Fortune 500.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A German startup is doing this, too: <http://www.captchaad.com/>

IIRC Microsoft even tried to patent this. The article's claim that only one company is working "as the middleman between advertisers and webmasters in order to display CAPTCHA ads" seems slightly exaggerated ;)

<comment><USER7> There's also a Romanian startup doing this <http://www.adcaptcher.com/> and I'm sure there are a couple more.

The referenced article claims the startup in question is singular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This has been pitched as an idea in the past; I don't think it really took off then either.

One of the problems is that users have become accustomed to skipping over ads - they either miss the captcha entirely first go (not great) or get put off by having to engage in the ad (also not great).

<comment><USER9> So true, I actually had to search a little moment for the quoted text even though it isn't placed in a strange place. The brain apparently concludes that ads=noise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The main flaw in this plan is the context in which Captcha's are generally used -- sign-up forms, comment forms etc.

They're part of a deliberate user action, not part of a general browsing behaviour.

People mid-stream in a sign-up form are very unlikely to follow an ad -- or if they do so, it might be at the cost of the primary activity.

I think it's for reasons similar to this that Facebook ads perform so poorly (apparently).

<comment><USER11> The point isn't to make the user follow the ad -- the point is to force the user to parse the ad as a step towards something the user wants. The theory is that this gets a message into the user's brain in a way that traditional advertisements do not.

While it looks like a captcha and appears in similar contexts, calling it a captcha is misleading: It fulfills its primary function even if it lets all the bots through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I agree that asking people to enter a phrase from the advertisement is not going to be a very secure CAPTCHA test because the advertiser is never going to be able to come up with enough different phrases to make a captcha that will be secure against brute force attacks. Also, if they want their dish network ad displayed often (to get more impressions) then again it's basically a static image that is not changing often enough to keep out bots.

An alternative could be this: [http://www.confidenttechnologies.com/products/confident_CAPT...](http://www.confidenttechnologies.com/products/confident_CAPTCHA.php)

The user is presented with a grid of images. The pictures themselves and their location on the grid change with each session. A website could insert just a few of their own images within the grid, as a way of reinforcing brand recognition without being blatant advertising that forces the user to enter a slogan. For example, if it's a sporting goods website, they could include some images of the items they sell among the stock photos. Because it's a grid of images that changes every time, there would be a huge amount of combinations possible, making it a stronger captcha against brute force attacks from bots.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm starting to get a disconcerting feeling because of these ubiquitous ads in everything and everywhere. No wonder we become desensitized - it's the only way our brain can cope with the information overload.

A short film (Logorama, Oscar winner in 2009) that explains it much better than I ever could: <http://vimeo.com/10149605>

</comment><comment><USER14> Successful advertising actually makes you _feel_ something. This is just another example of an uninspired ad stuffed in someone's face.

</comment><comment><USER15> The companies that have the biggest budgets to test placements like this -- at high CPMs -- are brand advertisers (Gap, Coke, GM etc). Where this product fails for me is that I don't see a brand advertiser paying money to deliberately associate their brand with one of the most irritating friction points on the web.

Tho some do advertise at toll booths: <http://www.e-470.com/images/plazawrap.jpg> So maybe there's a fool willing to slap an ad anywhere it will stick.

</comment><comment><USER16> I imagine the sign-up rate for those sites will decrease for lets say 80% because every AdBlock user will not be able to see the Captcha. But I don't really know how this would work...

</comment><comment><USER17> Forcing people to write the ad contents is a pretty big step from passively displaying ads - by having to write it out you are forced to think about it on some level, rather than being able to ignore it if you choose. Its going to have some subconscious impact at the least - which I makes the whole idea ethically questionable to me. Mild brainwashing is brainwashing all the same...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> @hristov I'm sure if you get creative you can come up with ways to have "an enormous number" of captcha's. If you take the Dish Network example you could say "what is quoted text" + this "number". That just one example that comes to mind. @paraschopra I think you have a good point my mind set is annoyed when I have to fill out a captcha.

</comment><comment><USER18> The original article: [http://www.techi.com/2010/04/captcha-advertising- coming-soon...](http://www.techi.com/2010/04/captcha-advertising-coming-soon- to-a-website-near-you/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Reminds me of when companies use the skill testing question required by law for prize-winning promotions to self-promote. I'm not sure this would be as effective for non-household-names though.

</comment><comment> Colin-DeVries I would feel reluctant to use 3th party services like e.g. recaptcha or the example mentioned on a business website because I have a feeling it might come across as unprofessional.

</comment><comment><USER20> I don't think this is ever going to work. While solving captchas, people are in different mental mode than while looking at ads.

<comment><USER6> A different mode while looking at ads? What is "ad mode" then? Doing the dishes while ads are on TV?

