Why I'm Furious with Silicon Valley (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=60 <comment><USER2> _Rather than invest in a productive, useful and frankly unprecedented product such as FaceCash, venture capital and angel investors have focused their time and billions of dollars of their money in companies and entrepreneurs that have, in serial fashion, deceived co-founders, deceived employees, and deceived customers._

Rather than hiring a brilliant, hard working, and frankly outstanding engineer such as myself, technology companies have focused their time and billions of dollars of their money on engineers that have demonstrated, in a consistent fashion, lack of talent, skills, and integrity.

<comment><USER3> That's very cute and all, but do you care to skim TechCrunch or something and say, with a straight face, that primarily worthwhile endeavors are getting funded?

Tell me about social, mobile, or the like.

<comment><USER4> I don't think that is very honest considering FaceCash (not entirely sure) didn't beat Square to market, and I don't believe his idea was very "wild and unprecedented" as he claimed.

Yes, seemingly dumb start up ideas get funded, but at the same time a lot of dumb and smart ideas don't get any attention, and there are still a good number of smart ideas that do get funded.

If he couldn't get anyone to back his mobile payments idea, I think it says more about him and his character more than his idea. It's my belief that the reason someone funds/works for you can be attributed to less than half to how good your idea was, especially something that is really early stage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Forgive my ignorance, but he talks about "necessary capital", and fails to explain why and what it is for. Is this something the regulators demand in order to protect his customers? Isn't that desirable?

Further, if he has put $1m in to the project, should he not have checked that laws and regulation first?

Perhaps the writer assumes a lot of knowledge on the part of the reader.

<comment><USER6> > should he not have checked that laws and regulation first?

The regulations came into existence after his project did.

After the regulations went into effect, he was unable to get his project certified under the regulations.

<comment><USER7> This is called regulatory risk. This story seems like a good example of why anyone starting a business in an industry that is already highly-regulated, such as finance, must assume that future regulations could increase the cost of doing business, or threaten the viability of the business outright.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> i'm not going to go into specifics because i'm scared of retaliation/retribution. there, i said it. i'm scared like a little bitch. especially now that i've got plenty to lose (read on...)

imagine the following scenario.

CEO (not me) of self-funded startup hires prestigious silicon valley law firm to incorporate and represent his new company.

recruits 4 cofounders including big-name software company engineers and big- name b-school MBAs. however, nobody is 'connected' per se.

ostensibly law firm does its job, and helps coordinate meetings with the TOP valley and seattle VCs. like top 3 in each area. like 'holy shit' what am i doing in this board room right now. like 'wow i can't believe i actually delivered my pitch without tripping over my own tongue'.

during the fund raising process it's discovered the name of the company may be a copyright/trademark infringement on another company also represented by the law firm.

founders are assured by law firms and VCs it's no big deal. it happens all the time. this sort of thing is very common! law firm could stand to charge 10 thousand in fees for a name change, so it seems like an honest opinion.

during the fund raising process it's also discovered that the core business model of startup is in sort-of competition with another startup, already funded, represented by both the law firm, and a VC firm that lawfirm set startup up with to pitch. (of course no NDA's were signed). however, the business models are not identical, only similar. assurances all around, of course.

fast forward 2 months. startup is getting traction. 10,000 users, some high profile sites are using startup's technology.

fast forward another month. threats of lawsuit from represented company whose trademark claim is now becoming serious.

fast forward another month. sort-of competitor is now full-on competitor. exact same concept is now implemented and deployed.

no need to fast forward anymore. funding is never realized, company is under legal threat from multiple parties. other mistakes are made, but greatly exacerbated by a name change, which effectively kills the product. company implodes. kaput.

the conclusion of whether this was purely due to founder incompetence or naiveté (which there is certainly a component) or there was a large component of malicious VC/lawyer/funded collusion is left as an exercise for the reader.

however, i posit that the startup would have done FAR BETTER to not even get involved with the SV ecosystem IN THE FIRST PLACE. once you get involved, they will enforce their iron rule of SINK OR SWIM. and they WILL sink you.

my current startup is making $millions/year in revenue WITHOUT ANY OUTSIDE HELP. cofounders own 100% because we said FUCK IT over 2 glasses of scotch whisky and dumped $250k of our own money into it. we get multiple emails and calls per month from VC and PE firms inquiring. lollerskates. fuck off assholes. i would rather go bankrupt and steal loaves of stale bread from my local bagel shop than work for those people.

so that's just one data point for you. it's a jungle out there. keep your wits about you.

<comment><USER9> This is why you work with YC.

If you're going to get into the SV ecosystem, in order to stay away from the bad actors, I think you have to align yourselves with the forces for good. You think anyone will fuck with a YC company like that? Only if they want to be lambasted among most of the new / best / most promising startup founders in the valley.

<comment><USER10> You're painting it like the mafia - like...exactly like the mafia...

<comment><USER11> In some societies, the organized crime contingent is morally better (and sometimes more competent) than the official police force.

In the private sector where "law" is the whim of powerful people, that's almost invariably true.

Whatever the good guys form (possibly centered around YC, and possibly something else) is going to be likened to the Mafia, a "don't fuck with us" collective that protects its own. After all, one of the Mafia's first (entirely just) social functions was to protect people against Pinkertons and other company police forces.

The thing is, those with capital and connections have been using their social power for extortion ("you'll never raise another dime") for _decades_. If talent starts to fight back, that's a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Note date of 2011.

<comment><USER13> Yes, the mods should probably edit the title lest people mistakenly think it's part of his lawsuit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Where did he get a million bucks?

</comment><comment><USER15> Is this a federal law or a state law? The content of the article seems to imply state law, but the "gloom and doom" tone implies that FaceCash can't just move out of CA.

<comment><USER16> It's state law, but virtually every state licenses money transmitters, and you need a license from each state you want to transmit money into (where your customers are). No matter where you start, you need the licenses, and CA is particularly important since that's where the early adopters and investors are. Here's the list of 50 state licenses PayPal needs to operate:

<https://www.paypal-media.com/state_licenses.cfm>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't know the details here but this missive reads like that of someone who failed and turned to the litigation system for revenge.

<comment><USER18> The government was forcing him to shut down his company, I would turn to litigation if this happened to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't know about his past with Zuckerberg, but this guy's basically a hero for calling VC-istan out for what it is: a rigged, corrupt mess where one's personal level of power determines which laws one must actually follow and which ones can be ignored.

Consider all the co-funding and note-sharing that goes on among supposedly competing investors. That's clearly anti-competitive activity, but it's never enforced because of the power of the people who do it.

It sounds like his particular lawsuit is without legal ground and will fail, but he deserves major props for bringing public attention to VC-istan's collusion problem.

As I wrote, he's already morally entitled to an EIR position (at the very least, if not a real VC job) from VC-istan for his courage, intellect, and ethical above-board-ness, which are well into the top 5% by VC-istan standards (although that's not saying much).

<comment><USER2> _A rigged, corrupt mess where one's personal level of power determines which laws one must actually follow and which ones can be ignored._

Do you have a shred of evidence to support any of these accusations? Not that I think the VC industry is devoid of problems, but in my experience it is neither rigged nor corrupt, and the people with the most power actually tend to be the most morally conscious people I've ever met.

<comment><USER19> I think your language indicates some bias here. To play Devil's advocate for a moment, the bankers that manipulated LIBOR did so for quite some time without being caught. Those whom submitted the rates they thought their bank could borrow from other banks at wielded incredible power, magnitudes more than any VC, i.e. contracts worth $300 TRILLION were influenced by LIBOR. It was shown that these bankers acted, most would agree completely immorally, without conscience, artificially influencing the rates to suit their own trader's positions.

<comment><USER20> He's biased because he doesn't buy into the conspiracy theory without some evidence? Hmm.

<comment><USER21> No, he's biased because, by his own admission, he's basing his opinions on anecdotal evidence, i.e. those VCs he has met are very ethical people. Whereas we have a ton more data points to prove that power = corruption. Considering the amount of power VCs yield in Silicon Valley, it's pretty much a given that they break the law and get away with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Think Computer Corporation has documented their dispute with the State of California in great detail, including scans of all the physical correspondence.

