Really rich people are suddenly paying quite a bit more in taxes - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/30/really-rich-people-are-suddenly-paying-quite-a-bit-more-in-taxes/ <comment><USER2> Most of the these articles never consider state/local level income taxes. For a person in California the total top capital gain tax rate is more than 33%. This is actually the second highest in the world.

If you consider the regular income tax its even much worse, currently the combined income tax rate in California is more than 50%

<comment><USER3> I live in California. I'm not "super rich" but we earn more than $1MM/year.

For every additional dollar I earn, I only get to keep 47 cents of it, just counting _income_ taxes. In reality, only high earners pay taxes. And high- salaried people are getting screwed under Obama's war against the most productive citizens.

<comment><USER4> _For every additional dollar I earn, I only get to keep 47 cents of it, just counting _income_ taxes._

If that were for _all_ taxes, and the marginal rate was still better for lower incomes, I don't think that sounds so bad. Sure, we humans always want to keep more of our hard work for ourselves, but pragmatically speaking I'd be okay if my marginal rate at 7 figures (which I'm nowhere near) was 53% in exchange for the societal stability and upward mobility my taxes could enable.

<comment><USER5> While you are entitled to that opinion, I think it's _really_ hard to say with any confidence what your attitude would be at a vastly different income level. It may be useful to frame the idea in a different way:

You sound as if you'd approve of a ~53% tax rate at an income level higher than your own, but not necessarily at your own level. For the sake of argument, if you were to work just as hard for every dollar at that level as you do now for every dollar, but simply worked that much _more_ (so every dollar required the same amount of work), do you think you'd still be willing to only keep 47 cents of each dollar? Similarly, if you were earning 7 figures and wanted to help society / people in need, would the government really be your best choice in terms of bang for your buck?

<comment><USER6> > if you were earning 7 figures and wanted to help society / people in need, > would the government really be your best choice in terms of bang for your > buck?

Has anyone ever tried to make a serious attempt to analytically tackle this question? There are a lot of people that try to rank charities against each other in terms of effectiveness. Could the same be done with government? Or even some portion of government? I have absolutely no idea, but this seems like an interesting question.

<comment><USER7> > Could the same be done with government?

I don't think so, just because the goods it provides are so numerous and muddled.

Take one example: the fact that if I sign a contract I will feel legally obligated to follow through on it. This provides tremendous social good (billions of dollars worth), but it's very hard to quantify exactly how much.

Then you have to figure out how much it costs to provide that good. Should you include the total cost of government? No, probably not, because that includes lots of other goods. But the direct cost of say the courts isn't enough because they can only function thanks to the explicit backing of law enforcement and the implicit backing of the military.

It might be useful to start with a comparative analysis for governments though. It's probably impossible to delineate and assess every good the government provides, but you can compare the cost of governance and standard of living between countries.

In such an analysis, I highly doubt the US comes out well. Personally, I am 99% sure that my donations to the Against Malaria Foundation provide more total social good per dollar than my taxes.

<comment><USER8> > Take one example: the fact that if I sign a contract I will feel legally > obligated to follow through on it. This provides tremendous social good > (billions of dollars worth), but it's very hard to quantify exactly how > much.

It's not so clear how much of a service the government is providing there. Do you eagerly sign contracts with people you suspect would cheat you if they thought they could get away with it?

<comment><USER7> > Do you eagerly sign contracts with people you suspect would cheat you if > they thought they could get away with it?

Yes, especially you include corporations as "people." Without the rule of law, I'm quite sure that corporations would find even more ways to generally break contracts and not honor their commitments.

<comment><USER8> Why would they do that, and why would any corporations deal with corporations with a history of cheating?

<comment><USER9> Because the likelyhood of cheating is low, largely because there is a legal recourse to recover the costs of cheating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not a Trump fan, and despite likely tax hits, his proposal of simplifying the tax code (as many have done before him), getting rid of the IRS (yes jobs lost, but really, I got a certified letter owing $0.51 and they were "too busy with this category to answer. _click_ ") would be a positive thing.

One short summary of his proposal -- [http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trump-unveils- his-...](http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trump-unveils-his-bold- income-tax-proposal-this-is-a-big-deal/)

I think a pure flat tax would actually be bad for the country implemented immediately, but maybe a gradual rescinding of tax breaks (mortgage, etc -- i use said benefit) might be worth considering.

Wall Street bankers running off pure capital gains is a big problem.

<comment><USER11> The flat tax is an incredibly pointless solution.

The flat tax is opposed to a progressive tax, that says that instead of having a tax rate of 15% for 100% of your income, you have a tax rate of 0% for the first $10000 of your income, 10% of the next 20000, and so on. This is something that can be calculated mentally, looked up using IRS published tables, or calculated with no effort in a 10 line script or some of the simplest Excel sheets possible.

The progressive nature of income tax is absolutely not a problem and recognizes the marginal value of money.

The problem is exemptions, etc., which a flat tax as opposed to a progressive tax does nothing to resolve.

<comment><USER12> It's not a terrible solution. Ideally a flat tax (which pretty much always means a lower rate than high earners pay) simplifies the tax system, and makes high earners less likely to evade taxes. However it doesn't change the fact that really high earners get a lot of their wealth from investments, so in the end they'll still pay a lower total 'rate'. The highest tax burden will still be paid by upper middle-class professionals who have a high salary but few investments.

If governments really want to collect taxes from the ultra-rich, a wealth tax is what is necessary. However that alone poses problems because 'wealth' is not always liquid - do you tax the old lady whose house has appreciated significantly but who doesn't have an income? Do you tax an entrepreneur whose firm is worth several million but hasn't actually realized any significant income?

Anyhow, just a few musings, but the summary is that taxes are hard. Too high and people evade them, too low and the government has a shortfall...

<comment><USER13> > It's not a terrible solution.

It's precisely a terrible solution. Yes, taxes are hard, but a solution that punishes the poor (or the not rich) by not recognizing the marginal utility of money is terrible in any form.

<comment><USER12> There's pretty much always a minimum amount you need to make to pay taxes, most flat tax schemes are still progressive on the low end. Very few 'flat tax' proponents want to tax the poor (not much money in it anyway).

The idea with a flat tax isn't to punish the poor, but to reduce tax evasion on the higher end, and to reduce to burden on the middle class.

<comment><USER13> Taxes should be progressive at all levels, setting a floor to exclude the poor from the unfairness doesn't make it more fair for the guy in the middle income ranges. All flat tax solutions are bad as they are all inherently unfair.

<comment><USER12> Depends what your definition of 'fair' is. Conservatives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays the same rate. Progressives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays what they can afford.

'Fair' depends strongly upon one's beliefs, and can't be objectively defined.

<comment><USER13> > Conservatives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays the same rate.

Which is a position completely ignorant of the marginal utility of money. No, it isn't fair that for one guy 10% could be the difference between getting by and not getting by while for the other guy 10% means no change to his lifestyle all.

No, progressives think it's fair that the burden is felt equally and that requires understanding how money works.

> 'Fair' depends strongly upon one's beliefs, and can't be objectively > defined.

Fair does depend on beliefs, but some people's beliefs are objectively stupid. Anyone who denies the marginal utility of money and insists a flat percentage is fair, doesn't understand money and doesn't belong in the conversation just as anyone who believes vaccines cause autism is objective stupid and doesn't belong in that conversation. Everyone has opinions, that doesn't make them equal.

<comment><USER12> Some people also thought "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was fair. Most seemingly disagreed, given how history has unfolded.

For the record, I agree with Piketty, Marx, and others of that particular persuasion. I'm all for progressive taxation, wealth and inheritance tax, all of it. But I'm also not ignorant of history...

<comment><USER13> Nor am I, and implying progressives are communists is quite intellectually dishonest.

<comment><USER12> Nor are you what? I said I agree with Piketty and Marx.

Anyhow, the example was just rhetoric. The point is that communism started because people thought it was unfair that there was a rentier class who essentially monopolized wealth because they had inherited wealth. And communism fell because people thought it was unfair that people who were lazy made the same as people who worked hard.

Studies have shown that most people in western societies prefer inequality as long as someone has less than them. They think inequality is 'fair'. Why do you think people value celebrities and rich people? People are happy with our 'lottery' system, where anyone can become rich, even if the majority don't, and even if the average struggles...

<comment><USER13> And we're back to communism again. This thread has nothing to do with communism. That you keep going there shows you can't have a serious conversation; goodbye.

<comment><USER12> Socialism, the labour movement, and communism all come from the same place.

It's funny, you're arguing for progressive taxation, but you don't understand the history behind labour movements, equal rights, welfare, socialism, etc... Or why communism is relevant in a discussion about rational choice, inequality and perceived fairness.

I do get it though - Americans have been taught to hate communism, and thus have purged an entire century of socialist philosophy from their collective thoughts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The top marginal long-term capital gains rate in 1992 was 28%. From 2003-2012 it was 15%. In 2013 it went up to 20%. I bet the difference between 20% and 28% explains the rest of the gap noted in the NYT article.