Ads work on a subconscious level :)

<comment><USER20> I don't think you an ad playing on TV makes any sense if you are playing sudoku at the same time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a great idea, advertising/monetization meeting spam prevention.

</comment><comment><USER22> Some links I've gathered on the subject: <http://www.blackhat- seo.com/2010/captcha-advertising/>

I found 4 companies that are currently providing some kind of captcha advertising. It's an old idea that is being rediscovered from time to time.

I don't think you need an enormous amount of words/slogans/phrases. You can use different non-linear transformations on your content, different fonts, different layouts and so on. You can also fall back on a regular captcha, either for effectiveness or to not annoy users too much.</comment>


Connecticut Killed Affiliate Marketing with Amazon.com - <AUTHOR> http://russell.ballestrini.net/connecticut-killed-affliate-marketing-with-amazon-com/ <comment><USER2> I'm still kind of mystified as to how these laws keep getting passed. I think there is clearly room for debate about whether or not Amazon customers should pay sales tax in their home jurisdictions. But, there is no reasonable debate about these laws. They have perfectly predictable results: law is passed, Amazon nukes affiliates, state loses income tax from affiliates, gains nothing as a result. I find it incredible that state lawmakers either think that it will be different in their state or that it's worth destroying the incomes of their taxpayers to just make a symbolic gesture. Does anyone have a reasonable justification for the lawmakers' actions or is it really just a mix of idiocy, vindictiveness, and appeasement of local donors?

<comment><USER3> I'll play devil's advocate.

First, governments consistently think of the economy as a static model. So you add up how many online sales you have, add in a percentage tax, and expect to make that money.

Second, Amazon pulling out or not is simply a short-term obstacle. The long term strategy is to put a stake in the ground, then continue to lobby and work at the national level. This sets precedent, even if it doesn't work.

Third, there's a lot of ignorance. You don't have to pass an economics test to become a legislator. I think sometimes in any group that deals with another group there's an "us versus them" mentality that takes over. In some folks' mind, if you're making money, they should get a share of it to spread around. Trying to adapt and configure your business model to optimize -- or simply just to survive -- is a sign of selfish, unethical behavior. Both sides of tax debates engage in a lot of emotional over the top rhetoric. It's easy to lose track of priorities and principles.

<comment><USER4> Thanks, that's the argument exactly, specifically the second part.

Regarding the static model, it's not so much that it's a static model as that for the overwhelming majority of online purchases, it's displacing a local purchase. It's actually a more capitalist economy from a certain point of view to make online and local purchasing compete on the same ground, especially when the market distortion (which yes stems from sales taxes' existence in the first place, coupled with the commerce clause) discriminates against your voters.

<comment><USER5> Online and local purchasing do compete on the same ground. A local store uses CT state services and pays taxes to support them. An online store does not use CT state services and does not pay taxes to support them.

Similarly, many companies use Microsoft software and pay license fees. My company does not.

Would it be "more capitalist" if we were forced to pay a Microsoft tax, to eliminate the "market distortion" of using lower cost software?

<comment><USER6> yummyfajitas, I think by "more capitalist" jbooth means "more competitive". You are obviously right that forcing companies to use higher-cost inputs is inefficient, but taxes are not an input -- they're a necessary burden meant to be shared.

To take an extreme example, using a tax shelter could lower the cost of a company's services while decreasing the efficiency of the economy.

<comment><USER5> Of course taxes pay for inputs - the inputs are public goods. Taxes are compulsory only to prevent freeloading - you might enjoy the benefits of the CT state police without paying for them.

Amazon doesn't enjoy the benefit of the CT state police. Hence, it is not efficient to force them to pay for it.

A tax shelter is only inefficient if it allows a company to consume services while forcing others to pay for them. If a company does not consume those services, it is inefficient to force the company to pay for them.

<comment><USER6> yummyfajitas, can you give a real-world example of a tax haven which is Pareto equivalent or superior to the company paying its taxes?

Also, who says Amazon pays the tax? Insert elasticity argument.

<comment><USER5> In the real world nothing is Pareto equivalent or superior to anything else, except maybe for gifts given to hermits. Pareto efficiency is a purely theoretical construct.

<comment><USER6> You're dodging the essence of the question. Give us one real world example of a case where tax evasion has been A Good Thing.

yummyfajitas, it frankly sounds like you're econtrolling. I looked at your profile and you seem like a smart, educated person, so I'll respond in good faith so you can see how weak your arguments sound.

> _Taxes are compulsory only to prevent freeloading_

Says who? This sounds like a stylised model from Econ 101.

> _A tax shelter is only inefficient if it allows a company to consume > services while forcing others to pay for them._

Prove it.

> _Amazon doesn't enjoy the benefit of the CT state police._

I don't use the Merritt Parkway but that doesn't mean I don't owe tax on it.