<https://www.facecash.com/legal/brown.html>

If you read through the history, it's pretty clear that Think Computer Corporation got screwed by California. California classified him as a money transmitter, but refused to clearly define the bar needed for him to become one. It's obviously a case of favoring the big guy for now reason. Facebook and BoA can be money transmitters, because they're big. You're not big, you're a scrub, now go to get job at Facebook like the other scrubs. Obviously, this latest lawsuit makes him look like an obnoxious dickhead. I can nevertheless sympathize with his action here, which is to lash out at an obviously unfair system.

<comment><USER23> And yet somehow their competitors are still in business.

<comment><USER24> In large part because they chose to flout the law, and California chose not to prosecute them (yet). Be careful before you celebrate people who succeed because they choose to break the law. It's a very slippery slope.

<comment><USER7> I don't think this is necessarily a fair assessment.

In my brief reading the documents at the link referenced above, it appears that the author originally contacted the state of California, believing that he may be subject to the Money Transmission Act (MTA) based on his reading of the law. In his initial correspondence, he asks for clarification: is he actually engaged in operating a money transmission service, or is he an exempt payment processor?

That seems like a simple question but the bureaucrats he's dealing with don't provide an answer. Instead, they appear to latch on to his correspondence and treat it as a representation that he _is_ engaged in money transmission and therefore subject to the MTA. That's not exactly surprising: if he is subject to the MTA, there's a license involved, which generates revenue for the state.

This leaves an interesting unanswered question: was the author ever subject to the law in the first place? Perhaps the competitors who you suggest are flouting the law brought the matter to their legal counsel, who concluded that they were exempt. That doesn't mean that they aren't, but the lack of prosecutions hints that this isn't an unreasonable possibility.

One final comment about breaking the law: financial services are highly regulated and given the number of laws and regulations at the federal and state levels, I don't think _any_ company in this space can ever be certain that it is not breaking _some_ law. One thing is for sure however: if you're running a financial services company and have questions about a law, allowing legal counsel to research the matter and handle any correspondence with regulators is the best approach.

<comment><USER24> > was the author ever subject to the law in the first place? Perhaps the > competitors who you suggest are flouting the law brought the matter to their > legal counsel, who concluded that they were exempt.

You can read the law and decide for yourself. The text is actually fairly clear: if you receive money from one party for the purpose of transmitting it to another party then you need a license.

<comment><USER7> Reading laws and trying to determine what they mean when you are not an attorney is a dangerous pastime.

<comment><USER25> That tells us something about the nature of what passes for "law" in contemporary times, doesn't it? I mean, there's no particular reason that _every_ single citizen shouldn't understand what is and what isn't illegal, without any need for a specialized class of judges, lawyers, etc. to interpret, debate, spin and mangle things.

Limit the scope of government _very_ narrowly, to about what Bastiat argued for[1] and a lot of this problem would go away.

[1]: <http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


WolframAlpha: Approximate Fibonacci Sequence - <AUTHOR> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=approximate+fibonacci

<comment><USER2> This is a cruel thing to do to an innocent, possibly naive, online resource. :)</comment>


What Is Startup Chile And Why I'm Leaving Mexico   - <AUTHOR> http://jcamarena.com/english/what-is-startup-chile-and-why-im-leaving-mexico/

<comment><USER2> I was accepted to Start-up Chile and arrived two weeks ago. You're in for a great ride Julio.

My biggest concern when I first got accepted was the caliber of people which would be attracted to the program. I hadn't seen any start-ups which had come out of the program, and thought maybe the government was just hopping on the incubator bandwagon.

Since arriving and meeting the entrepreneurs here, I've been very impressed. Amazing projects, great people from around the world.

You'll have no regrets with your decision. Look forward to meeting you in Chile. If you have any questions, drop me an email, the address is in my profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey!, thanks for the comment .. actually im kinda afraid for the quality of the people there.

Would be great to get a beer (or pisco (?)) there on Santiago :).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I hope governments around the world are reading this and taking note. When you make it hard for your citizens to set up shop in your country, they are going to go somewhere else where it is easier. And all of the jobs that they would create, and money that they would pump into the local economy goes with them. It is similar to what happened to the movie industry in Hollywood. When other states and countries started offering tax breaks and streamlined permit processing, big productions moved out of California.

<comment><USER4> A story of my friend from the time I've lived in Germany...posted to a different topic but interesting nonetheless:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3224374>

<comment><USER3> Thank you for sharing that story. Sounds like a very daunting process. When I was in the Philippines last year, there was an initiative to create a new visa that would grant permanent resident status to entrepreneurs who set up businesses that employed 10 Filipinos. I wish more countries would adopt this approach.

<http://www.visasphilippines.com/sveg>

<comment><USER4> Thanks for introducing Philippines to the discussion (in addition to Chile). Both countries provide an example of how to attract entrepreneurs. And both are emerging economies.

When I follow the discussion on "entrepreneurial immigration" in USA and in Germany I see the same flawed logic: Everything's OK now, "we're on the top of the world", "why risk letting people in, maybe there will be terrorists among them"... Essentially, it's the policy of building higher walls and being, in effect, repellent. But also not realizing that entrepreneurs are a rare breed.

Why do not intelligent people act differently? Why has the high civil servant from my story let a pretty sure bet (my friend) leave the country?

Yes, it's the risk of being accused for letting a foreigner in but that is the surface of the problem. Underneath is the hubris. "We don't need it, we've got it all" mentality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hello everybody. My name is Joshua, I'm also mexican and just a year away to finish my degree in computer science. I've also got my concerns about entrepreneurship here in Mexico but willing to start something.

I'd like to know whether there's a place that all of us gather and discuss such topics. I think Julio's thought about leaving Mexico for further support and opportunity is something that has thrived amongst many of us young people at some point in time. Personally, I'm just to decide what to do next, and I'm inclined to keep myself here in Mexico and do some breakthrough work in the education sector.

But as all of us knows, mistrust, corruption and legal/political/financial obstacles weaken our will.

Concluding, I'd like us to keep in contact with each other, because for me, trust is an issue and contributing to this discussion reflect the concern and unbiased point of view (as many "bootstrappers" would like to seem, as Julio mentioned).

My twitter is @syb_ and I'll be glad to keep in contact with all of you.

</comment><comment><USER6> While i respect your decision, I'm not really sure why you didn't stay in Mexico, I think your article needs more details about what type of Help you got from the Mexican Gov., and what was the difference in Chile what did they offer?,

My big question would be, is it a totally different Market as you would expected to be? if so, what did you had to change on your business strategy?

<comment><USER7> Another Mexican giving its point of view here:

On human resources, the culture here is a job culture, you finish your career, you get into a company, work 30-35 years and retire, that's what the community expects of you. Starting a company is awkward, working in something without payment or having immediate profits is a waste of time or foolish. But that is changing with the crisis, everything goes now.

Getting people can be a bit difficult, most candidates I have interviewed had little experience (if at all), with free software technologies we use and demonstrated little will to learn (education tends to be centered on specific technologies), most don't work well unsupervised, thus our remote working experiment failed, they don't use modern development tools such as version control, bug tracking and project management software, etc. That is a generalization, of course there is brilliant people here too, but way more difficult to find, hopefully if a startup community concentrates in a place the skillful workforce will also concentrate there.

Government paperwork has always been abundant, complicated and time sink.

Taxes are not well leveled, either you are of low class (you have a small shop "changarro/tiendita") and pay a low tax, or you are middle class, a professional, you do consulting and give out receipts, your tax is relatively low and simple (you may require an accountant to make sure you don't fall into an obscure tax law and have problems), or finally you are the rich class, you are a corporation, you pay high federal taxes, state taxes, enterprise taxes (IETU), and retain value added tax (IVA, the equivalent of sale tax or VAT), only this bracket you will be able to give out invoices (invoices are centrally controlled by the government), which is a requirement when your clients are companies.

Most startups (incorporated) and companies will fall in the top bracket, even if you don't make millions, in other countries you are most likely to pay taxes based on your yearly income.

Financing is thought, the problem is government financing which is very prone to corruption, which means all those stimulus mostly go to friends, family and the corporate backers of those in the government (some politicians promise those stimulus to their backers beforehand in campaigns).

Finally, lets not get started with crime and violence, I live in a very peaceful part of the country but I have still received 2 or 3 calls arguing that they have a family member kidnapped, asking for money, a friend of mine even got a visit of an extortionist asking for "piso" money.