<comment><USER15> What does this translate to in terms of dollars from the 400 so called high earners? And then what portion of US overall tax revenue is from that group vs other segments? Any such data broken out like that exist?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The key takeaway:

> But today's IRS report suggests the biggest reason the super-rich paid lower > tax rates over the last decade was the fact that Congress lowered taxes on > the super-rich, particularly taxes on capital income.

</comment><comment><USER17> It would be interesting to compare these yearly figures with movement of capital between US and other international markets.

For example, how connected is this late raise in effective tax rate with the fact that US seemed (at least, from what I seen) increasingly interesting for investors compared to other markets in this period, especially with the slowing growth of China?

Could it be that when the capital flows in, US decides to get a bigger cut, but when investment is slowing down, US tries to slow the process by making capital taxes lower? The article mentions that Bush's tax cuts happenned in 2001, right in the recession and after dot-com burst, when growth stopped and investors started to pay more attention to China.

This is just a thought; I honestly don't know enough to understand if I'm right about it.

</comment><comment><USER18> I better call my local representative, I'm going to be rich any day now...

<comment><USER19> Don't bother. This only applies to the _really_ reach.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Some had argued that allowing taxes to rise would lead to an epidemic of capital flight, but this has failed to take place in the two years since tax rates went up. While I'm not hopeful, it would be nice if economic debates in the coming election year were firmly grounded in empirical evidence. With the increased computer power at our disposal it should be easier to model the impact of policy changes on wealth distribution, economic activity and so on.

<comment><USER21> Yes those arguments often turn out to be false. In California, we had an income tax increase on the "job creators" that many argued would cause the affluent to leave the state, and an "Amazon Tax" that many argued would reduce jobs in the state. Those predictions couldn't have been more at odds with the eventual reality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > It showed that the effective tax rate paid by those Americans jumped in 2013 > to nearly 23 percent.

As a data point, my family paid 28% average federal tax, on AGI of $355k. We are California residents. Taxes are regressive on the higher incomes, and that doesn't seem right.

<comment><USER23> > As a data point, my family paid 28% average federal tax

You made the mistake of earning that money by working. I am making the same mistake.

If you factor in sales taxes, property taxes, state income taxes, etc. I'm pretty sure you're giving half of what you earn to the government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'd be happier if taxes were cut from the bottom up, instead of increased from the top down.

<comment><USER25> I too would be happy if I got every service the government offers for a cheaper price.

<comment><USER24> Same here, which is why I'm a proponent of market anarchism. Central planning does not have an effective price discovery mechanism, which is one reason why we've been getting much less for much more. Just look at our shitty education system or our police, which both seem to get worse and worse the more we spend on them.

Markets allow experimentation and level the playing field, whereas states ossify corporate power and centralize wealth. Not to mention, they're based on mutually beneficial transactions between consenting individuals rather than a monopoly on violence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> who creates the jobs in this country? Think about it, if you start taxing capital, what does that mean?

</comment><comment><USER13> Good; they should be.

</comment><comment><USER27> Good. About time some of these people paid their fair share instead of exploiting loopholes that they can access because they have so much wealth.

<comment><USER28> The top 10% pay over 80% of the federal taxes in the US. This, combined with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world means they are already paying more than their "fair share".

<comment><USER29> If they own more than 80% of wealth then paying over 80% of the taxes is exactly fair.

<comment><USER30> Wealth != Income</comment></comment></comment></comment>


App suggestion to turn phones into webcams during quarantine - <AUTHOR> Can anyone recommend apps that repuporse phones into webcams? Looks like webcams are selling out, sold out or reselling at inflated prices, and no one should be craiglisting and meeting strangers in real-life right now. <comment><USER2> Iriun ([https://iriun.com/](https://iriun.com/)) works well for me on OS X with a Xiaomi Mi A2 lite running Android 9. There's also versions of the required drivers for Windows and Linux available. Used it with Skype for Business and Blackboard Collaborate Ultra so far.

</comment><comment><USER3> I use the free version of Alfred. Works great on Android, I have no experience with it on iOS.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cheers, but looks like this turns phones into CCTV cameras. I'm looking for something that turns an old android phone into a Windows10 webcam either wirelessly or via adb.

<comment><USER3> Ah, I misunderstood.</comment></comment></comment>


Bitbucket down? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bitbucket.org

<comment><USER2> Looks to be down for me, as well.

Never seen it go down before that I can recall. Luckily its just my personal side project stuff, so no huge loss while I'm at work

Relevant: <http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Seems to have been down for more than 30 minutes now. Does anyone remember an outage lasting this long? All of my code is hosted there and I'm basically sitting on my thumbs waiting for it to come back up.

</comment><comment><USER2> It's back up, FYI</comment>


More Companies That No Longer Require a Degree - <AUTHOR> https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/no-degree-required/ <comment><USER2> My own anecdotal experience working with corporate recruiters and hiring managers is that, no one really cares about education compared to experience (outside of maybe a "wow, nice" when seeing a PhD), but they are all scared to not put the typical boilerplate "Bachelors degree or related experience" line at the top of the job post. I've noticed a trend lately for more progressive companies to leave this bit out in the name of diversity, hopefully this catches enough that it just becomes the norm.

Note that I'm a software engineer who dropped out of college, so you can take what I say with a few grains of salt. :)

<comment><USER3> Not applicable globally. For example in my country a degree is an absolute must.Even those companies that dont care about degrees in US and have their subsidiary here, do a serious gatekeeping with respect to educational qualifications. You must have an undergrad degree in CS and that too from reputed schools.

<comment><USER4> Which country is that?

<comment><USER5> India for example

<comment><USER6> Don't a lot of them cheat there anyway?

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/worldviews/wp/20...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/09/india- tried-to-stop-cheating-in-school-so-half-a-million-students-just-skipped- exams/)

[https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/india- school-e...](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/india-school-exam- season-cheating-mafia-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are many fields where a formal education is quite important (e.g. Legal, Medical, etc.)

But there's many more where the requirement to have a degree seems counter intuitive. Universities were about expanding and democratising learning and seeking new knowledge and understanding. I never understood why people leave university expecting a job out of it - it may have worked for the previous generation because few had degrees but I doubt it works now.

Hopefully, in the near future, students will be enrolling in universities because they want to learn - not because they feel its their only ticket to a decent job.

<comment><USER8> > I never understood why people leave university expecting a job out of it

Maybe because universities have relentlessly touted alumni employee numbers and advertised themselves as an avenue to secure a job for decades now

<comment><USER9> This is the correct answer.

It would be like an opiate manufacturer advertising "FDA approved pain management solutions" for decades, and then turning around and saying "well you never should have expected to avoid becoming addicted to opiates."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have been working in Silicon Valley area companies for over 10 years and a degree or my lack thereof has never been an issue.

I also have had PhD's reporting to me.

It is interesting when I do run into companies who think a degree is important and I tend to compare them in a less than favorable light to those who do not.

</comment><comment><USER11> There are a lot of retail jobs listed here. I don't think they ever required a degree..?

<comment><USER12> Most of these jobs never did--did anyone think they couldn't get a retail job or warehouse job without a degree? Starbucks barista? Seriously?

It's also wrong about listed jobs:they list Publix as hiring pharmacists. That job absolutely requires a degree, I know of no way to get liscenced without one. So overall this is just crap, the only mildly interesting info was IBM being listed.

<comment><USER13> I used to work at Publix. They don't hire pharmacists without degrees, as it requires a PharmD and being licensed with the state, however they do, very rarely, hire pharmacy technicians without any kind of degree and train them on the job. I have only seen this happen one time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's not an issue getting a job if you're smart and can manage to get some experience under your belt, and you can pass the technical interview.

That said, I still wish I would have had the opportunity to go to school. I'm increasingly finding I don't have the same kind of network had I went to school.

It's possible to build a network while you are working but it's much harder because you are at the mercy of your employer and the work power dynamic is different than university. You are also at the mercy of your employer and the people he chooses to surround you with, and don't have as much control or exposure as I feel you would in university.

At least for me employers always talk a big game when it comes to investing in their employees education but I've never experienced that personally. They are too focused on the sprint, the next sprint, the quarterly OKR's and with most of their employees not lasting more than a year or two why invest in someone long term? This puts all the effort on the employee who must then learn on their own time in addition to working and making their boss & co-workers happy.

The last one is killer for me. Most of the people you meet at work aren't entrepreneurial. I think there's a reason why a lot of people start companies from people they know in school. Many of the people I've meet throughout my career in tech don't even like tech, they're just working a job. I feel like at a university it would be easier to filter these people out of your professional network, where as at work you can be stuck with them for years. It's easy to drop or add a class and be exposed to new people but try dropping a team or a boss.

</comment><comment><USER15> Does Google seriously hire mechanical engineers without a degree and proper certification?

<comment><USER16> Not all mechanical engineering work requires a Professional Engineer

<comment><USER17> Then it isnt engineering work. Engineers are professionals, acredited by societies and licensed by governments. It is akin to the differance between simple "medical work" done by any number of people with the skills, and medical doctoring.

<comment><USER18> In the US, there's a difference between a professional Engineer and a Professional Engineer. Professional Engineer requires certification (I think they even give you a ring or something), but you can still work professionally as an Engineer without the certification.