> _Pareto efficiency is a purely theoretical construct._

This from someone who just boiled the entire political economy of Connecticut down to a prisoner's dilemma?

> _If a company does not consume those services, it is inefficient to force > the company to pay for them._

What is your reasoning?

Perhaps you are sharing these thoughts before giving them a sound-check? I don't mean to be rude but what you're saying doesn't make sense coming from someone of your educational background.

<comment><USER5> First of all, you are conflating tax _avoidance_ (taking actions to avoid tax liability) with tax _evasion_ (lying to the tax authorities about your liabilities).

In the real world, one efficient "tax shelter" is Amazon locating itself outside of CT. If Amazon were to pay taxes to CT, then CT would produce the public services necessary to support Amazon. Since Amazon is not located in CT, this would be wasteful. Thus, Amazon locating themselves outside of CT and avoiding CT taxes is A Good Thing.

[edit: you appear to have edited your post extensively after I responded to it. It's generally polite to indicate when you do this.]

<comment><USER6> > _you are conflating tax avoidance with tax evasion_

Fair enough. I meant to use tax evasion as an extreme example to prove the inner case, but I can see how it would look like conflation.

> _one efficient "tax shelter" is Amazon locating itself outside of CT_

Petitio principii.

> _Since Amazon is not located in CT, this would be wasteful._

Does not follow. Where is the dead weight loss?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Illinois did something similar with what it called the "Mainstreet Fairness Act" in March [1]. Illinois, as you may know, was rated as the worst state in the country for debt last year [2]. These states would rather chase after more revenues (and chase companies out of their states in the process) rather than have to do the hard work of actually _cutting spending_.

[1] [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-10/business/ct- bi...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-10/business/ct- biz-0311-amazon-tax-bill-20110310_1_amazon-and-overstock-main-street-fairness- act-sales-tax)

[2] [http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/44/debt-10_Global-Debt- Cris...](http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/44/debt-10_Global-Debt- Crisis_Rank_2.html)

<comment><USER8> There are two orthogonal questions to ask:

1\. How much should states tax their citizens?

and:

2\. Given a certain amount of tax to collect, what is/are the best mechanism(s)?

You seem to be talking to point number one. Eliminating sales tax or collecting it from fewer transactions would accomplish that, but so would applying the law exactly as CT applies it but lowering the percentage collected on each transaction. For that reason, I find it confusing to look at a situation like this and slide into arguing about cutting spending. If they should tax people less, fine, but that's orthogonal to the question of how they tax people and the consequences of the tax mechanisms they choose to employ.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It wasn't just Amazon, but also sites owned by Amazon, including Audible. Amazon and Audible were my two sources of revenue for my site thestartupdaily.com

Yesterday both accounts were closed with no advanced notice and my business model is effectively broken. While I support Amazon for taking a stand, I'm angry at Amazon for not giving some sort of warning to affiliates. It also seems like they wasted a good opportunity to get people who are most passionate about the issue to make some noise for them. The could have sent emails to affiliates as the issue was unfolding, and instead of the short and rather unfriendly letter to affiliates saying "your contract has been terminated". They should have used that notice to give people more information and phone numbers and other contact details about who is behind this.

Seems to me like big chain stores buying protectionist legislation and selling it to voters as "protecting small business", while in reality they are protecting yesterday's dinosaurs and screwing forward thinking Internet based businesses.

<comment><USER10> You've had years of notice. Amazon did exactly the same thing with Illinois, Colorado, Hawaii, North Carolina... Amazon has publicly said it would do the same thing in Connecticut for months.

<comment><USER9> Of course I knew it was a possibility, but my point is that "saying publicly" in press releases or court rooms is a lot different from having a conversation with your customers or partners.

Telling people that the affiliate program will be closed to them in 30 days would have been a lot nicer than telling people that their income stops effective immediately.

<comment><USER10> Then they'd have to collect sales tax from Connecticut customers for 30 days. They'd piss off a lot more people than their affiliates, including their customers for suddenly collecting taxes they didn't used to collect, to their shareholders for creating mass customer confusion just to be nice to affiliates.

<comment><USER11> Couldn't they simply tell their affiliates they were considering terminating the program as early as possible? I have to believe they were aware of the situation, and monitoring patiently as it unfolded. For example, I knew it was imminent in Colorado. yet I've never collected a penny in affiliate revenue. It was debated quite a bit before it passed.

Edit: I guess what I'm asking is: am I missing something, or is there some reason why the affiliates couldn't have been alerted to the possibility earlier? Or, does alerting them at all require Amazon to pay sales tax?