I can understand well why Julio is leaving, I was tempted too to apply to Startup Chile and start a new, but Mexico also has its key areas that are unexploited on technology and will be great business in the near future.

<comment><USER6> I think one of the key aspects in Mexico is Culture, by definition Work is where you are 8 hours a day, as you said finding someone that can manage its time without supervision its nearly impossible, let alone completing a task. A great point you mention is to gather around in a community and share our ideas and knowledge, running a business in Mexico, specially a technology related business can be overly complex.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> If anyone is interested i also have a Spanish version of this same post here:

[http://jcamarena.com/startups/que-es-startup-chile-y-por- que...](http://jcamarena.com/startups/que-es-startup-chile-y-por-que-me-voy- de-mexico/)

<comment><USER8> And here are the comments from noticiashacker.com

[http://www.noticiashacker.com/noticia/julio-camarena-qu- es-s...](http://www.noticiashacker.com/noticia/julio-camarena-qu-es-startup- chile-y-porqu-me-voy-de-mxico)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is cool. I would like to see more news from accepted Startup Chile companies. Julio says there are lots of other benefits afforded by Chile, as has been said elsewhere; I'd like to hear some firsthand anecdotes about these benefits.

<comment><AUTHOR> Subscribe to my blog and Embrace yourself; Startup Chile and open recommendations post to my natal country are coming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hola Julio, your blog link <http://www.blog.guali.com.mx/> is 403 right now. Good luck in Chile.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the info.. we are renaming our company blog to superpymes.com

That's why you got the error; i don't no lots of traffic there but i will be done by today's night.

Anyway i removed the link on our company website, thanks again :).</comment></comment>


Announcing Augmented Traffic Control: A tool to simulate network conditions - <AUTHOR> https://code.facebook.com/posts/1561127100804165/ <comment><USER2> What does this effort gain them over a sophisticated dummynet setup?</comment>


Ask HN: Where is Square payments or equivalent for the UK? - <AUTHOR>

Where or why isn't there an equivalent of Square in the UK? I can understand why Square is avoiding expanding at the moment as they focus on building their US business.
It's a valid model of taking payments, so why isn't there a UK service offering it?
a) no one bothering?
b) no one funding people who want to bother?
c) regulatory problems? <comment><USER2> iZettle.com - that's the only one I've heard of.

With it being primarily chip & pin in the uk I think that was an initial hurdle for people to get over, so it probably took longer for a UK company to come to market.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fantastic, thanks for that, I'd completely missed it.</comment></comment>


Theodore Roosevelt incident a portent of worse to come - <AUTHOR> https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/18/the-theodore-roosevelt-episode-was-no-isolated-incident-but-a-portent-of-worse-to-come/ <comment><USER2> Yeah the US is a little more like east Europe each day. Nepotism, oligarchy, politicised branches of administration and military, poor healthcare, corruption and most important corruption tolerant voters. I'd recommend changing course, as the US is no longer a country the world looks up to - quite the contrary, it is increasingly given as a negative example, and those are signs of rapid decline. A sad state of affairs.</comment>


Apple is professional, the web is amateur - <AUTHOR> http://dave.is/apple.html

<comment><USER2> I think you're correct that Apple is going to have to do things differently get some of their web properties to catch on, but I disagree heavily on your premise.

For a counterexample, Facebook is professional-looking and very structured compared to MySpace, which in turn is very amateurish-feeling.

There isn't any question which is preferred.

Forums are amateurish. Stackoverflow is professional. I know where I'm going for Q&A.

I think there's a lot more to Apple's problems than professionalism vs amateurism, to the point where it is a minor point, if one at all.

I'm very wary against sayings like "the web is about amateur content." The web is about _a lot of things,_ and while a lot of the web is about amateur content, a lot of the web is also about providing good structure, order, and execution to that content. In general, it even seems to be that the company that can put the most order unto the all of the content reaps the greatest success.

<comment><AUTHOR> My point wasn't that less professional looking websites succeed over more professional looking sites. It's Apple's focus on professional content (the select few) vs amateur content (all of us).

I didn't mean to use amateur in a derogative sense. Amateurs are just people who don't get paid for their work.

Re: Facebook/MySpace, I think this was a different dynamic. The thing facebook did right was tone down the design significantly so that everyone's content became the only important thing on the page. It's still amateur content though.

If Apple had done Stack Overflow, I bet they would have had a team of certified experts to answer the questions and I don't think it would have worked very well. In Stack Overflow, there's no separation between who can ask and answer questions (besides a few karma points). That kind of chaos Apple doesn't excel at.

<comment><USER3> It's this part that's going to get people disagreeing with you:

 _"No more pixel perfect web apps that feel like desktop apps, no more sites that look like glossy brochures, and embracing chaos and amateurism over order and professionalism. It is going to be very hard."_

<comment><USER4> I just don't see his point. Why go ugly/messy when elegant/perfect is working so well?

OK, so Ping isn't doing well. Seemed a "me too!" gesture in a market saturated with social networking apps, a messy application for a slick product.

No point in changing a paradigm that works, only to garner greater market coverage with subsequent much less penetration. If Apple's gonna "go ugly", they have to compete with "ugly" at 10% the price they're used to.

Why be worse, when you're famous for best?

<comment><USER5> I'd also attribute Ping's failure to 1) Failing to get an agreement for Facebook Connect in time for the launch and 2) Largely ignoring the portion of your music library not purchased from Apple.

In this day and age, when I join a new network I want it to be easy to find my existing "friends" on said network. SC2 nailed this - I was playing with friends within minutes of my first login. Ping, on the other hand... I saw a couple updates from friends and a lot of more-or-less fluff from Yo-Yo Ma. OH! and the spam. Sweet monkey jesus there was a lot of spam the first week. Not exactly a compelling social experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > If Apple's going to succeed at the web, they have to unlearn a lot of what > makes them Apple. No more pixel perfect web apps that feel like desktop > apps, no more sites that look like glossy brochures, and embracing chaos and > amateurism over order and professionalism

Here is yet another argument based on the premise that, in order for Apple to succeed, it must do the same thing as everyone else. We have heard the same argument about desktop computers (license Mac OS; be like Microsoft), mobile (make cheap phones; be like Nokia), and now with the web.

In a sea of amateurs, being professional is not exactly a bad thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think these situations are parallels.

Clones were a bad idea because they diluted Apple's brand and cut way into their margins (Apple is a hardware company and makes money from that).

As for cheap phones, Apple now sells the 3GS for $49. I don't think this is an example of the naysayers being right, it's just Apple having their cake and eating it too.

The point is not that Apple should do the same thing as everyone else to succeed at the web. It's just that they've been trying one thing over and over again with no success. They have to change something.

<comment><USER6> > Clones were a bad idea because they diluted Apple's brand and cut way into > their margins (Apple is a hardware company and makes money from that).

Well Apple's embracing amateur content may turn out to be a bad idea for all I know -- it would certainly dilute a few things. I stand by my claim that there is a parallel.

> As for cheap phones, Apple now sells the 3GS for $49

Disregarding the actual device cost, I suppose Apple has achieved the goal of having several price tiers, however it did not do so in the way that was recommended by a number of pundits, about whose view (that Apple _must_ design cheap phones otherwise it is dead in the water) I was complaining.

> The point is not that Apple should do the same thing as everyone else to > succeed at the web. It's just that they've been trying one thing over and > over again with no success. They have to change something.

That may be your personal point (and I would agree with it), but it does not seem to be the point of the author of the article who was more specific about what, in the author's opinion, needs to be changed.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am the author :). It's possible I didn't make my point as clearly as I could have in my post though.

Also re: phone prices, I agree with you. I think the pundits were wrong and pre-judged Apple's path to success on little evidence. I think there's plenty of evidence that their current path on the web is the wrong one.

<comment><USER6> Ha, I'm in my usual cycle: code, code, code, refresh HN, read some article with an interesting headline as quickly as I possibly can (being at work and all), completely disregard who is who, post my opinion, code, code, code, refresh HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7>
        "But wait a second," you say. "What about iLife? Isn't that all about amateur content?" Not quite. iLife helps normal people create things that feel professional.

This is the definition of amateur. Notably, you can spot things done in their software, Keynote being a glaring example. It has made a template of what a presentation is supposed to look like on a mac.