The difference, roughly, if I remember correctly, is that Professional Engineers are the only ones who can "sign off" on work and essentially assume liability. Therefore, you can be an uncertified Engineer as long as you're working under someone certified or if your work doesn't require sign-off from someone certified.

Are there any PE's here that can tell me if that's correct?

<comment><USER19> Reminds me of this lawsuit, where an engineer was sued by Oregon for criticizing traffic infrastructure (a red light camera) and calling himself an engineer:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning- mix/wp/2017/12/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning- mix/wp/2017/12/08/criticizing-red-light-cameras-is-not-a-punishable-offense- oregon-concedes/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> anecdotal disclaimer -- I think I've worked with more brilliant people with no degrees or uncompleted education. They just had more drive and do not let anything hold them back. They do not need to be told what to do. Not saying that the rest of the people that I worked with 9.8/10 that had degrees were not great. Just there was something positively different about the people I encounted without it.

<comment><USER21> I don't have a degree or formal education but I managed to work for Google about 10 years ago and left to start a company that engages in HFT.

What I'd argue is that your observation is a form of survivorship bias. Of the very small people who manage to succeed without a degree, those people will likely have a great deal of drive, self-motivation, and other traits to compensate for that lack of degree. I'd then argue that in the long term, those traits end up having a much greater impact on your ability to succeed than an education.

But that doesn't mean not having an education is overall a good thing. The majority of people without a degree will be absolutely incompetent software developers compared to those with a degree... you would just have never met them because they don't last long enough to work with you.

<comment><USER20> I certainly was not trying to argue that. And I said it was my own experience (serendipity). I also agree with what you're saying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't know but I would find hard to believe that for most of these jobs:

>4\. Costco Wholesale

>Company Rating: 3.9

>Hiring For: Cashier, Stocker, Pharmacy Sales Assistant, Bakery Wrapper, Cake Decorator, Licensed Optician, Cashier Assistant, Depot Solutions Functional Analyst, Forklift Driver, Seasonal Help & more.

a degree was _ever_ required.

</comment><comment><USER23> Is having non-CS a problem if it's still STEM? I have a math BS

<comment><USER24> If you can code and have a math degree, I'd say that could be a benefit in the eyes of lots of employers.

<comment><USER23> That's interesting! What would make it benefit in your opinion?

<comment><USER25> Lots of people who think they're bad at math will try CS, but relatively few will try a math major.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Exposing Tint's Financial Data with a Real-Time Revenue Dashboard - <AUTHOR> http://www.tintup.com/blog/exposing-tints-financial-data-with-a-real-time-revenue-dashboard/

<comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing!</comment>


$99 "laptop Shell" for Raspberry Pi or Windows 10 Continuum - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nexdock-turn-your-smartphone-into-a-laptop--2#/ <comment><USER2> I'm now wary of indiegogo and crowdfunding laptops in general. I purchased the pi-top and, while it was a feat at the time, the build quality is so low that I just can't use it. The keyboard sucks, the trackpad is super cheap, and the plastic has a bulge which makes it uncomfortable to use.

So, trying to convert this comment into positive feedback for the creators: please spend the biggest part of your budget into the input devices. If you can't provide a good build quality, don't be cheap on the keyboard and laptop.

<comment><USER3> Yep same here. Make something good and I will be customer of more then one device. But I really need review by gadget blog before I will consider buying.

On the other hand, super excited that we can have something like this. I was thinking about what it would take for me to use Raspberry Pi at work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't get it, just go on ebay ([http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m5...](http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xlapdock.TRS0&_nkw=lapdock&_sacat=0)) or amazon ( [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/191-8083913-3793561...](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/191-8083913-3793561?url=search- alias%3Daps&field-keywords=lapdock)) and get yourself old motorolla atrix/bionic lapdock , it has hdmi + usb and basically would work as hdmi external screen + usb keyboard and usb mouse for any device that supports it.

UPDATE: well, apparently price jumped a lot, i got myself two of those 10 and 12 inches models for like 30 and 70 dollars 2 years ago.

but anyway, there is existing piece of technology from almost 5 years ago, just was a bit ahead of it's time. People used that with rasberry-pi for quite some time too ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-9l1rPNCgo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-9l1rPNCgo))

<comment><USER5> You can get an entire functioning laptop for under $100 these days.

[http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Acer- Asp...](http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Acer-Aspire-One- Cloudbook-11-AO1-131-C7DW-Signature-Edition-Laptop/productID.323774600)

It doesn't run Windows 10 very well, with only 2GB of RAM and 16GB of storage (neither of which are user-upgradeable), but is actually a surprisingly nice with a light Linux distro.

<comment><USER6> Holy cow, I never knew that was a thing! Do you have one? I need a cheap laptop/tablet/something that runs well enough for PDFs with ~200 pages (for pen-and-paper RPGs) and that's about my only use case. My poor little lenovo T60 from 2007 is just not up to the task, even after I took Windows off and put on Mint.

<comment><USER7> You should be able to find similar hardware in Chromebooks as well... though not sure about PDF usage, they've been great for my parents/grandparents. Many of them you can load a full linux distro on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've backed this, mainly because I'd like to encourage getting the most out of our smart phones, especially in the corporate workplace. Combine this with virtualisedapps (Citrix, etc.) and you have a very usable workstation that is also portable and a LOT cheaper than a laptop. I don't expect everyone in our org to be able to replace their laptop with this, but it's definitely possible for 40% of our organisation.

</comment><comment><USER9> Buyer beware: Indiegogo campaigns for hardware leave their supporters with very little recourse if the project fails to deliver. I've been burned by this one in the past.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is exactly what I am afraid of. Is there any way how to assess the risk?

<comment><USER9> In my case, all the person running the campaign had to do was send out weekly messages to those who had purchased. The content could be something like "I'm trying to call my partner, but he's not answering". You may get your hardware. But if you don't, the game is slanted against you having some sort of acceptable outcome.

I'd consider it a gamble and wouldn't spend any sum of money that I'd feel bad about losing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'll support it! ...by buying one after they reach production, assuming the product has good reviews.

<comment><USER11> This is how everyone should support projects that they find interesting. If someone doesn't have any skills except marketing they will steal your money, if they can make the product and push it into production, you will be able to buy it a few years after they have the idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> While on the topic is there some cheap alternatives to this that can function as a VGA/DVI/HDMI-display+USB-keyboard out today? Also would this support to use the keyboard over usb instead of Bluetooth?

I have quite a few servers and various headless computers at home, every once in awhile I need to hook them up to a monitor and keyboard for some sort of debugging, today I usually carry around a spare LCD-monitor and standard keyboard however something like an empty laptop to be used as a portable terminal would be great for this.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is a great idea, and a concept that I'm ready for (my phone and tablets are already more powerful than the first 20, or so, desktop computers that I've owned, including machines up to just a few years ago). But, this particular device probably won't do, for me. It's as big as a full-size laptop but has a lower resolution display than I'm willing to use for laptop work today. To be clear: the size of it is fine, but only if it provided a reasonably high resolution display (which, I guess, would it much harder to hit this low price point).

I also wonder why it isn't fully functional with an Android device, and seems to only support display. I have a little keyboard and standing case for one of my tablets, and it works OK as a "very tiny laptop" (though not being a full- size keyboard makes it a non-starter for any real work). Why wouldn't this work for that, too? Does Windows phone have some specific functionality that makes it more appropriate for this kind of thing?

Anyway, this seems pretty close to a great implementation of a great idea. Maybe after launch they'll make a 1080P or QHD version for a little extra money. There's a lot of possibility for making this a great laptop replacement; they could stick a battery in it for longer working time, it could provide USB hub functionality for a mouse and other devices, etc.

</comment><comment><USER14> I should plan to use the RPi as a second computer. Only thing to do is find an used LCD screen, but I'm not sure if an SD card can really sustain daily use (I think flash memory is not really meant to sustain many read/write), or if it's still possible to find USB hard drives under $30 (a 100GB should be cheaper than a 128GB USB flash drive, but again I don't think that 100GB hard drive are still being built).

The RPi is great, but there aren't good enough starter packages that can really convert it into a full computer. There are many second hand LCD screens out there that could be sold with a RPi.

<comment><USER15> _" I should plan to use the RPi as a second computer. Only thing to do is find an used LCD screen"_

'7″ Touchscreen Monitor' designed fro Rpi ~ [https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/raspberry-pi-touch- disp...](https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/raspberry-pi-touch-display/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I would love one with a space to install a RPi or similar device inside the shell.

<comment><USER17> [http://www.pi-top.com/#/](http://www.pi-top.com/#/)

<comment><USER18> If they made this for ODROID I'd get this 100%. I wonder if some cutting will allow fitment with a C1.

<comment><USER19> Physically the Raspberry Pi 2 Model B and ODROID C1+ (note the +) are almost identical.

Only difference is the location of the SD card and the power in port on the ODROID.

Cases are compatible with very minor modification, as long as you don't need uSD access.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There's a parallel universe where the whole "Post PC" thing didn't really work out and the Windows model reigns supreme and these things are unstoppably popular.

This is not that universe, but it's still a pretty nifty idea.