<comment><USER10> I can't disagree that sending out an e-mail would've been nice, though it'd also not be good to stir up all the affiliates when it wasn't yet known if the bill would be made law. That aside, anyone who made a significant portion of their income as an affiliate should've been aware of the impending bill for months and have been watching whether it would pass at the same time Amazon was watching it. It's not an Amazon bill, it affects every affiliate in the state for all companies... Overstock is another big company that severed its affiliate relationships with everyone in the state when the bill passed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Some food for thought regarding Amazon and sales tax:

Amazon has plans to build and operate a distribution warehouse near Columbia, South Carolina. State and local leaders rolled out the red carpet for Amazon -- a free building site, property tax cuts, employment tax credits, and the repeal of a county law prohibiting Sunday morning sales. But Amazon also wanted a five year exemption on collecting South Carolina sales tax. After all, they would have a physical presence in the state, and there's absolutely no ambiguity about whether or not they'd have to collect sales tax at that point.

When the state legislature voted "no" on the sales tax exemption, Amazon immediately stopped construction on the warehouse and took down all of the job listings for that location. There was a huge uproar, with supporters of the exemption accusing legislators of siding with "special interests." (Where "special interests" apparently means "every other business with a physical presence in South Carolina that doesn't get a sales tax exemption.")

Amazon won this game of chicken, however. Faced with massive voter backlash, the state legislature flinched and voted 90-14 for a new deal that would exempt Amazon from collecting South Carolina sales tax until January 2016. The bill became law earlier this week.

[http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/CPT-AMAZON- SCAROLINA_5...](http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/CPT-AMAZON- SCAROLINA_5255672/CPT-AMAZON-SCAROLINA_5255672/)

[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/201...](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2015262994_scamazon09.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> A more accurate headline would be: Amazon.com kills affiliate marketing in Connecticut, due to dissatisfaction with new Connecticut law.

<comment><USER14> If a state enacts a law that will make a business lose money without changing polices, it's not the company's fault if they change policies. Amazon's pullout was a completely known outcome of the law well before it was put into place.

<comment><USER13> Sure, companies can do whatever they wish (within the law) in response to any factors they choose to take into account. But I think it's still Amazon making the decision here; from the headline, I had thought that Connecticut banned affiliate programs or something. I'd similarly say that Boeing's move from Seattle to Chicago, partly due to tax policies, was a decision made by Boeing, not by Seattle.

<comment><USER14> By that logic, the state can never be to blamed when making decisions that affect businesses. This wasn't an unintended consequence--every time a similar law has passed Amazon has acted identically on the exact day that it begins.

<comment><USER13> I'm not saying the state can't be blamed, either, just that the headline is misleading. My comment was not a political one, but one about headlines that editorialize at the expense of clarity. If you want to emphasize the state's culpability, that can still be done with somethting like, "Connecticut tax change causes Amazon to pull affiliate program".

I do think Amazon's action was predictable, but it's still Amazon's action. I'm also not quite sure it was _mandated_ by the decision; I suspect Amazon could still turn a profit even by retaining its CT affiliate program, but with the current landscape (% of states that do versus don't have such laws) it was a better business decision to pull out. Amazon is also probably looking at it as a strategic move to put pressure on other states, rather than considering the CT business case in isolation.

<comment><USER15> No, then Amazon would have set the precedent that it is acceptable for Amazon to collect sales tax for every muncipality it does business with.

Why should it be any different than a mail-order catalog?

Coordinating the payout of sales tax for every state and city in the US? Coding and compliance nightmare.

If the Connecticut legislature legalized slavery (in direct conflict with federal law), and businesses were disgusted at the idea and refused to continue to conduct business in Connecticut, would you still argue the same reasoning?

PS

"Connecticut Killed Affiliate Marketing with Amazon.com" seems clear to most of us.

<comment><USER13> What reasoning am I arguing?

I'm making two comments in the comment you're responding to:

1\. The article headline is a bit misleading, and should've said something like: Amazon pulls out of CT due to a tax-law change. Even, Terrible CT Tax- Law Change Drives Amazon Out, or something. As it's written, I thought that CT had banned affiliate programs; in a rush to editorialize, the headline author sacrificed clarity about agency. Of course, maybe everyone reading is already following the saga, so I was the only briefly confused person, but nonetheless it seemed like an easy problem to avoid.

2\. Amazon is probably pulling out in part due to, as you say, a feeling that this would set a negative precedent for their business, not solely due to the CT case taken in isolation.

Your slavery example seems off the mark; Amazon is not taking action due to _moral_ opposition to CT's tax policy, but because it's bad for their business. They happily do business in states with all sorts of unethical laws without complaining about them, as long as those laws don't impact their profits.

<comment><USER15> My 'slavery example' was actually a question I was asking you, not an example.

Not sure why you got confused with the headline or this discussion.

<comment><USER16> You really don't understand _delirium's point, or are you just playing stupid?

<comment><USER15> Please enlighten me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've heard about Amazon pulling this tactic in NY and other states that forced them to start collecting sales tax, but that is one breathtakingly petulant letter. What exactly is the constitutional issue they're alluding to?