See when Jobs gives a keynote using Keynote wearing a black turtleneck, we recognize this signature. When your boss holds a meeting with a presentation in keynote with that same or similarly light faded colour background and bold white text, you recognize this as imitation.

Apple have fantastic engineers and fantastic designers and their products reflect a culture that prides craftsmanship, detail and perfection. But to say the web is amateur is to deny the wealth of originality and expression that spreads from it. Youtube has a direct cam to site, record and upload thing going because it enables people to be expressive. They keyword here is "enable" and it's in their advantage to promote the creating of original content by focusing on the enabling factors.

I think the article addresses the problem in a flawed perspective. Facebook being a good counter example. The problem with Apple is probably better tied with their culture. Apple is not social, and until they socialize they will not know what it takes to enable socializing.

A lot of people here are pointing out that MySpace was the amateur failure of the social web, further getting away from idea that social success == amateur, but let's not forget that MySpace was once, many years ago, "the shit" and only got its pedestal kicked out from under it when other sites offered better enabling factors (read: features) to socialize between friends. Sure, MySpace was fuck ugly, because not everyone's creativity is equal! but to say everyone switched to facebook solely because facebook looked more professional? I don't take that. (eh, i guess it was built better to - damn myspace always had fucking down time - whatever)

<comment><USER8> The devolution of MySpace has many factors, one of which was forcing people with older and less expensive (which, for the targeted audience, could have meant hand-me-down from parents) computers to upgrade their browsers, which just slowed everything down and ruined the aura of excitement it once had. Another factor was the intrusion of commerce-like Bulletins from "friends," asking you to leave the site to vote for them in some contest or other. There was a lot less social there than people give it credit for.

<comment><USER7> true enough, but i also think that we say that myspace had a lot of social at the time was because it did _at the time_. There was no facebook back then so myspace was really the best at offering social features even though, by comparison against today's players, it didn't have much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The salient point in this article aside (I agree with the author that Apple doesn't get the P2P nature of the web), I think Ping failed for a different reason:

I don't trust Apple knowing what music I have (ripped). They are too close to the recording industry which has spent years suing everyday folks like me to prop up their dying business model.

Sure, I know Apple won't "turn me in" (would be bad for business) for my shady music collection (most of which is NOT available in the US, btw) but I don't want to take the chance.

The fact that Apple seems to segregate the "professionals/industry" from the "amatuers/consumers" only adds to the dilemma that Ping has yet to resolve.

</comment><comment><USER10> Apple is driven by a philosophy of _design_ , like industrial design and graphic design, but not necessarily craftsmanship, although craftsmanship often goes into design.

As long as Steve Jobs is alive, Apple won't give up on design. Design is what sets Apple apart, not craftsmanship. It's why you see the Macintosh in the MoMA but not a Compaq.

<comment><USER11> Make that a philosophy of purely visual design. OMG, aluminum, round corners, and animations. MacOS did not have a defining part in the digital revolution of the 90s, their market capitalization is their biggest success and that is mainly due to the US market--think old people and people with significant disposable income.

I know, I know, but I love to hate. And don't start me on Facebook.

<comment><USER9> You've never taken apart a PowerMac G5. It was simply elegant for it's time... the innards are more beautiful than the exterior.

Apple is famous for lots of serious attention to detail that involve not just visual/glitz but usability.

Design is _definitely_ the correct word.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Spot on about Ping. It should have been a service where anyone can be an artist, and everyone is a listener. Artists could share their content for free. And there should have been a web based application.

</comment><comment><USER13> Its common knowledge that Apple doesn't understand the web?

</comment><comment><USER14> "Blemish free" .... guy obviously has never used iTunes.

<comment><USER15> Well, it _looks_ pretty. Poke it the wrong way and it explodes horribly. Sort of like the Hindenburg.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Beneath the cruft (i.e., Apple products should have less polish, Apple hates amateurs), I think there's a kernel of truth, especially related to their approach to social networking. Can we expect Kayne West to use Ping like Twitter? Probably not, but it's an interesting thought.

Do remember that many of Apple's products (e.g., iMovie, iWeb) are _designed_ for everyday people to create content that is fairly professional-looking. I'd argue that, to a certain degree, Apple has done more to raise the bar of content quality than Instagram or YouTube (which have lowered the bar to entry). Those aren't exclusive approaches, merely different value propositions.

</comment><comment><USER17> Apple has tried amateur. The were very early out the gate with the podcast directory through iTunes. I think they were hoping that Podcasts + AppleTV would be an end-run around the cable companies and content providers.

Turns out, not enough people wanted amateur podcasts. I'd wager that the easily availability of paid Hollywood content drives far more people to the iTunes ecosystem than the free and easily availability of podcasts.

So I think their experience indicates their customers value professionalism.

<comment><USER8> Oh, that's an interesting point re: podcasts. I tried them and fled, even when they were done by people I liked. Just because you're doing something for _free_ doesn't mean you can ignore basic things:

1) Have your material already prepared and organized 2) Clear your damn throat so you're not going to cough 3) If you do cough or burp, edit the damn thing out 4) Um, um, um is like nails on a blackboard, see #1

And there are people who disagree, but I found the "bandwidth" of podcasts to be lower than that of just reading. In the twenty minutes of talk time, there would be about 1/5th the amount of content I could have read in the same time span. Some people might have had visions they were doing the next talk radio, but none of them turned out to ever be as dramatic as the worst talk radio host.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The one downside to this difference - low quantity. It's not so noticeable with Apple, but someone else with constantly high quality, Daft Punk, have done so little, five albums by my count.

<comment><USER19> > Daft Punk, have done so little, five albums by my count.

3 studio albums, 1 soundtrack, 2 live albums and 3 remixes. But they also have 17 singles, as many music videos, 2 full-length movies (Interstella 5555 as part of Discovery, and Daft Punk's Electroma which is a bona-fide movie directed by the duo) and they have toured _a lot_. I don't think Daft Punk is a good example of "doing so little" quantity-wise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was buying this article until I read the line about Apple dropping everything that constitutes why Apple is "Apple." Pixel-perfect design and a professional ethic are exactly why Apple is recognized as one of the most prolific companies (and brands) in the world. If I want to see loose, ragged, amateur content, I know where to go. There's nothing wrong with sterility if it's done properly and given purpose. In this case, to promote a more professional existence (not a bad thing).

</comment><comment><USER21> And yet if you zoom out just a little, people seem to be buying more and more equipment from Apple to produce and consume the "amateur" content of the web.

</comment><comment><USER22> On the web, PHP is professional. iWeb makes it easy to imitate professional trends (you said it yourself: just like Apple's website). Likewise, GarageBand is mostly used as a quick and dirty way to imitate professionally produced music, although there is a lot more truth to the "Apple = professional" boast in that industry.

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't agree that youtube is about amateur content. Sometimes my friends upload interesting videos to youtube or someone links to a mildly amusing clip like MyDrunkKitchen. However, most of the youtube links I see go to professionally produced content such as music videos, news clips, or comedy shows.

</comment><comment><USER24> Apple is too professional to get the amateurish web.. pfff what kind of non scene is that? As if web companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. were a bunch of disorganized slackers and that is somehow more successful on the net. Weird associations like that remind me of arguing with high people.

</comment><comment><USER25> This dichotomy is incorrect. We shouldn't be focusing on professionals vs. amateurs.

I think it's more useful to realise that Apple is controlling .. the web is (largely) open. Or to put it another way; Apple want to set norms .. the web wants crowds to set norms.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm glad I actually read the article. Given the title I was all set to either ignore or flag. As it stands, I agree whole-heartedly with the message. Yes, there are things to quibble about, but overall it provides food for thought.

</comment><comment><USER27> technology is amateur. technology probably shouldn't be analyzed by analog methodologies either.

how apple(substitute any company) 'catches on' can be derived from <http://ow.ly/59Maa>. our perception isn't as important as the ubiquity of that which is available to perceive.

apple properties will catch on as long as they don't go out of business or lose the power to shout about their products(though this probably sits under the former).

</comment><comment><USER28> iMovie and iPhoto are professional? Woooooooooooooooooooooooow

</comment><comment><USER29> > It's common knowledge that Apple doesn't get the web in general and social > in particular.

It is?

> In iMovie, you can take your professional looking photos and stitch them > together with the Ken Burns effect. The name says it all right there.