</comment><comment><USER21> I like the idea. Having a separate device is a pain - another thing to manage. Also this thing is designed to work with Windows Continuum: [http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/6/8560195/microsoft- continuum...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/6/8560195/microsoft-continuum- for-phones-windows-10)

</comment><comment><USER11> Last I remember, there was a system built just like this from Motorola. People have been using raspberry pis with them for some time now. You can find them from 50-80 USD online.

</comment><comment><USER22> Why do these things always include a discrete touchpad?

Why not a series of phone-specific-form-factor caddy that snaps into the laptop where the touch pad is, that you can slide your phone into?

<comment><USER7> Because that would require OS level integration with the phone.... Even with full screen apps, swiping in from at least one direction is usually the "escape" ... Also, phones come in _many_ form factors, and creating face adapters for multiple devices would be difficult, to say the least... though options for 3d printed services may alleviate some of that.

What I'd really like to see is a Bluetooth standard for full remote input and ui rendering. That would be useful for car stereos as well as with devices such as this.

<comment><USER22> I don't think it would. Many full screen apps like Kindle require two swipes from the top before it brings down the system menu (first shows the status bar, second slides down the menu). Maybe iOS is different?

You already have a fantastic multitouch device in your pocket, and many of these cheap shells have a horrific touchpad touchpad experience. Maybe shells for the major form factors would actually be cheaper than putting together a touchpad experience that doesn't make you want to chuck the device out the nearest window.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> very high price point for a shell.

<comment><USER24> A shell with a screen. The 7" RasPi touchscreen is ~$70 and that doesn't have a keyboard, trackpad or hdmi (it uses a DSI ribbon cable and the gpio instead).

<comment><USER25> The RasPi touchscreen is way overpriced too. You can get a whole tablet running Windows 10 for a little bit more. Sure it will come from China and will be probably filled with backdoor but the cost is there.

A better example would be that Acer laptop that someone else talked about here: [http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Acer- Asp...](http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Acer-Aspire-One- Cloudbook-11-AO1-131-C7DW-Signature-Edition-Laptop/productID.323774600)</comment></comment></comment>


Principles of Automated Testing - <AUTHOR> http://www.lihaoyi.com/post/PrinciplesofAutomatedTesting.html <comment><USER2> I think their definition of automated testing is good. Myself I find unit testing to not be worth the trouble, most unit tests I've seen in mobile apps are just checking obvious inputs for obvious outputs. Unit tests take time away from writing good code, can never be complete (even 100% code coverage isn't 100%), and take time away from working on the most important part of any software, features.

I prefer to spend my extra time writing code that validates all inputs and all possible error conditions, and logging exceptional situations that can't be handled within the error system.

Tests I find valuable are ones that explore performance and data quality issues. For example in my current project the original developers decided to assume our server APIs always return nil data (hopefully with an error) or that they will return perfectly formed JSON, and if not, would crash. The truth is it's unlikely the server doesn't return poorly formed JSON for a "successful" request, but I wrote code to test 3,000 stores with various data inputs just to test a single API to find out if it did.

Of course I"m not writing a server API. If I was, I'd definitely be writing unit tests. But in a mobile app, there is plenty of work to do to improve the app directly that provide far more value than most unit tests can.

<comment><USER3> There are of course lots and lots of ways of writing useless tests, but I don't think it's right that the most important part of any software are its features. I for example prefer software with fewer features that works reliably over software that includes everything and the kitchen sink but crashes regularly.

<comment><USER4> > fewer features

My two 0.02 € on this:

Features have external and internal complexity. External complexity is documentation, usage, support while internal complexity is time spent on maintenance and development, increased complexity of the code, reduced stability etc.

External and internal complexity are unrelated, and when deciding whether to add some feature _both_ must be considered against the _assumed_ advantages of the feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > if you want to check a single function's behavior with 10 different sets of > primitive arguments, using integration tests to test it may mean you end up > setting-up and tearing-down an application process 10 times: a slow and and > wasteful use of your compute resources

This is only true if the test is run in process and there it is stateful. Performing out of process tests on stateless units are very effective.</comment>


Palantir has figured out how to make money by using algorithms to ascribe guilt - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2018/04/20/something-something-invisible.html <comment><USER2> Dislike the rest of the BoingBoing writers but like to hear what Doctorow has to say?

[https://boingboing.net/author/cory_doctorow_1/feed](https://boingboing.net/author/cory_doctorow_1/feed)</comment>


Huawei Facts: An open letter to the US media - <AUTHOR> https://www.huawei.com/facts/open-letter-to-us-media.html <comment><USER2> > We build base stations in the harshest environments, like the Arctic Circle, > the Sahara, rainforests in South America, and even on Mount Everest. In the > wake of disasters like the tsunami in Indonesia, the nuclear disaster in > Japan, and the massive earthquake in Chile, our employees were some of the > first on the ground, working tirelessly to restore communications networks > and support disaster relief.

Then, after your employees have done all that hard work, you just fire them and call them "mediocre"[0].

Hehe, this is the very reason of why I as a Chinese IT worker, refuse to pay my own money for any of their product.

[0] [https://bgr.com/2019/01/21/huawei-layoffs-ceo-mediocre- emplo...](https://bgr.com/2019/01/21/huawei-layoffs-ceo-mediocre-employees/)

<comment><USER3> huh? Huawei pays very well, and there is a reason it is paid very well. You don't get that kind of money for being a baby.

<comment><USER4> Why is that being a "baby"? Shouldn't you expect high standards of behavior?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Translation: Journalists, please arrange private visits to our campuses where we can wine and dine you and offer you compelling incentives to work with us for mutual benefit. We won't necessarily openly bribe you but we are keeping a list and you will get a hidden "journalist credit score" which will be considered in such matters as applying for visas, etc. Your score may also influence the credit scores of others who associate with you.

<comment><USER6> How is that credit score hidden, when they are openly labeled as fake news?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> In these cases I'm always reminded of an Obama speech he made shortly after the beginning of the Edward Snowden disclosures, where he guaranteed in national television that the US did not spy on national citizens.

Imagine that, not being a national citizen, but from an allied country, and being told point blank that you are a-okay for spying without any kind of shame.

AFAIK China does not intercept all of my country's communications, which the US has been doing for decades.

Sigh, it's just a bad choice between sleazy US or dictatorial China. At least there are some other 5G choices available.

<comment><USER8> > Imagine that, not being a national citizen, but from an allied country, and > being told point blank that you are a-okay for spying without any kind of > shame.

This was the case from the beginning of modern countries - even back in old Greece or in 400 BC with the introduction of doves (per [https://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/tid-5865/geschichte- der-s...](https://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/tid-5865/geschichte-der- spionage_aid_57738.html)). It was and is always a case of tacit acceptance - you as a country knew you were spied upon just as you were spying on other countries, and you relied on this to get your own spies traded back alive.

<comment><USER9> It's a difference though between spying on another country's government organizations (which is ok) vs. spying on its citizens (which is never ok).

<comment><USER8> > vs. spying on its citizens (which is never ok).

Yet everyone does it. The NSA snoops up everyone and their dog, same does GCHQ, same does the BND, same do the Russians and Chinese for anything they can get their paws on.

Doesn't even matter if it's own or other countries' citizens - the NSA simply asks BND or GCHQ to spy on US citizens on their behalf, and vice versa. Laws meaning to protect citizens from their own secret services are for all practical measures null and void.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Huawei was created as a front organization for China's intelligence service. This has been known for years; long before the Iran deal. We know it and they deny it. That's how the game has always been played with respect to Huawei. Other Chinese companies like Lenovo have exhibited tendencies to spy, but AFAIK only Huawei originated as essentially an arm of the Chinese CIA. That's what makes Huawei different.

<comment><USER11> Read "How Huawei tried to sell itself to Motorola for $7.5bn" which was published by FT four days ago. The deal was advised by JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley. It fell through at the final stage due to leadership change at Motorola. I don't see how your unsubstantiated statement could possibly be reconciled with FT reporting. You should retract your statement unless you have better evidence than FT.

<comment><USER12> Yeah and Google was almost sold for 1m to yahoo. No one knows what anything is worth or how much it will grow, no one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm not sure which is more dangerous with regard to Huawei - their utter disrespect for intellectual property, or their subservience to a totalitarian government that is in continual digital warfare with the United States. Platitudes directed at the US are exactly that, and should be ignored.

<comment><USER14> And the States do the same thing. _shrug_

Everyone is spying on eachother and we are not safe from that, despite what is said. I'm more afraid of the NSA having far reaching powers to spy on their own citizens than I am of China hacking into the NSA

<comment><USER15> We can argue about which country has the worst spying record, but there's a fundamental difference between a country where you can be imprisoned for years for merely sharing a web post that is critical of the government and one where you can stand in front of the White House with signs calling the president an idiot racist and nothing bad happens. Genuine rule of law and a truly independent judiciary make all the difference. I say this as someone who is quite fond of China and travel there annually.

<comment><USER16> The US routinely makes a mockery of the rule of law, just look at all the people denied legal process, abducted and taken to black sites for torture during the 'War on Terror'.

The US is not some shining beacon of justice and fairness, it's just as corrupt and capricious as all the rest.