(I live in Washington state, where Amazon has always collected sales tax, so personally it seems like a non-issue.)

<comment><USER7> The issue is collecting sales tax for items bought outside of their state. Interstate commerce is a federal jurisdiction. If they collect sales tax in Washington state, it's because they have an office there.

<comment><USER18> In Amazon's case, they have a lot of offices in Washington state, including their headquarters. They have always collected WA sales tax.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Retailers, on-line or otherwise, have to pay sales tax on sales within a state where they have a physical presence. That's the way it is. The problem in this case is that CT wants sales tax on a sale that was referred by an affiliate... Even when the retailer (Amazon) and the customer are both not located in CT. In states that charge sales tax, most (all?) charge "use tax" of the same amount as sales tax, on items shipped to them from an out-of-state retailer that did not charge sales tax. Retailer customers almost never pay it, probably don't know it exists. Sates usually don't go after the tax for consumers, but they do go after businesses for it (at least they do in CA) presumably because the amount of tax is potentially much higher.

In other words, technically, you have to pay sales tax when you buy something, and if you don't then you're supposed to pay the equivalent amount in "use tax". In this case, CT is trying to wedge in there and get tax when neither the buyer or the retailer are in CT.

It's not a business killer for Amazon to charge and pay the taxes for every state. Many on-line retailers do. There is software and subscription services to keep billing systems up to date with current tax tables. But, who pays sales/use tax on what when a guy in CA buys something from Amazon that was referred by a CT affiliate? What about when someone in a state where Amazon has no physical presence buys from Amazon through a CT affiliate? My brain hurts and I suspect someone's getting screwed.

<comment><USER20> I think the point is that very few CT residents actually pay the use tax, and the situation they're trying to catch is where the buyer is in CT.

If Amazon had a retail presence, it would be collecting that tax and forwarding it to CT, and this law was an attempt to define affiliates as a retail presence.

I agree that it's not a "business killer", but lower prices drive sales, and that's why they've fought so hard to collect nothing.

Frankly I found the one-sided slant of the article a little nauseating. Couldn't you as easily say that Amazon has been abetting tax evasion for years? Who moved your cheese? Was it the Connecticut legislature or Amazon? Well, yes.

Connecticut wants that 6%. Not sometimes. Always. So they passed a law. Given a choice between collecting a 6% tax and hanging out their long-time affiliates partners to dry, Amazon picked the latter.

Even though I live in a high-tax state with a similar use tax requirement, I don't think Amazon's position is reasonable. Use tax compliance rates are generally pitiful. Both state and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act allow for this kind of use tax. Local sales tax collection is not optional.

The goods in question do not magically teleport into the homes of Connecticut residents. They come over state roads, often carried by state residents in big trucks. If they weren't bought over the internet, they'd be bought at stores where residents would be paying 6% or more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is anybody keeping track of which states this applies to? I know Illinois was (one of?) the first, and now obviously CT as well. Which states remain?

<comment><USER22> North Carolina, I think, is one of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The PMA Performance Marketing Association just filed the first law suit to fight the Affiliate Nexus Tax. this is the first action of its kind from the internet marketing industry fighting back..

Performance Marketing Association Sues State of Illinois over Affiliate Nexus Law Lawsuit Aims to Protect 9,000 Illinois Small Businesses; State Will Lose Estimated $22 Million in Income Taxes if Law Takes Effect [http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state- of-i...](http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state-of-illinois)

worth while checking out and helping support and spread this info...

</comment><comment><USER24> For anyone affected by this legislation, I'd encourage them to get involved with the Performance Marketing Association. They seem to be the main group (excluding merchants like Amazon) that is actively lobbying against such legislation. In fact, they recently filed suit against the Illinois Dept. of Revenue: [http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state- of-i...](http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state-of-illinois)

</comment><comment><USER25> Anyone know the status of Amazon's litigation with New York State? Amazon still charges sales tax to NY addresses.

<comment><USER26> I don't get why Amazon didn't cut off all its New York affiliates yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> IL also mandated a boycott of Amazon for any state procurement. IOW no state employee can buy goods from Amazon using state purchasing methods (refardless of aource of funds). Of course it's not like any sales taxes were paid by tne state since they're exempt.

</comment><comment><USER28> Arkansas did too earlier this week.</comment>


"Follow-The-Workload" Beats the Latency-Survivability Tradeoff in CockroachDB - <AUTHOR> https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/follow-the-workload/ <comment><USER3> I always longed for the existence of such an Ops-friendly DB, which - <USER2> on solid distributed systems concepts - could make easy and correct the hard things (consistency, geographical replication, effective possibility of zero downtime).

Now that I have a good candidate, I find myself wondering whether the performances would be good enough to ditch traditional DBs (I know: I should define "workload" before thinking about "performances"...)