So you acknowledge that iLife is a counter to your point, and your only refutation is that there is a Ken Burns effect? I don't get it.

The premise of this very short article seems to be that, because Apple includes some professionally-made templates and used stock photos in a keynote, they don't get amateur content. iLife is the biggest counter to this argument. Apple does try to make sure that amateur content doesn't look or sound too shitty, but how does that mean they don't understand amateur content at all? It just means they're removing the boring work for the average user who doesn't want to spend an hour making a theme look good. Apple totally gets amateur content. They want every kid with an iPad to be recording music in Garageband.

The amateur content argument is weak and doesn't support the social argument. As for Ping, I never understood the hatred for it as it was always clearly just a way to see the music people were buying and not some major social network competitor. I've used it to browse a few people and found new albums I liked. It did its job in my case.

Facebook was the clean, professional-looking, easier-to-use alternative to the chaotic and amateurish MySpace. The idea that Apple must embrace amateur chaos just doesn't make sense to me and seems like it would be the wrong thing to do. Apple is the kind of company that is often a few years behind but eventually releases something so polished and easy to use that it's successful anyway.

<comment><USER30> I don't think there was ever a hatred for Ping -- a hatred would infer that people cared about it. Nobody cared at all... logged in once, and then never went back to that part of iTunes again.

<comment><USER29> Fair point, but a lot of people freak out over Ping for some reason.

<comment><USER8> I think people freak out over Ping because it has a lameness to it that people would have expected to originate from Microsoft or even Google -- but not from Apple.

Its entire approach is actually anti-social. It's not web-based, it's locked into iTunes and is meant for customers. Customers are busy buying, they want "Give it to me and let me go enjoy it now." They connect with other people on the Internet, outside of a commercial setting.

Apple's own support forums are more social even though the purpose is to solve customer problems. You don't need iTunes to use them.

<comment><USER31> _This_ is the problem. iTunes may have been an acceptable interface five years ago but compared to the better "HTML5" web sites of today it feels slow, clunky, awkward and, most crucially, arbitrarily fenced in. Apple's challenge going forward will be to make interfaces that maintain their quality standards but with fuzzier boundaries with the rest of the web.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I only have one thing to say: me.com

</comment><comment><USER33> More trolling on HN I see! The Web is professional, it's the developer who blogged about this story that is an amateur.

Just because he doesn't know what he's doing, now the web is amateurish? These nerd-rage blog posts are just noobs venting that 'they don't get it'.

<comment><USER34> very little depth, the only thing that is to learn here, is that the write is an apple fanboy.

<comment><USER35> And so are many of the most active people of this site. Thats why the article gets so many upvotes for such shallow nonsense excuses about Apple failing at the social web etc. (Not necessarily a bad thing, a company is good at some and not great at others). This post is for and by fanboys who take Apple's weaknesses personally and have to spin it as if Apple is too good for the web. (bye bye karma).</comment></comment></comment>


Rethinking Ray Ozzie - <AUTHOR> http://winsupersite.com/cloud/rethinking-ray-ozzie

<comment><USER2> I can't help but wonder how effective those memos would have been if he'd been more direct, rather than use manager-speak. Passive voice just doesn't work when you want to get people to take action.

 _Certain of our competitors ' products and their rapid advancement and refinement of new usage scenarios have been quite noteworthy_

could have been:

 _Our competitors are out-innovating us, and we 're losing to them. I hate to lose and you should hate being losers too. So this is what we're going to do._

<comment><USER3> I spent the summer at MS on an internship and I think I can say with confidence that calling things as they are is just not something one does at Microsoft. Will it could be the intern cocoon I also observed non-intern targeted communications that showed the same behaviour.

Once I spent time with people they got more friendly and open. Yet if you do get a good conversation going you can expect the managers at the table to hang out of it. The managers always watch their words. Likewise if you talk to a random person in the cafeteria they will toe the party line.

In contrast one is safe to criticize Microsoft products provided they have been dropped or replaced. No love is shown for Windows Mobile or the Kin.

When you do criticize current practices/products in public there was an unwritten rule that one should always reference the competition. No one calls it out in words like "We can do better!", "This is user hostile!", "We're being to greedy by doing X!". Instead it is "We should focus on X because our competitor is going well on Y". Also "competitor" is always left non-specific, just like it is in your quote.

As such considering Ray Ozzie's former high org chart position I must congratulate him on saying as much as he did.

<comment><USER4> I was an FTE at MSFT for a few years. I disagree with this assessment. In many contexts Microsoft has a culture of tearing apart other people's ideas, I suspect rooted in the legendary BillG rants ("stupidest idea I've ever heard", etc.) and the overly internally-competitive culture. Additionally, rank and file routinely complain about Microsoft being bad at marketing, Microsoft being bad at consumer messaging, Microsoft building products for the Redmond bubble and not for humans, etc. etc., and the internal dogfood aliases are full of this stuff as are hallway and lunchtime discussions in many places. Not to mention all those people carrying iPhones who used to joke that it was "competitive research".

That's not to say that there aren't koolaid drinkers and that it won't ever be politically unwise to directly criticize your colleagues... But it's a diverse place, and, in my experience, cynicism exists in a big way there.

<comment><USER5> I agree. I've been working in Windows Embedded for a couple years now, and I work with some people in management not afraid to speak their minds to others on the team. Sometimes the way they react or phrase things helps me think from their vantage points.

Interns do seem to be treated differently though. Not many criticisms are voiced around them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What a silly claim. There's no question that the last decade at Microsoft is full of faulty assumptions and bad execution. But these memos as visionary? Feh!

1) 2005 is four years after Hailstorm ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_HailStorm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_HailStorm)) and already pretty late for a "services focus" to be forward-looking.

2) October 2010 is right about when Windows Phone 7 shipped, and therefore a year after the "reset" of the previous phone effort. At this point, "devices" is obvious to the point of "duh".

3) There's a world of difference between saying "X is important" and "X is important, therefore we should do Y".

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting quote from Ozzie:

> "The PC-centric/server-centric model has accreted simply immense > complexity,"

This is presented as an insight. There is so little context given here, so maybe I'm just missing something, but it sounds much more like bullshit to me.

What exactly is _less complex_ about "post-PC" or "post traditional server"? On the client, minding battery life and constantly dealing with connection loss is much more complex than an always-powered, always-connected PC. On the server front, managing VM instances is in many ways more complex than just running a single server, or a smaller set of them. People add these complexities because they give them something in return. But it is adding complexity, let us not deny it.

I never followed Ozzie too deeply, but this style of throwing around programmer jargon to make an all-around "nothing" point seems to be his style. I still remember hearing him say something along the lines of "RSS is the Unix pipe of the web". I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt when I heard that, to stretch my mind somewhat to believe that is actually a thing... But let's face it, the analogy is nonsense.

<comment><USER7> _What exactly is less complex about "post-PC" or "post traditional server"?_

The API, mainly. Compare the size and cruftiness of the Windows API with the Android or iOS equivalents that a developer programs against.

<comment><USER8> Apple was smart and basically repurposed the OSX API for ios. But they always had a good API. The original windows API is water trash. .Net is nice.

The only thing MS needs to do is go modern instead of legacy for their new phones, but is that going to happen?

<comment><USER4> > The original windows API is water trash.

You know, I let it slide when the comment you replied to said it, but I disagree with this one. IMO most people who criticize Win32 just aren't familiar with it. I've heard plenty of people dismiss objc on similar grounds: simple unfamiliarity becomes "this is bad". Once you get over the initial learning curve it's quite easy to be productive with it.

<comment><USER8> Kernel32 user32, advapi32, etc. Are you really going to tell me that the namespacing and naming convention for their API, which mind you, used handles and annoying type defs, was anything spectacular. I really hope you are kidding. I reverse engineered windows for years, know a huge amount of documented and undocumented api from ntdll and so on. The API is water trash, you lose when you question my know-how on this topic.