<comment><USER17> No it's not just as corrupt as all the rest. I agree there is corruption, but to equate corruption in all countries is bogus. Nuance is important in this case.

<comment><USER18> To put some data to this discussion, in Transparency International's 2018 rankings, the US comes in 22nd least corrupt, and China comes in at number 87: [https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018](https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018)

<comment><USER16> Note however that this is a ranking of perceived corruption from a group of adjudicators, which isn't necessarily the same as actual corruption.

<comment><USER18> True, but it's better than two lay-people having an argument on a message board :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Please believe us, not multiple security researchers and governments, they know not what they speak. China is good for you, we love you and your money. Come to us, let us feast on your data. What BGP hijacking...these are not the routes you are looking for

</comment><comment><USER20> Here is an article [0] which may define the background to some serious concerns about Huawei. It was almost like Microsoft's purported 'embrace, extend, extinquish' philosophy.

"Many Canadians believe that Huawei stole the core technologies and business strategies from Nortel and used that knowledge to drive Nortel out of world markets and into bankruptcy. "

[0] [https://www.assemblymag.com/blogs/14-assembly- blog/post/9063...](https://www.assemblymag.com/blogs/14-assembly- blog/post/90631-did-outsourcing-and-corporate-espionage-kill-nortel)

</comment><comment><USER21> [https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/huawei-threat-to-the- us...](https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/huawei-threat-to-the-us/)

 _But Huawei is incredibly opaque – at least by Western standards. Ren's still there (now about 70 years old) and still has veto power, but rarely makes public statements. He attributes Huawei's success to collective leadership. That leadership? Huawei won't say._

 _National champions aren't state-owned businesses, but they typically get market protection, financial support — sometimes as direct funding, but more often tax breaks, subsidies, low-interest loans, and government contracts — and even diplomatic help. That means the Chinese government could have a significant influence on Huawei, since so many purse-strings lead back to Beijing. And the company has a reputation for playing fast-and-loose with intellectual property: in 2003 Cisco accused Huawei of copying its source code and documentation – all the way down to typos._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren_Zhengfei#Communist_Party_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren_Zhengfei#Communist_Party_and_military_ties)

<comment><USER22> Like Xerox?

[https://books.google.ca/books?id=KIEIX2X-na8C&pg=PA68&lpg=PA...](https://books.google.ca/books?id=KIEIX2X-na8C&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=xerox+russian+espionage&source=bl&ots=2kp_BO- CWK&sig=ACfU3U3kKOVPt2pfcCV27Vl2KX9IlInNaQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT6Y-XjeXgAhXo7oMKHaw4CYQQ6AEwB3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=xerox%20russian%20espionage&f=false)

<comment><USER23> Xerox owes its complete domination of print and document to its status as a US government protected company. Lol.

<comment><USER24> Xerox has around 20% market share of managed print and document services.

Not really a complete domination is it. Lol.

<comment><USER23> Sorry I missed the edit window for the sarcasm tag.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Americans complaining about spying by other governments, even if true, would be the top of hypochresy.

It is so blatantly clear that the motivations to fight Huawei are mainly because of losing the technology race, that it is not even funny.

That the US pretends to dictate to free countries what they should buy or sanction (Iran) is not cool.

That the US complains about state intervention when its whole technology lead was built on state investment is funny.

That the US complains about technology stealing when it built its industrial base by stealing European technology is insufferable.

You know what? Just let the world be.

<comment><USER5> >You know what? Just let the world be.

So don't comment then, if you want to let the world be.

>because of losing the technology race

It's not that US companies are "losing the technology race." If you read accounts from actual employees of partners, contractors, and others in the industry who work with Huawei, what you will read is that apparently Huawei has set up systems and incentives for copying and stealing technology.

And then to pair up with that, it sounds like they have been extremely aggressive about patenting everything they can identify as possibly patentable, which would include, if you think about it, others' technology innovations and techniques that they have stolen.

So it seems these people, with these ethics, who also happen to be organized under a unit of the Chinese military, end up getting IP protection on things that others invented, in areas that are critical to sensitive global communication standards that will cover transmission of private, commercial, governmental, and otherwise sensitive data.

<comment><USER26> >If you read accounts from actual employees of partners

I'd like to read those! Where can I find the direct cites or even comprehensive review with them (that didn't mystically pop up on the Net within the last year period)? Google seem to fail me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The fact of the matter is that the United States considers strong industries in strategic technology fields in adversary nations a national security threat. This is why NSA seeks to modify US standards for export across the world. It's why US lawmakers have worked with US telecommunication firms to gain access to international communications. It's why the US has gone after Kaspersky AntiVirus. It's why the US has gone after Huawei, and intelligence officials have supported debunked stories about (e.g. SuperMicro). It's why the Trump Administration has stripped the regulations on 5G development (to speed it up so that American companies and technology can dominate the standard).

This isn't a uniquely American thing. Russia and China are doing the same things (heard of the Great Firewall?)

Opening doors to journalists is a good and appropriate step. It won't fix the underlying issues, though, as they stem from National Security competition - not wrote press misunderstanding.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm so torn with how to see Huawei. The dealings with Iran seem pretty cut and dry, and the laws in China are impossible for Huawei to ignore. On the other hand, their consumer products are very different from the commercial routing and telecommunication branches. Yet, the high level US government folks are being forced not to use the consumer products. Why aren't they being prohibited from using other Chinese consumer electronics, like Lenovo, Xiaomi, etc?

<comment><USER29> > _Why aren 't they being prohibited from using other Chinese consumer > electronics, like Lenovo, Xiaomi, etc?_

I suppose it depends which "approved devices" list you're using. If I look at the US Department of Defense's approved products list I see Korean brands like LG and Samsung but I don't see Lenovo or Xiaomi:

[https://aplits.disa.mil/processAPList.action](https://aplits.disa.mil/processAPList.action)

<comment><USER30> I've done some consulting for a company fulfilling a defense contract and they had to switch their entire desktop anti-virus solution because they were using foreign made software and DISA was not happy about it. The origin of hardware/software is very much a concern for the US gov't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This reads as manipulative and cynical propaganda.

</comment><comment><USER32> I'm surprised how few free/open market advocates have come rushing to Huawei's defense. It seems everyone's caught the protectionism bug these days.

Fact of the matter is they're being singled out not because of the their Iran dealings (Numerous US corporations have done this in the past and paid only modest fines), but at the behest of corporate lobbying efforts on the part of Huawei's competitors whose high margin business models are under assault.

<comment><USER33> You're stating that they're being singled out for just doing business and that businesses are just afraid of losing money. You seem to be ignoring the trade secret theft, IP theft, multiple intelligence agencies investigating them and stating that their hardware shouldn't be used, practically being an arm of the Chinese military intelligence, and probably more I'm forgetting. Seems like a very disingenuous argument to be making...

<comment><USER34> > multiple intelligence agencies investigating them and stating that their > hardware shouldn't be used, practically being an arm of the Chinese military > intelligence

Has anyone come forward with /any/ hard evidence that implicates huawei spying on their customers? This is my biggest gripe in this whole mess. The fact that no evidence has surfaced yet, despite how easily obtainable it would be for govs, indicates to me that that these accusations are motivated by geopolitics and have little to do with whether huawei customers are being spied upon or not.

As for disingenuity, I think that hurtling accusations at people without any sort of supporting evidence is what's disgustingly disingenuous.

<comment><USER33> Yes, people and organizations have come forward and said they have evidence. It's a simple google search away. You, similar to the OP, seem to be ignoring all of the many warnings from many organizations. If you think that intelligence agencies are going to show you, a random person, or the public the evidence directly I think you're not really aware of how they work. Why would they burn assets and methods to prove this when everyone agrees on it?

I would probably agree with you that attaining evidence of this spying would be somewhat easier for governments than for others. However, the rest of your assertion that these accusations are only due to geopolitics is pretty out there given it's almost universal at this point that people think Huawei are not on the up and up.

Hurtling accusations without any sort of supporting evidence is literally what you've just done. There's a ton of evidence out there to not use them.

Here are some pieces of evidence for you that literally were on page 1 and 2 of a search:

CIA, NSA, FBI just last year saying the US shouldn't use them: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcochiappetta/2018/11/25/u-s-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcochiappetta/2018/11/25/u-s- advises-allies-to-shun-huawei-telecom-equipment-citing-potential- cyberthreats/#667642fb8aa8)

At least the US and Australian Intelligence services have hard evidence of them spying for the Chinese government: [https://www.axios.com/report- australian-intelligence-know-hu...](https://www.axios.com/report-australian- intelligence-know-huawei-1541285886-42f1eb64-98de-422f-9686-4174e41ef37e.html) [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-security/former- ci...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-security/former-cia-boss- says-aware-of-evidence-huawei-spying-for-china-idUSBRE96I06I20130719)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Not sure. Core network to me is always very dangerous. China for their own security show not use US products and vice visa. For product, they should prohibit (both sides) not to use the others desktop, laptop and handheld devices. Apply for Russia, the 3 main hacking communities.