I guess is the curse of tradeoffs: nothing in life is free.

<comment><USER4> We had it with RethinkDB already!

<comment><USER5> Does rethinkdb have ACID? No?

<comment><USER6> Whether that actually matters is arguable: _No one_ has performant distributed (i.e. cross-partition) ACID. (Except maybe Google.)

For the thing that _does_ matter, which is ACID within the same partition/entity group, I would argue that RethinkDB already does have that.

Mike Stonebraker says that there are no fast distributed transactions [1]. I'm inclined to believe him, and that's _not_ just an appeal to authority.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRcecxdGxvQ&t=54m22s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRcecxdGxvQ&t=54m22s)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For reference, this is part 2 of a two part series. Here is part 1: [https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/tunable-controls-for- late...](https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/tunable-controls-for-latency- survivability/)

</comment><comment><USER8> Cockroachdb looks very exciting. I'm waiting for it's Postgres compatibility to be far enough along that it works with Elixir/Phoenix. Is that likely to happen any time soon?

<comment><USER9> If you are willing to give it a shot, there is currently a fork of postgrex from someone in the Elixir community! It handles some of rough edges of the incompatibility. You can find it at [https://hexdocs.pm/postgrex_cdb/readme.html](https://hexdocs.pm/postgrex_cdb/readme.html) and the source code at [https://github.com/jumpn/postgrex](https://github.com/jumpn/postgrex).

For any other issues you run into when using it, you may want to see the discussion about postgrex compatibility at [https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/issues/5582](https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/issues/5582). If you run into different problems please do file the issue :).

I'm also an Elixir junkie, so I would also love to see ORM compatibility here! I definitely want to dedicated time to it if I can. (Disclaimer: I'm currently interning at Cockroach Labs.)

<comment><USER10> I'd love to see a port of [https://github.com/begriffs/postgrest](https://github.com/begriffs/postgrest) to Elixir. Cockroachdb + Elixir-based Postgrest implementation would be the ultimate platform for realtime distributed web scale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Can anyone elaborate as to how CockroachDB compares to Scylla? It seems to me like they're very similar on a surface level.

<comment><USER12> Sure!

Cockroach DB is a full SQL compatible, strongly consistent key-value store. This means you can get the scalability and performance of a key-value store alongside the comfortable SQL query language. You, and all the other developers who work with you who already know SQL, can do pretty much all the things you know and love from SQL like joins, secondary indexes, etc with full ACID compliance. This means that when you read data from the database you always know with 100% certainty you're going to get up to date values (no stale reads).

ScyllaDB is similar in that data is stored in tables with a defined schema, but it uses a different query language, CQL[1], which is often similar to SQL. You can't to joins but you can have secondary indexes. You can store most of the same data types that you know and love from a standard SQL store. Interestingly enough, you get to CHOOSE the level of consistency you get, so you can make your ScyllaDB strongly consistent or choose from an array of eventually consistent options[2]. Most people however go with one of the eventually consistent options, which allow Scylla to be insanely performant and scalable. At the cost of strong consistency, you get an extremely high performance at an almost infinite scale. CockroachDB, while performant and scalable, can't match it here. It stands almost on a tier of it's own in terms of scalability and performance.

So really, the choice is yours based on what you're looking for. I'd choose CockroachDB for my purposes since I'm not storing Apple levels of data and consistency is important to my work, but your specifications and needs may be different.

[1] [http://docs.scylladb.com/getting- started/ddl/](http://docs.scylladb.com/getting-started/ddl/) [2] [http://docs.scylladb.com/architecture/architecture-fault- tol...](http://docs.scylladb.com/architecture/architecture-fault-tolerance/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So is this for helping with read, but not write latency?

I know little about CockroachDB, but I vaguely remember that it has consistent replication. If so, then writes would require some round trips before consensus is reached, killing any latency benefits from having the master follow the load (unless you move all your replicas around!).

<comment> a-robinson It helps with both, but is more dramatic for reads.

Reads go from 1 RTT to 0 RTTs, while writes go from 2 RTTs to 1 RTT. For example, consider a cluster in which the nodes are 200ms RTT away from each other.

* A read will take 200ms if the leaseholder isn't in the local datacenter vs single-digit milliseconds if it is local.

* A write will take 400ms if the leaseholder isn't in the local datacenter vs 200 milliseconds if it is local.

The write takes 400ms because it takes 100ms to get from the local datacenter to leaseholder, 200ms to reach consensus (the leaseholder needs to send a request to and get a response from one of the followers), and another 100ms for the response from the leaseholder to get back to the local datacenter where the request originated.

<comment><USER14> Really looking forward to see this in action. Is follow the workload already present in 1.1.3?

Is there a bit more detailed technical doc on how this is actually achieved ideally with some examples? When is it decided that the lease holder moves from one node to another? Is it based on some sort of stats?