<comment><USER4> I was on the Windows team for a few years. I have seen the source code. There is cruft as there will be with any project of its age, but it's not nearly as bad as people say, especially if you can navigate it well. There are some good ideas underneath. COM is generally a good idea. The mental model of message pumps and window procs doesn't really have deep flaws, and lots of UI frameworks on other platforms have the same ideas under the hood. You mention ntdll, it's a shame more of that isn't public, because those APIs are often cleaner than their public equivalents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Microsoft used to completely dominate everything, and now they dont, so people think they have 'failed' in some way. But if you look at their profits they're still making out like bandits. Over the last 5 years they've made a ton more money than everyone except Apple. So perhaps Microsoft did the right thing by not jumping in the direction Ozzie said straight away?

stats: [https://twitter.com/janettu/status/380824535714377728](https://twitter.com/janettu/status/380824535714377728)

<comment><USER10> I'm not a business analyst or anything related, but I think the issue is that in this day and age even huge profits don't mean a thing even when it comes to a business's future. Just look at Nokia, which was dominating its market 7-8 years ago, or Blackberry/RIM.

You really do have to be paranoid to survive, and the memos in the article are an example of that.

<comment><USER9> We don't really know what a successful tech company looks like over longer than 5 or 10 years, because no-ones ever stayed dominant longer than that. Perhaps IBM is the only model - greatness that fades to a reasonable profitable longevity. Perhaps thats the only way to go long term?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "While Ray Ozzie's time at Microsoft is widely regarded with disinterest by those Windows watchers who even remember him,"

They are not interested, or they are able to take a disinterested, i.e. impartial, view?

"it's clear now that the erstwhile Chief Software Architect was simply rowing against a tide of internal calcification."

Somehow I picture a lake of milk.

</comment><comment><USER12> Slightly OT, but in terms of "where are they now", Ozzie founded a (still stealth-mode) startup called Talko: [http://www.talko.com](http://www.talko.com).

[http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/15/ray-ozzies-stealthy- startup...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/15/ray-ozzies-stealthy-startup- talko-is-building-a-consumer-facing-mobile-communications-app-not-a-cloud- based-mobile-backend/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Ray Ozzie at least gave Microsoft Azure, which honestly if they didn't have that much at least they would be nowhere on the cloud. He was working on things like syncing files, email, office integration, etc.

Basically stuff like google docs, dropbox, heroku, etc. were all trying to be made in Microsoft's image under Ozzie and they all sort of ignored him. Now Microsoft is scrambling with SkyDrive, Office 365, Windows 8, Azure, etc.

Microsoft also pushed out J Allard who had vision to compete with iPad. His team was also responsible for Xbox and Zune. Between Xbox you get the blueprint of how to deliver services people love and evolve with over time. With Zune you got the beautiful Metro design that Microsoft finally embraced. The Zune player was pretty much the blueprint for this style and it was outstanding software for a Windows app.

Microsoft 20 years ago was about finding brilliant people and letting them build brilliant businesses under the Microsoft umbrella. At some point around 2000 the name of the game is to make all things Windows and Office and that kind of protectionism pretty much put Microsoft consistently 3-5 years behind in areas that matter like Search, Mobile, Services, Cloud Infrastructure because they couldn't see how that benefitted Windows and Office.</comment>


Ask HN: Do the app stores provide statistical data about who downloads your app? - <AUTHOR>

Do the mobile app stores we are all familiar with (i.e. iTunes / Google Play / BB App World) provide information to an app developer about the demographics of individuals downloading their apps?
I have a client who would like to know if this information is available but I have no published apps to verify whether or not this information is provided.
Thank you! <comment><USER2> Hello, iOS developer here.

Some of the data I'm able to see contains location (Country). I don't know much more than that, however, there may be tools that you can build into your app to discover such data (if you do this, please let the user opt-in).

This article may be of help: [http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/tracking- the-success-o...](http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/tracking-the-success- of-your-ipad-app.html) \- I personally use AppViz which makes viewing data much more convenient.

</comment><comment><USER3> I can speak to itunes, which doesn't. But I'm working on a solution that will do this and more - send me an email at ssebro at stanford dot edu for more info!

</comment><comment><USER4> I only know iTunes. The reports you get are pretty limited. You get downloads by day. You also get "Top Markets" so you can get a breakdown by country. But you can't see age or gender.

</comment><comment><USER5> Google Play: You can see country, language, carrier, device and android version of every install.</comment>


DHS weighs major change to H-1B foreign tech worker visa program - <AUTHOR> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article192336839.html <comment><USER2> I really wish that someone would do the right thing and fix H-1B by attaching the visa to the person, not the job/employer.

That would help fix sooo many of the objections to this program. But perhaps most importantly it would mean people on this visa would not be indentured servants , with the possibility of visa revocation hanging over them.

<comment><USER3> That would be a huge improvement.

Frankly the whole original point of H-1B was to bring in awesome people and encourage them to stay if they showed they brought enough value.

It should, as you said, be attached to the person with a fixed term (10 years?), then at the end of the term there should be a "job interview"-like process where it is determined if this person has brought enough value. If they succeed hand them a Green Card.

Employers should still help them get the initial H-1B to show they have a job and that their credentials are credible. But after that the employee alone should hold the H-1B and be allowed to jump ship if they're unfairly treated or poorly compensated (after all the point of H-1B was never to get CHEAP labour, it was to get GOOD labour).

The fixed term also gives them more personal security, without the threat of being kicked out with little notice.

<comment><USER4> H1B was never created as a path to immigration. It was always designed around a single purpose: temporarily filling a shortage for a specific position until a qualified American could be found.

Read the regulations. This idea of H1 as a path to a green card is just a fraudulent use of that visa. I am not opposed to people getting green cards — I am opposed to the idea that the H1B is some kind of back door to permanent residency.

If you want to immigrate, get the proper visa.

<comment><USER5> May be I don't quite understand this - a "proper" employment based immigrant visa is one of [https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us- visas/immigrat...](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us- visas/immigrate/employment-based-immigrant-visas.html). Which is what most H1B folks apply for. Not sure how H1b is a backdoor for permanent residency.

Is your point that immigrant visa takes however long it takes (>10 years for Indians), and if one is already here on H1b, they should not expect H1b to be indefinitely extended until immigration visa is approved?

For pretty much all countries other than India, there are no practical issues, since they get permanent residence well before their H1b expires.

The problem is magnified for Indians to the extent that their lives are basically in suspended animation for several years

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is absurd. People on H1-B pay taxes like Americans - i.e Social security, Medicare, State, federal, sales, property...

They're, however, not eligible for ANY of the social safety net they subsidize America for, (no social security, unemployment, Medicare, etc). They're overwhelmingly peaceful, law abiding residents with higher education, most earning in the top 5%.

Abuse of the system is not by the recipients, but the companies enabling the abuse - punish the companies, not the innocent, tax paying, peaceful, law abiding residents who don't wake up every morning saying "Today, I want to replace an American job and suppress some wages, dream FUCKING LIFE".

If this law does pass, I believe those being asked to leave should sue the US for repayment of Social security and Medicare taxes paid - after all they're non resident aliens and should be taxed as such. Ludicrous restrictions like not being allowed open their own businesses, killing any chance of monetizing a side hustle is another opportunity cost that the govt. cannot compensate for - and it may even be illegal, after all bringing an idea to life is free speech!

Most of all, if this is squarely an anti-India policy, India should return the favor in kind and add tariffs to American businesses & individuals benefiting from trading with India. A page from Trump's own playbook is the only answer that'll get through to him.

</comment><comment><USER7> Some background, this is regarding the intermediate status once you have maxed out your 2 H1b visas for 3 years, and have applied for a green card. There are queues per country, with the one for India being the longest at 12 year (1).

Not allowing green card petitioners to stick around will hit hundred of thousands of foreigners that are almost certain eligible for a green card, but just have the bad luck of being stuck in a queue. They will have to leave the USA and many will abandon their green card efforts.

I'm sure a lot of employers will not like this, so the chance of this happening would seem slim. However with the current government one never knows.

1\. [https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/visa-and- immigratio...](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/visa-and- immigration/indians-applying-for-green-card-have-12-year-waiting- list/articleshow/59543350.cms)

<comment><USER8> The real problem is the absurdly long processing time for these green card applications.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is exactly why I left the US after I graduated. Being on H1B is such a huge gamble these days.

Now I am living in Europe, making good money, and living happily without having to worry about crap like this.