For the case, Huawei is unusual. It seems to have a few case (down to even the glass cover!) Hence the company ... But more important imagine if IBM ship to Iran their products via a faked HK company and lie to HSBC about it so money can be transferred (based on the limited amount we heard), the case is there but the difference is USA threaten Canada for doing what the treaty is bounded. Or would USA pool resources to do it in court instead in diploma channel.

Now this action on country level (as seems in the news also in other European countries) not using just company resources but diplomatic resources.

Is Huawei a firm represent the country? Is it a department of communist China?

Back to the device part, the government and core network shall be on its own whatever the countries are. It is just dangerous for Russia/China/USA to use other hacking country.

</comment><comment><USER36> I don't think we should buy anything important from China because of their abysmal human rights abuses, surveillance state machinations, hacking and IP theft, down to the way they treat their neighbors (Taiwan, building BS "islands" to claim fishing territory, etc."

I think we should isolate and contain them as much as possible, free market BS be damned, we should grow a spine and do without them by working as closely with the neighbors they've stepped on for years and who are much more open to ideals we agree with. We should actively work against them and I'm glad we're finally doing something.

As much as I hate Trump, the one thing he's done I agree with is putting the screws to China. It's actually a popular stance with both parties, and it looks like it will continue after he's likely impeached. Good.

<comment><USER37> Why do you assume that it was China vs. the world, not China and many others vs. US and many others?

I hope you take a clearer look at the current geopolitical map and have a more updated view of the world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> There is a lot of finger pointing at China and wild claims by people who don't care about these things. After Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, threatening Iran and now with open meddling and orchestrating coups in Venezuela its utterly absurd to pretend to care about human rights or democracy.

Apparently you can do the same thing every time and cause catastrophic devastation, kill millions and put millions of families in disarray and continue to claim 'innocence'. And some here talk about Tienanmen in 1989 as if none of the above happened, while colluding with regressive regimes like Saudi Arabia as we speak to bomb Yemen.

In the same way some care about surveillance, but only in China. The NSA revelations, secret courts, secret orders, Snowden and Assange being hounded and not a single person held accountable has nothing to do with surveillance, rule of law or democracy. Google, Facebook and others making billions spying on the world and building invasive profiles is not surveillance. US law enforcement demanding to go through your phones and laptops at airports like the stasi is not a police state. Credit scores and social credit are somehow different. This is a culture of smug finger pointing based on dissonance.

This is an orchestrated sabotage of a company perceived to be a threat by some interests with zero evidence or due process in collusion with a global media that is apparently not too reliant on evidence or investigation. This will be lesson for many on capitalism, free trade and the 'natural constraints' of our global system.

</comment><comment><USER39> I don't think Huawei understands it, or they do but trying not to show. The West dont have problem with Huawei, the west have problems with CCP. And there isn't a single International Chinese company that doesn't have some form of Guanxi with CCP.

<comment><USER40> Actually, Huawei has stolen IP from a number of western organizations. So the disdain isn't only for the CCP.</comment></comment>


Hustle Fund: pre-seed fund that helps you fundraise and grow - <AUTHOR> https://www.hustlefund.vc/why <comment><AUTHOR> Thought it was interesting how they scoped their rol and placed themselves to be your first advisor:

1\. small amount of cash ($25k, SAFE)

2\. help with stuff product/tech focused founders aren't likely to grok (fundraising, sales funnel, lead generation, paid acquisition).</comment>


A tweet storm explaining the history and state of Ethereum's Casper research - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1029900695925706753 <comment><USER2> Unrolled tweets: [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029900695925706753.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029900695925706753.html)

It's certainly interesting to read about new efforts to bring about PoS in a way that isn't another dPoS take...

But wow, I don't usually care about chained tweets, yet I can't help but to notice this being 75 tweets long (!?) This isn't just banter type of stuff or responding to tweets, it's a research history recap, something that'd be nice to be searchable a month from now. Amusingly he links to his own blog posts during all this (1). I wonder why he wouldn't just use that? :/

(1) [https://vitalik.ca/](https://vitalik.ca/)

<comment><USER3> Where is the data though? Certainly some experiments/simulations would validate these ideas.

<comment><USER4> Casper FFG research repository is here [https://github.com/ethereum/casper](https://github.com/ethereum/casper) . Last committed before the sharding and casper research merger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The best thing about PoW is simplicity. You just add "salt" to input and hash() it. More zero bits at the beginning, the higher chance that others will connect their blocks to yours.

I'm still thinking what would happen If bitcoin was without transaction fees and block rewards? Would you mine it?

<comment><USER6> This might help to shed some light:

On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]

[https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~smattw/CKWN- CCS16.pdf](https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~smattw/CKWN-CCS16.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This seems further along than currently was believed.

<comment><USER8> It can be a little difficult to keep up but everything's being done in the open. For anyone who wants to follow along, the main research forum is [https://ethresear.ch/](https://ethresear.ch/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> How does this compare to the PoS in the Tezos network?

</comment><comment><USER10> What does "non-giver of Ether" mean ? This is Vitalik's twitter handle.

<comment><USER11> It's referring to people impersonating him and offering a multiple of the amount that someone transfers to them. (A bit like the Nigerian Prince scheme).

Here's the first example I could find, the scammers are impersonating Elon Musk in this case:

[https://twitter.com/88kboss/status/1030003844497989633](https://twitter.com/88kboss/status/1030003844497989633)</comment></comment>


Elon Musk admits Tesla's math was wrong - <AUTHOR> http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/05/03/elon-musk-admits-teslas-math-was-wrong.html

<comment><USER2> _Under the new deal, Tesla owners should be able to get their payments down to about $580 a month just factoring in gasoline savings alone, Tesla said._

Is he subtracting fuel savings from the car price? I recall there was an HN thread complaining about this but I can't find it...

Here's the calculator. They claim an "effective cost" of $579/month (default choices), which it seems means $917/month in actual payments, plus negative $261/month in fuel savings:

<http://www.teslamotors.com/true-cost-of-ownership>

<comment><USER3> It makes perfect sense. You can either add the gasoline to the others or subtract from the Tesla.

Ex: A Mercedes C300 might cost $420/month, but the effective price is $800/month considering fuel & maintenance. Is that also problematic?

Most people will initially compare the Model S'$60k price tag vs $40k for a Mercedes, but the total ownership cost figures tell a different story.

<comment><USER4> I don't spend $261 in fuel every month. Actually, closer to $70.

A friend of mine makes a road trip every week for business. Do they also add the cost of the time you spend waiting for a charge at charging stations vs a quicker gas pump for road trips? A full charge is about an hour. Should the price be higher for him?

Look, I'm not saying it's still not a decent bargain when all is said and done, I'm just saying you can't roll it into your 'cost' and advertise that as the price you want me to pay. I am not paying that. I'm paying 190 bucks more a month based on my current fuel usage. My friend would be paying for it in an extra hour a week at least. These things count too.

<comment><USER3> Have you been to the website? It's a calculator, you put in your mileage and other costs and it gives you the TOC. $580/month is the best case scenario.

You'll see they actually do the opposite, discounting for _saved time_ , since 90% of the time you'll just plug it in at home and never worry about recharging during the day, instead of a trip to the gas station every week.

<http://www.teslamotors.com/true-cost-of-ownership>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You know, there's a possibility that it would suck if investors got itchy and pulled out of TSLA after these news.

I mean, it would be _very_ understandable, but from a game-theoretical point of view, there's the question of what you want to signal as an investor. If it's too costly to make mistakes, or worse, if you inadvertently signal it's fine to err _given the company doesn't ever admit it publicly_ , then there's a variety of possible outcomes. The least worst is you end up with glorified, electrified, GM stock. The worst is, you end up with Enron. Which, incidentally, Wikipedia says was too "one of the most innovative companies" back then.

Of course, you probably already know that.

<comment><USER6> Tesla actually has gotten to the point of making _real things_. Enron at its height, was, erm, uh. Yeah. I think given what we know about Enron now it's pretty easy to draw up a direct comparison. Tesla might be doing a bit of a shell game with the pricing, but as far as comparing it to Enron, I think that's a bit overboard.

<comment><USER7> You're insinuating that Enron did nothing? What would you do with a Model S if companies just like Enron didn't exist?

<comment><USER8> Well, since Enron was an oil company, and since the model S is an electric vehicle, I'd say the model s is just fine without Enron around...

<comment><USER9> Enron were also in the business of selling and trading electricity and owned a number of large power plants. A lot of the fraud was actually in the electricity part of their business.

<comment><USER6> Yeah I'd venture to guess if Enron still existed it'd be MORE expensive, not less, to own a model S.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a bizarre article. Are we going to see "Verizon/AT&Ts math is wrong" articles because they are marketing smartphones at a price tag of 0$?

</comment><comment><USER11> Horrible mea culpa.

"We appreciate the feedback from a number of journalists and customers that the first version of our financing product wasn't quite right,"

It wasn't that they were doing really complex calculations that they made an error on, they were being intentionally misleading. That is what they should be sorry for, not that the math was not "quite right"

</comment><comment><USER12> "Honey, look, a Tesla is only going to cost us $580 per month"

"No dear, the actual payment is closer to $900"

"No. Look here, it says the effective payment is $580."