Edit: found the doc follow-the-workload here: [https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/stable/demo-follow-the- wo...](https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/stable/demo-follow-the- workload.html)

<comment> a-robinson It's actually even in 1.0.0! We just haven't written about it previously.

The doc you found is the best resource. If you want even more detail, you can check out the original RFC: [https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/blob/master/docs/RF...](https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/blob/master/docs/RFCS/20170125_leaseholder_locality.md)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Great post! Do you have benchmark to show how CRDB is compared with TiDB in terms of performance and latency? And how CRDB is compared with Amazon Aurora with PostgreSQL compatibility?

</comment><comment><USER16> Isn't "Follow-the-workload" something that is naturally achieved when Mencius is used iso Raft?

<comment> a-robinson WAN-optimized consensus protocols like Mencius and Egalitarian Paxos indeed are better for writes because any node can commit a write in one round trip, but they don't allow for reads with zero round trips. Every read must go through the consensus machinery in order to ensure consistency, whereas in CockroachDB the leaseholder can serve reads without needing to consult other nodes.

<comment><USER16> why do reads have to go through the consensus machinery ? If they don't go through the machinery, read results will still be consistent, they just might not include the very last updates, but you cannot avoid that. Raft has the same problem (they all have, and it's unavoidable): suppose you read from the Leader (Master, whatever you call it); the leader sends you a perfect fresh consistent value; however, your network takes time to deliver it to you and meanwhile an update might have happened. It just shows that the key value store should provide atomic multi updates (or at least compare-and-swap )

<comment><USER17> Without the consensus read you can get inconsistent values.

Suppose you write value a to leader A and then value b to leader A. Node B got both updates, node C got only the a value because of network timeouts.

Now you do a read from B of both values, you get the current a and b. Then you do a read from C, you receive the current a and the old b. Inconsistent.

Basically a violation of serializability and linearizability across the cluster in respect to the client.

<comment><USER16> No. In your example, value 'a' will not have been applied to the store in C yet, as there is a hole in the log: a set of updates that contains update 'b' (and possibly others). So the view in A will be more up to date than the view in C, but both will be consistent.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: onLinked.in - cool LinkedIn personal URLer - <AUTHOR> http://onlinked.in/

<comment><USER2> Linkedin public profile URLs are notoriously clumsy to remember and share. I am curious how many people signed up for this.</comment>


AWS CodeCommit - <AUTHOR> https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/now-available-aws-codecommit/ <comment><USER2> In my opinion, GitHub has demonstrated how a good monopoly[1] can operate. They're quick to respond to problems, they act ethically for the most part, their pricing is a far-cry from the type of gouging most monopolies get away with, and their product continues to get better and better. GitHub also makes it easy for new developers to get started with Git, and their UI has many awesome features that keep getting better.

As Peter Thiel would say, because they have a monopoly, they have money to spend on things (e.g., improving their product) other than competing themselves out of business.

All that being said, where is the market gap that AWS seeks to fill, other than hosting of large-sized files (scientific / big data applications, etc.), and perhaps the user management, which I feel is a bit outmoded and cumbersome?

1\. I think it's fair to say GitHub has a monopoly on paid Git hosting

<comment><USER3> > 1\. I think it's fair to say GitHub has a monopoly on paid Git hosting

I don't know... depends on how precisely you want to define "monopoly". Bitbucket are certainly popular in some circles. We use them here at Mammoth Data, as their pricing model is more economical for what we do.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, this is a fair point. Anecdotally, most of the agencies I've worked with use Bitbucket due to their pricing being based around users as opposed to the number of private repos - the lock-in becomes even tighter if they're running JIRA. Github's private repo limit even on organizational accounts can become constricting pretty quickly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The one thing that is appealing to an "AWS shop" and something that GitHub and other services have a harder time emulating is the integration with IAM (user authentication and provisioning) and the CloudTrail (audit trails). For any reasonably sized organization, ensuring that users get provisioned / deprovisioned is a tricky, error-prone task. Having IAM as a single toggle is nice. Using their SAML integration into something like Okta, OneLogin, or other IaaS-providers ... even better. Getting user activity into centralized logging via CloudTrail (Splunk, Sumo, ELK, et al.) is best practice for security teams. AWS makes all of this pretty easy, but at a price.

<comment><USER6> That's not just it. They are planning to add post-receive hooks. Imagine doing a commit and writing a post-commit hook to auto-deploy to appropriate hosts or spawn up an EC2 instance to run integration tests.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't see myself switching to this, but I'm glad it exists. After Google Code was shut down, it was clear that GitHub would remain _miles_ ahead of any competition, making it the default choice for most orgs. That worries me quite a bit.