<comment><USER10> While this is anecdotal it does worry me that we invest (as a society, in the general sense) in educating people in the US and then don't do enough to keep them here. It should be easy to obtain a permanent work visa after graduating. You'd need controls like perhaps a minimum degree earned, minimum number of credits earned/years in school and approved institutions but it seems feasible. It would do a lot to retain people that not only we've invested in, but who (hopefully) have had a chance to integrate culturally at a young age and formed friendships and connections that will help anchor them.

<comment><USER11> I like to believe that's the plan - get them to US, teach them, force them back home. Truly doing the world a service, Team America!

<comment><USER12> Foreign students pay higher costs than even out-of-state students. They're not mooching off the system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm not a fan of the program, after what happened in Disney. [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after- layoff...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at- disney-train-foreign-replacements.html)

It really soured me on the whole program.

<comment><USER7> yeah an obvious way to improve the program is to require the applicant to have much more added value than the average American worker. I would argue that salary is the best but still a very poor indicator. What about fields where the average salary is low like agriculture or areas like North Dakota where the cost of living is low and therefore salaries are low? I think the USCIS should start to calculate these numbers per industry and geographical area

<comment><USER14> The Department of Labor does (here is one for Software Developers in the Bay Area: [http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=36084...](http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=36084&code=15-1133&year=18&source=1)) and requires that H1B applicants be paid at or above market rate for a given job code and level.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's a hardened belief that jobs are a zero-sum game — and from this arises the idea that every skilled immigrant takes away a job from a U.S. worker. This isn't true. More skilled, educated workers will actually add to the economy — and grow the economy.

More: [http://journal.dedasys.com/2014/12/29/people-places-and- jobs...](http://journal.dedasys.com/2014/12/29/people-places-and-jobs/)

</comment><comment><USER16> > The administration is specifically looking at whether it can reinterpret the > "may grant" language of the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act > to stop making the extentions. The act currently allows the administration > to extend the H-1B visas for thousands of immigrants, predominantly Indian > immigrants, beyond the allowed two three-year terms if a green card is > pending.

They might as well do away with the H1-B program all together.

Not all H1B visas are granted for multi-year expirations. Many are granted for 6 or 9 months, and then the employer finds out that they need the person for longer and apply for extension.

Also, the Green Card is tied to employment, so if you stop working for an employer because your H1B expired and DHS refuses to renew it because of this new rule (if it goes into effect) then the person has to go to the beginning of the line / process to apply for the Green Card.

I understand that H1B is a non-immigrant visa, but if this change goes into effect, most people won't even apply for the H1B because it would make no sense. Probably what the Trump administration wants in the first place.

<comment><USER17> Employment Based Green Card is for the _future_ worker. The proper way it's supposed to work is that, when hiring for non-temporary positions, you go straight for the EBGC for the foreign worker. Who, of course, is not working for you yet so he gets his GC for the future job. And it's the way it worked before H1 program has been introduced in 1990.

What happens now is that people are hired in the H1B status, which is, by definition, a status for temporary worker. And then the vast majority of them suddenly realize that the job is not temporary (wow, surprise!) and they need to be in a permanent status to do this job, nobody else can (here is the proof that we tried to find somebody and failed, honestly!). So they need to go through adjustment of status (AOS) process to change their "temporary worker" status to the "permanent resident" one. Of course, while the process is going, the worker is in a vulnerable position. On one hand, he or she just claimed that they have been in the wrong status (by requesting it to be adjusted) so their temporary status became even more temporary, so to say. On the other, the EBGC has not been granted yet so the worker remains in the state of, essentially, temporary suspended deportation. For the great benefit of the employer, of course.

Don't you find this strange that so many companies fail to estimate permanency of their jobs? Don't you think they might be doing this intentionally in order to exploit the AOS process?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> As an immigrant on H1B, if it wasn't for the quality of work and people here in the valley, I'd definitely look to go elsewhere with my skills because of this incessant existential risk to our life in this country. This administration really stresses immigrants like me.

Like, are we staying here or are we not... can we plan to buy a house or not... should we plan our kids education here or elsewhere... should we save money here or elsewhere...

Pfft. Not sure if I'd have made the same decision going back 4 years. Friends who chased professional opportunities in Europe, Canada seem to have their visa stuff figured out. But over here, the rules just keep changing.

<comment><USER19> For what it's worth, as a fellow immigrant on a work visa (O-1 here… wasn't eligible for H-1B), the stress around a visa status is nothing new. It's been a constant struggle since I moved to the USA in 2009; and all 8 years of Obama were pretty bad too. Trump might be bad, but the immigrant struggles are nothing new, and won't change regardless of whether the administration is blue or red.

<comment><USER18> I guess so... but headline-grabbing news around immigration does seem to pop up more. And then I have to dive into that and figure out if this applies to us or not.

Definitely leaving a bad taste. Some amount of "lock-in" period to laws so that people can plan their lives better would definitely help. But hey... I'm no lawmaker.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Remains to be seen how this impacts the US universities. Part of the incentive for the international students to choose the US over other countries for higher studies is because there are some seriously great professional opportunities after the studies if you can immigrate. For example, our industry is centered in the US, the US is truly a super power in research, the US mindset (startups, relatively merit-driven systems) etc compared to other developed western countries.

If there is no clear path to immigration, and if high quality education becomes relatively easily available (see: western universities setting up centers in the east), that can dry up the desire to choose a US based university I think.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm an H1B visa holder, I think this is a step in the right direction. American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act - should have never existed. It allows H1B visas to be extended beyond 6 years. No one should be forced to remain on abusive H1B visa for more than 6+ years of their life. It hurts everyone expect the SV tech giants.

<comment><USER14> No one is being forced to remain on H1B visas for any length of time, you can always quit and leave any time.

This affects individuals who have green card applications pending and are being granted 1-year extensions while their applications are pending due to a country-based quota system and thus backlog.

The only way this would not affect these individuals is if they remove the quota and backlog and grant green cards immediately, but it doesn't sound like the Administration is planning to do that with the talk of "self-deportation" and all.

Instead, they just plan to stop the 1-year renewal and effectively kick these individuals out of the country, even if they like their current status and have been waiting for a decade for a green card.

I fail to see how this is a step in the right direction for these workers.

<comment><USER21> > No one is being forced to remain on H1B visas for any length of time, you > can always quit and leave any time

I'm taking the abuse for a better life for my family.

>This affects individuals who have a green card application pending and are being granted 1-year extensions while their application is pending due to a country-based quota system and thus backlog.

The wait time is somewhere between half a century and three and a half centuries [1]

The Tech companies or the attorneys never tell their employees about this long wait time. Instead they just lie it being 5-to-10 years. It happened to me, I realised my turn will never come up only after waiting 10 years in the line.

[1] [https://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal- immigr...](https://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigrants- will-have-wait)

<comment><USER14> I am guessing you are an Indian national currently on a H1B visa (given that you are apparently on an H1B visa and have been in the green card queue for 10 years).

If this comes to pass, you will either (a) be transferred to another country by your company if they like you enough or (b) lose your job and get kicked out of the US unceremoniously. How is this better for you or your family?

If you dislike the your job and the H1B program, you can leave right now on your own terms, rather than wait for the Administration to enact new policies to kick you out.

<comment><USER21> > How is this better for you

Standing in a line for 10 years, and then realizing there is no line. I wish no one else have to go through what I'm going through

<comment><USER14> Sure, if there is comprehensive immigration reform that removes the queue for Indian-born applicants. Doesn't sound like that is what the current Administration is planning though.

I think at least some people on H1B like their jobs and company (and vice versa) even if the wait for a green card is currently indeterminate, and won't be too happy to see this happen.

> I wish no one else have to go through what I'm going through

So you think this is a good idea even though your family and you will likely be negatively affected by it if it happens? I assume the only reason that your family and you are still on an H1B is because, on balance, it is better to be in the US than somewhere else, despite you "taking the abuse".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Indian government is really corrupt and don't have any self respect. India should ban all American companies in Indian soil pushing Indians entrepreneurs down. Companies like Coke, Pepsi, KFC, McDonnell, Starbucks, Google, Microsoft, Amazon etc and away lot more should be banned to operate in India and Indian entrepreneurship should be promoted. if India does that, I ll any day go back to India as a proud Indian. Since India is corrupt and has no unity to stand up against American imperialism, I have to fight here to go up. This is ridiculous. As top 15% of this country benefit from me, I have to take stones from bottom 5% percent of losers who does't blame them for their position and hit on colored people to feel good about themselves.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is not going to be a popular opinion. My opinion has kind of changed on H1B people. I have talked to a bunch of these folks and they were hating on other immigrants. Some of the people from South American countries are basically are coming here so they don't get killed.