"Sure, sure. You still have to send them a check for $900."

"What? How do we get to $580 then."

"Well, they are saying an electric car is going to save you over $300 a month in fuel and proposing you take that into account."

"Wait a minute. I don't get it. That can't be true. Can I put the $300 per month in the bank and save-up for a nice vacation?"

"Nope. That money goes to Tesla. The real payment is about $900."

"That can't be right."

"Look, go to that neat cost-of-ownership calculator and set the annual mileage to zero. Let's pretend you are going to buy the car and put it in a museum, never to be driven. What's the monthly payment? About 900 right?"

"Let me see... Crap! That's bullshit."

"Yup."

<comment><USER3> No one factors in gas costs to their monthly payments. Tesla is trying to get you to do just that, which is totally fair.

<comment><USER12> No it isn't. It's creative math to get the mathematically challenged to jump in. Since math illiteracy in the US is common this is a very smart way to get idiots with money to buy in.

OK, say I have never owned a car and just got a job making $900 per month. No other expenses in my life. I jump on this deal. I then send 100% of what I earn to Tesla. Not $500. I have to send them all of it. I don't get to magically deduct fuel I will never purchase and pretend I am spending less. My bank account would be empty every month.

<comment><USER3> Do you really believe that could happen? I bet that guy owns a lot of property on the moon. A lease wouldn't even be approved with that salary in the first place.

Different scenario: you get a job making $900/month and you jump on an offer for a $400/month car. It never crosses your mind that you'll have to pay for insurance, gas, maintenance and taxes and you end up spending your whole salary on it. This actually happens all the time.

As stated on Tesla's page:

        This calculator is intended to give you an idea of how
        much you can save by driving Model S compared to a gasoline sedan.

        We also encourage you to think about Model S ownership in terms of true
        out of pocket cost. When considering the savings from using electricity
        instead of gasoline, depreciation benefits, and other factors, buyers
        can save hundreds of dollars per month compared to owning a gasoline
        powered car.

<comment><USER12> Oh please, it was a dumb example to highlight the reality of the deal.

I am buying a Tesla. I am tired of gasoline and I like the car. I am simply not delusional as to the real cost of the thing.

Actually, I am buying two. The next one has to be an SUV though.

I just wish they didn't resort to cheap-car-salesman techniques. I had a friend get excited about buying a Tesla because he thought it would cost him $600 a month. He was not happy to learn that the real cost was closer to $1,000. Now he thinks Tesla is a huge scam. I doubt he will ever consider their cars again.

Based on that data point alone I have a feeling this creative financing campaign could be damaging their image to some degree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I hate that someone called an enterprise "Tesla".

Knowing nothing about Elon Musk (well, at least now I know), my first thought when I saw that title was that Tesla (the man)'s math were wrong.

</comment><comment><USER14> There has not been a very big media backlash like there was to the first $500/month story. The lack of media backlash may seem to validate the second announcement to consumers. Tesla is proving skilled at neutralizing bad press.

</comment><comment><USER15> It doesn't matter really, he admitted his mistake and the price is still within the price range I would pay to take this world another step in what I consider to be the right direction.

</comment><comment><USER16> Bit of a tongue in cheek question. Is the math for Falcon done in the same fashion? Yes, I'm a Skylon fan.

</comment><comment><USER17> First they did it with the roadtrip range calculations and now this one. Credibility is hard earned easily lost you know.

<comment><USER18> > Credibility is hard earned easily lost you know.

That said, an accomplished CEO admitting to a mistake earns 'em more karma and credibility than not.

Times have changed no? Traditional mantras need a revisit. Internet.

<comment><USER19> "an accomplished CEO admitting to a mistake earns 'em more karma and credibility than not."

To you, maybe. To investors? Absolutely not.

<comment><USER20> Are you a Tesla investor?

<comment><USER21> I am. I don't own a lot of TSLA, but its definitely in the high five figures. I'm extremely satisfied with out Musk has been handling all of this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> And their solution is to extend the loan term so you pay the monthly payment longer than you possess the car!

I don't see what they hope to gain by lying about price to wealthy customers who presumably got their wealth through the application of something exceeding5th grade arithmetic

</comment><comment><USER23> My first thought reading the headline was: "No way! Nikola Tesla can't have been wrong. He was a genius!"

Then, reading the article, I realized it was about a car manufacturer.</comment>


Every Day, I Try To Get Rejected - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/01/founder-stories-rejected/

<comment><USER2> One big - 100% effort, balls to the wall, worked your ass off to get there - rejection will hold far more wisdom than a myriad of small insignificant rejections.

Why does sending Steve Jobs a single email and not receiving a response within in a day count as a noteworthy rejection? Seems hardly worth the effort and predetermined to count as a 'rejection'.

<comment><USER3> People really need to learn the concept of "Expected Outcome" before they go headlong into "rejection therapy". For instance, what was his expected outcome if Steve Jobs had replied back? I'm willing to bet it was 0. He just did it because he could. This is like me tracking down _insert female celeb fantasy here_ 's phone number and asking to talk to her. Pointless.

<comment><USER4> i believe there is some unconvencional value in the advice in the article for the intraverted dudes with low self esteem like me. Given any hypothetical opportunity people like me will evaluate the chances of the positive outcome of the opportunity lower than extravert dudes with higher esteem, and will reject the opportunity outright. While your advice suggests the default behavior, the advice above stresses the need to increase the number of attempts, irregardless of whether they are successful or not, and by the law of large numbers, this might result in higher probability of positive outome/s. Therefore, setting the goal of being rejected more often, might be more productive than waiting for the "right" opportunity to acieve the desired outcome.

p.s. usually I'm not that wordy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't think anyone should try to get rejected everyday. That's like trying to get hit by a car by running into a busy street, it's bound to happen. I'm also not a fan of trying to be the "next big thing". What's wrong with being the next small thing and being really great at it?

</comment><comment><USER6> Assuming the guy is the interviewer he need to learn to shut up and ask questions.

</comment><comment><USER7> Relevant perhaps? <http://www.rejectiontherapy.com/>

</comment><comment> xl-brain I couldn't tell who was interviewing who.

<comment><USER8> Yeah weird way of conducting an interview, though follow the link for his name and it says "CEO & Co-founder of SiteAdvisor (acquired by McAfee)".

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "So you just fucking own it, right? Can I swear?" Yes!</comment>


Stimulus Spend Data Coming via Feeds - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/stimulus_spend_data_coming_via.php <comment><USER2> The quote in the article should continue on because the feeds are not strictly required is the way it reads to me from the PDF (the article states they are required).

" _If an agency is immediately unable to publish feeds, the agency should post each near term information flow (major communications, formula block grant allocations, weekly reports) to a URL directory convention suggested below_ "

(something that is likely scrapable into a feed by someone else)

But anyhow, open data: word up.</comment>


Why sclerotic California hasn't yet stifled the extraordinary Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704596504575272963682533080.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecondBucket

<comment><USER2> Most of the relevant factors for startups are due to people and culture of the valley, not the California government, but there are some which are actually due to the state government:

California has a few big advantages due to the state: * Non-competes invalid * Well-understood legal system for startups

And big startup-relevant disadvantages: * High taxes on income and especially capital gains (taxed at the 10.3% rate!!!) which force out some angel investors, and potentially reduce capital formation for new angels. * High cost of living (which makes engineers expensive, and hurts during bootstrapping) -- some of this IS due to California government decisions.

Employment law, minimum wage, etc. don't really affect startups directly.

"Uncertainty due to the state being bankrupt" is a major new negative factor, however. Even though the current situation still leaves SFBA as the top startup location in the world, I could see a dying California enacting new policies which change this.

<comment><USER3> Since technology companies are a major cause of the high cost of living in Silicon Valley (by increasing the demand for housing by people who can well afford to pay), it's hard to see how you can reduce the cost of living without making Silicon Valley _less_ attractive to entrepreneurs.

<comment><USER4> It's easy in principle if you focus on the supply side of the equation instead of just the demand side. Instead of decreasing the number of people looking for affordable housing, increase the supply of it.

In reality, so many people have a stake in the current level of housing prices that doing this will probably be impossible in practice, even if you have some stern court decisions backing such a push.

<comment><USER3> Supply is fixed by the amount of land, the consensus that remaining open spaces should be protected, and zoning laws in desirable communities that prevent higher density.

Of course this could be relaxed but that only buys us a few years before the new housing fills up and we're back where we started, but with a more crowded community, one step closer to Manhattan. The steady state in a built-up place like the bay area is zero growth in housing.

<comment><USER2> I think there are a lot of ways to in-fill housing in SFBA without affecting open space. Allowing tall skyscraper condos in downtown SF makes a lot of sense (and has been one of the major changes from 1995 onward); the continued replacement of light industrial with lofts (from the 1980s), and subdividing victorians into apartments (1920s?).

Most of this has been focused on SF itself. I'd be happy to see more apartment complexes in the 2-5 story range replacing single family homes in parts of the peninsula. Improving transit can also make the east bay and San Jose itself more viable. HSR will arguably make Stockton/Modesto an option for a lot of people.