<comment><USER8> I mostly use GitHub these days (at work), but I think Bitbucket is pretty similar in terms of features and may even be better in some ways (e.g., I like Bitbucket's design better, and they give you unlimited private repos). I don't think you could say GitHub is _miles_ ahead of Bitbucket, except maybe in terms of users.

Regardless, I agree that more competition is good.

<comment><USER7> I meant _miles ahead_ in terms of users, dev mindshare, and that special _community feeling_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Bitbucket seems cheaper than CodeCommit if you have repositories under 2GB. However, once you get over this size, for example with lots of binaries, Bitbucket stops being an option and CodeCommit looks very interesting.

GitHub doesn't explicitly states that they will disable pushing once the repository size crosses a threshold, but I don't think that they will allow multi-gigabyte repositories either.

<comment><USER10> We have a soft 2 GB limit: [https://help.github.com/articles/what-is-my-disk- quota/](https://help.github.com/articles/what-is-my-disk-quota/)

In reality this has been very much a non-issue. Users we contact are generally okay with not bloating repos, and we point out Releases / Git LFS as alternative places to store binaries / large assets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Pricing: [https://aws.amazon.com/codecommit/pricing/](https://aws.amazon.com/codecommit/pricing/)

$1 per user/month, with plenty of free storage (10GB) each. 2k git requests/month sounds a bit low though if you're doing anything automated. There is a good free tier.

</comment><comment><USER12> And again, no Mercurial. Have we lost?

<comment><USER13> My question is how long is GitHub will remain a git-only platform?

It seems only natural to me that they should branch out. (heh... branch)

<comment><USER12> Having invested so much into Git-oriented projects and whatnot, I think they will remain Git-only till the heat death of the universe.

And then again, Hg repositories on _Git_ Hub?

<comment><USER14> Unless one day they rebrand their name like "genius" did, maybe codehub or something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Amazon seriously needs a new front-end dev.

</comment><comment><USER16> Amazon going into Github's and Gitlab's space. I wonder how they will react to this and how this might affect them.

<comment><USER17> I don't think they need to worry; AWS continues its potato quality UX with CodeCommit. Unless you're hard core into using git in terminal for practically everything I can't see this taking much if any business from the existing big players.

<comment><USER18> uhhh....yeah.....I would say the vast majority of devs in the non-MSFT space use terminal more than 99% of the time...

<comment><USER17> > I would say the vast majority of devs in the non-MSFT space use terminal > more than 99% of the time

That's a pretty bold claim. Do you have any data behind it?

It's only anecdotal but in my experience it's almost the exact opposite; having worked in multiples of both MSFT and non-MSFT shops it seems like almost every one uses a UI to handle git. I don't blame them; it's not always easy visualizing all of the changes (in my opinion at least) just through a terminal window.

<comment><USER18> Sadly no, it was a terribly anecdotal claim with no official evidence to back it up. I guess the point behind my claim is what do you mean by "working with git"? To me it is about checking code in, diffing, etc... which most people I've ever worked with do from the terminal. Occasionally I'll see folks want a gui for diffs (not really surprising since it's kinda fugly from terminal), but do most of the "work" from term.

So I suppose I shall digress and admit I committed a total failure at an internet statement on a decently technical forum.

in the words of Homer....

doh!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I am logged in to AWS console and don't find CodeCommit. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER20> us-east-1 only perhaps?

<comment><USER20> Oooh, Jeff Barr states that it'll take a few hours to appear on the web console: [https://twitter.com/jeffbarr/status/619155748392583168](https://twitter.com/jeffbarr/status/619155748392583168)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm a little confused. Why would I use this instead of Github?

<comment><USER22> Because this'll integrate heavily with Amazon's other offerings in time. I'd expect click-to-deploy for Node apps to wind up in the interface fairly quickly.

<comment><USER23> Opsworks already has click-to-deploy. I imagine Elastic Beanstalk does too.

Really, I think the benefits of amazon git hosting is that they'll be more resistant to failure than github is currently.

Also I'd imagine companies with existing IAM account management structure and large teams would find this product somewhat attractive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It looks like we're talking about these new AWS features whether we want to or not..

<comment><USER25> We're talking about them because HN users submitted the stories and other HN users voted them up.

<comment><USER24> Strange they both have the exact same number of upvotes (about 1 per minute too) and one was posted by an amazon employee. Not like there's ever been a corporate shill thread on HN...

edit: and look, we have a new user who just created an account to say they were "eagerly waiting for this!" on the other thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pragar](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pragar)

<comment><USER17> > and look, we have a new user who just created an account to say he was > waiting for this on the other thread

Maybe he or she was waiting for this? Why does everything need to be a conspiracy to promote corporate America? Granted you could be right but I'd bet on the simple reason first (someone submitted it and it was upvoted).

<comment><USER24> Yeah, you're probably right. Just a funny coincidence.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>