Actual home space isn't the limiting factor I think. I'd like to see the supporting infrastructure be more dense and efficient (roads/transit, schools, utilities).

Of course, once I bank my first $250mm, I'd like a $20mm house in Palo Alto as it is right now, and a $10mm loft and $10mm house up in SF. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> California government did one thing right that few other states can match to encourage innovation - California Labor Code Section 2870. This single law negates many of the bullshit employment contracts required by companies to confiscate new idea and innovation from employees working at their home and at their own time. This actually helps to spawn off new startups. I will never move to and work in another state that doesn't have similar law.

<comment><USER2> Few other states HAVE matched this, but it's one of the easiest legislative changes any state could make to advance new business creation.

For non-US startup creation, I'd focus on "better" IP law, too. Most countries already don't have software patents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _California has piled every imaginable burden on businesses. Minimum-wage laws are among the highest in the country, and health and safety regulations are among the strictest; cities like San Francisco and San Jose require businesses to offer employees health insurance; labor laws are extremely union-friendly; environmental policies drive up energy costs—and on and on._

I have never heard anyone at justin.tv complain about the impact on our business of minimum-wage laws, health and safety regulations, mandatory health insurance, union-friendly labor laws or environmental policies. The article claims to be talking about things that hurt Silicon Valley startups, but I don't recognize anything that rings true in the above paragraph.

<comment><USER7> 1) since when is justin.tv representative of the SV?

2) if you don't see how minimum-wage laws, health and safety regulations, mandatory health insurance, union-friendly labor laws or environmental policies can hurt businesses, then it's because you're not on the finance arm of such businesses.

<comment><USER6> 1) What company would you pick? Is justin.tv very atypical of current Silicon Valley startups in some obvious way I've missed?

2) I've been at justin.tv since long before we were big enough to have a finance arm. I may have little idea of how those policies can hurt really big companies, but the interesting thing about Silicon Valley isn't the big companies - it's the startups.

<comment><USER7> 1) I would pick no company because the SV is not a homogeneous habitat. You have capital-intensive startups founded by PhD's trying to capitalize on 20 years of research... and you have startups bootstrapped out of lunchmoney by a couple of college dropouts who believe their new app will be a killer. Seriously, technology is more than the web.

2) generally speaking, imposing constraints can only decrease the maximum of the objective function one is trying to optimize; I did not say that such policies _do_ hurt, I suggested it's not hard to see how they _can_ hurt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm impressed that it doesn't even cross the author's mind that his ideology might be completely wrong. Perhaps health insurance, labor friendly laws, strong environmental, health and safety regulations actually attract the best people.

<comment><USER9> It isn't binary, either good _or_ bad. Maybe it attracts the best people (and I note you had to say "perhaps" since you are just speculating), but it _definitely_ raises the costs of doing business quite substantially, which means less ability to hire, expand, or exist at all. That's not speculation, that's the entire purpose of regulation like this; the government directs you to spend money in this manner or go out of business, no third option.

You must also consider that the California system as a whole, which includes its regulatation system, _has become_ unaffordable and California faces the task of either tearing some of it down or raising taxes to make up for it, and one way or another you must account that negative to that system, too. It's easy to "politic" away the problem of unaffordability for quite a while, just as we have done, until suddenly it produces a result far worse than if we had done the putatively-inferior-but-actually-affordable thing in the first place. Unaffordability is not a political matter, it's an objective one that can't be argued away. And I emphasize the "has become" because that is now past tense, it has happened.

The author is sticking to the facts of the cost of doing business, rather than speculating about IMHO rather nebulous possibilities of "retaining the best people". I think a rather good case could be made that whatever positive effects such regulation has, it passed the point of diminishing returns a _long_ time ago. I don't live in California, and I do not feel a pressing need to move there so my boss stops beating me. (Yes, that is rhetorical, but the basic point stands. At some point regulations just add cost and not much benefit.)

<comment><USER8> I'm not saying the opposite is true (hence the "perhaps"), I'm saying that the author seems physically incapable of entertaining that option.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I was once asked by a Ghanaian student at Princeton how long it took to become incorporated.

"What? I don't know. A day, and month? Something like that?"

"and how much!?!"

"Dunno. $150?"

"My god -- I thought incorporation was the hardest thing."

That's because in Ghana, it is. 3 years to get a permit! I suspect if you bribe the right people it would take only one year. But still -- a big advantage the US has in starting companies is that, somewhat tautologically, it is easy to.

</comment><comment><USER3> A correction: the article refers to Kevin Kelly as the "founder" of Wired, when actually it's Louis Rossetto. (I wonder what else they got wrong?)

</comment><comment><USER11> If California's state laws are truly a boot on the neck of entrepreneurs, by all means someone launch a startup in Alaska, New Hampshire, or Tennessee (The three states with the lowest tax rate and least amount of regulation) and prove this notable economist correct.

<comment><USER12> That isn't a sound argument. Regulated California may be better than loosely regulated states, but that doesn't mean that an unregulated (EDIT: that is, more loosely regulated) California wouldn't be even better.

<comment><USER11> The tax/regulation issue can very easily become a red herring when it clashes with the reality of certain industries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder why it seem that some of the world's biggest economies move faster to the brink of economic destruction?</comment>


What It's Like To Work Future Style - <AUTHOR> http://hoppycow.com/2012/12/26/what-its-like-to-work-future-style/

<comment><USER2> 'During Thanksgiving, I spent the week in St. Louis, working from Jared's parents' kitchen counter for a few days.'

I think this is the worst aspect of working 'future style'. Since you can work anywhere, there is no longer anyway to get away from work. Celebrating the holidays with the family - perfect time to get some work done!

<comment><USER3> She didn't say she worked on Thanksgiving - she said she stayed in St Louis longer than would be normally possible on a holiday. If I can work eight hour days at my in-law's house rather than having to rush back across the country to be in the office, then I get to stay longer. Best of both worlds.

<comment><USER2> But if she had gotten a phone call on Thanksgiving that something had broken and needed to be fixed, she would have worked on Thanksgiving (we've all been there). That was my point - since now we can be productive anywhere, we are always available.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure that's exclusive to telecommuting. Having worked about half of my career remotely, and the other half in an office, I wouldn't say that the prevalence holiday/middle of the night calls is much different. Certainly, this is more true of Operations work than say, Accounting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How is the salary at these remote-only places? Living just above the poverty line* would mean a salary of ~$45k in Norway.

I would love to work at such a company--preferably one with a flat organization structure--to get a glimpse of a possible future. But I'm not entirely sure how it would make sense financially for either party.

*Using the EUs definition of relative poverty at 60% of the country's median income.

</comment><comment><USER6> Great stuff, but typically she uses a cobbled-together list of apps to get the job done.

I work at Sococo (helped start it). Its an integrated voice/video/doc/presence/chat engine that really brings a group together - like working in the same office, almost. I recommend it (because I want us to succeed!) We also eat our own dog food - Sococo is distributed across 6 states and 3 time zones. And it works great!

</comment><comment><USER7> This sounds in many ways very similar to my company we believe in the lean startup philosophy. All members of our team work in different locations and we are quite successful in doing so. At the end of the day, results are the only thing that matters. If you don't pull your weight, it shows.

<comment><USER8> I have no idea what this has to do with lean startup.

Lean startup is not about: technical efficiency, a distributed workforce, or keeping your burn low.

"The Lean Startup relies on validated learning, scientific experimentation, and iterative product releases to shorten product development cycles, measure progress, and gain valuable customer feedback." (wikipedia)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anyone have examples of a well-known, successful company which is fully virtual like this?

<comment><USER4> Basho, Github, and Percona immediately come to mind. Lots of other companies (including my current home, ideeli) have distributed Tech departments with employees all over the world.

<comment><USER10> Still few and far between overall. Wondering when, if ever, it's going to be "the year of telecommuting". Hopefully sooner than the year of Linux on the desktop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like her comment about documenting what happens in meetings. Can anyone recommend software to help with this? I currently just use Word files in a folder, can someone recommend something better?

<comment><USER12> workflowy.com

<comment><USER11> awesome, thanks for the heads up

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> After working remotely for more than 5 years, I can say with confidence that one of the best things you can do is not wear pants with an elastic waistband more than once a week (i.e. stop working in your pajamas).

<comment><USER4> I'm a big fan of pajama working. Just make sure to remember to put pants on (or not stand up) during video conference calls.</comment></comment>


Your Browser Is the Most Important App You Have–Make Sure You Use the Right One - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/your-browser-is-the-most-important-app-you-havemake-sure-you-use-the-right-one-1537707600 <comment><AUTHOR> >In my testing, I found surprising differences. To test how much each browser taxes my system, I loaded the same 10 sites on each browser and watched them gorge on my MacBook's RAM. Chrome, a notorious resource hog, took up the most memory, with Safari and Opera close behind. Firefox, though, required 30% less RAM than Chrome to run the same stuff.

>Among mobile browsers (which I tested on an iPhone XS and a Google Pixel 2 XL), the differences were smaller. Surprisingly, in every single case, _mobile browsers outperformed their desktop counterparts._ They're faster to load pages, able to crunch through more intense web apps and generally just better browsers.</comment>