Most of the H1Bs could get a job in their country and at least have some safety. Everyone is just trying to better their lives.

India Graduates vastly more people than america. Even if only 10% of them are any good that is a massive number of good people. I am not sayings only 10% are any good its just a number. American companies should just go over there if they want.

Did you know you can get perm residency in Canada and its not nearly as hard. Why hasn't Canada surpassed the US for tech jobs?

<comment><USER24> Lower population, essentially.

Vancouver, Montreal, and Waterloo are major tech cities. There's cutting-edge research paired with major companies and univerisites. You might have heard of a few small companies such as "shopify", "500px", or "kik". Canada is 6% tech.

But there's a bit of ramp-up delay. Canada has nearly the population of California. There's a practical limit to how fast growth can take place. There are also other factors, such as weather (it's -26C in Montreal today), and salary (you will earn less as a canadian permanent resident than you will on a H1B in the states).

<comment><USER25> It isn't lower population. Canadian culture has a bad case of tall poppy syndrome. I'm Canadian and the jobs in the US simply pay 50% more (before taking into account things like the exchange rate or taxes) than jobs in Canada do. Employers don't want to hire Silicon Valley level talent. If they did, they would pay to match. Canada's economy and policies actively encourage brain drain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This will only affect Indians and maybe Chinese. It's time to stop pretending the Trump administration isn't racist to the core.

<comment><USER27> I don't know why you are being downvoted. This is essentially accurate. There may be a few other countries affected like the Philippines but no predominately white countries will be affected because their green card waiting lists are short enough that people from those countries can get a green card before the original six years expires.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Just for computation sake, there are more than a million tech workers waiting for the GC as per this article. They have been here over a decade, and been in the tech industry. So even if you take a conservative number, the saving each one would have made over the decade would be around 100k. So we are talking around a 100 billion dollars in saving which would go back to India or other countries if these workers were deported by expiring the h1b, insteading of spending it in the US. Do the americans want that?

<comment><USER29> 100k seems extremely conservative. It is not that difficult to get to a million in a decade with proper investments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> While the H1-B program needs a lot of reform this isn't it. This is an attempt to get a quick change by throwing out a lot of people waiting for green cards rather than addressing the true issue of a lot of those visas being for cheaper workers rather than rare talent.

It's a good thing for America to bring in the brightest workers. It's not a good thing when American jobs are given to cheaper foreign workers. Disney is merely the tip of the iceberg, a case where the company goofed up and didn't put a secrecy clause in the agreement.

I rather like bhickey's suggestion of basing it on salary.

I also would like to see a change to contract law--allow someone to go before a judge and ask that a secrecy clause be struck as not in the public interest. This would only apply when the actions being protected appear to be basically illegal activity even if it might be within the letter of the law. (Being required to train foreign replacements certainly skirts the intent of the H1-B as it's obvious there are suitable Americans.)

</comment><comment><USER31> This is explicitly racist: it will primarily only apply to Indians on H-1B seeking permanent residency, some of whom wait 10-15 years for their green cards. I would say that Indian-Americans working with the Trump administration with any decency should resign in protest of such actions, but I'm not sure they have a sense of self-respect to begin with.

<comment><USER32> What if this is fake news?

Once it becomes law you can ask for people with decency to resign.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> 63 points, 77 comments, and 2 hours ago. This post is relegated to 3rd page already by HN. That's an interesting algorithm

</comment><comment><USER33> my understanding : Abuse: Many companies bring in H1b with minimum wage and replace existing Americans doing the same job and qualified enough. i had this experience with my colleage american who expresed his frustration of me replacing him. He has masters with 6 years experience. where as i have bachelors with 3 years experinece. My company brought me here with min wage required for h1b. This is strictly taking american jobs.

Rule: While i am qualified enough to get another job where they could not find an american i would apply. So in the end its the companies that are carrying these cheap labor tricks. We as H1b dont know what thier interviewing and rejecting process for an american. If we are offered a job we take it.

How should these rule be made and how to fine companies that replace americans. how to identify skilled labor.

I dont agree that there are few americans with IT knowledge. In my past 10 years experience i have seen many with good knowledge and highly qualified. With my company going there and replacing them just because we quote less.

Sorry but i am frank. I am still on h1b renewal with awaiting GC pending. ( i lost hope of getting GC). SO folks dont blame people/ Just blame the system and companies who pocket profit keepig us in limbo. But be ready to face the consequence. Because we all said to our visa councellor that we will return back to our home country during our visa interview.

</comment><comment><USER34> Hey, please come to US to be a slave for 3 years, then get off my lawn once you'd like to be promoted into a free citizen! Your only value is that your value is lower!

</comment><comment><USER35> Hmm are there many large tech companies left that do not have dev. offices outside of US? The place I work at has r&d offices in Germany, Ireland, India in addition to US. So if this goes through people can shift to working from whatever non-us office they like. The only effect on US is that tax revenue from salaries will go to Ireland, Germany, India.

</comment><comment><USER36> I wonder how/if academia will be forced to pay more for talent as well, I know many labs where people have been for years on h1b's...

The growing protectionism policies by governments, will make the global market for skilled labor more lucrative as companies and organizations will have to pay more for talent (and to keep it).

</comment><comment><USER37> Not sure if this is a good move but hopefully this will increase scrutiny on this $40B / year nightmare.

Aside from the valid CBP responsibilities DHS has due to absorbing that agency, I would estimate that 100% of their resources are wasted doing nothing.

</comment><comment><USER38> This administration is such a clown act. H1B's bad/unnecessary. H2B's good/necessary.

I think it's obvious the idea is to be protectionist with tech jobs, making those people more inclined to vote for party/people who have enacted that protectionism. Meanwhile at the low end of the scale, competition is good to keep low end wages suppressed. It's protecting classism.

Here's an example of a local career placement service with thousands of qualified workers already in the county, and yet a certain politician snags 70 visas for cooks and maids.

[http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/358793-trump- wins...](http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/358793-trump-wins-visas- to-hire-70-foreign-workers-at-mar-a-lago)

</comment><comment><USER39> Trump's H1B motivations are purely racist and both political parties are extremely racist towards Asians hands down.

The idea is to force Chinese and Indians to go back because there are the only two groups get affected as Green card queue for them is over 30 years now (if they apply today).

Just like minimum wage or other policies that have unintended implications this will harm US tech scene and marginally benefit India and China but it is the bigger loss for humanity.</comment>


Emojipedia.org - <AUTHOR> http://emojipedia.org/ <comment><USER2> I'm fascinated by people who think emoji could someday be a more universal way of communication given all of its inherent ambiguity. My off-the-top-of-my- head example was the prayer emoji, which has popularly been said to be a mistranslation of a purported "high five": [http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865606309/This-emoji- may-...](http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865606309/This-emoji-may-not-be- what-you-think-it-is.html)

But as Emojipedia points out, the Unicode definition is "person with folded hands". As a Westerner, I'm inclined to associate this with "prayer". But since we have the Japanese to largely thank for emoji in the first place, shouldn't this emoji be seen as "please" or "thank you"?

[http://emojipedia.org/person-with-folded- hands/](http://emojipedia.org/person-with-folded-hands/)

And if you look at that Emojipedia entry, you start to appreciate the cluaterfuck of things lost in translation. Not only is the gesture of folded hands of varied meanings across cultures, but each software vendor adds their own interpretation.

Compare Samsung's rendering:

[http://emojipedia- us.s3.amazonaws.com/cache/f7/f4/f7f45466d6...](http://emojipedia- us.s3.amazonaws.com/cache/f7/f4/f7f45466d6cb6ccb8aa1c485bffd2ecc.png)

With HTCs: [http://emojipedia- us.s3.amazonaws.com/cache/97/d6/97d6ea79e4...](http://emojipedia- us.s3.amazonaws.com/cache/97/d6/97d6ea79e4b42ec8dcedf05b1f6a0431.png)

Admittedly, emojis are more immediately expressive than, say, learning a whole other written language. But the amount of ambiguity and confusion ultimately remains the same IMO

<comment><USER3> It can still be a universal language - it will just have different dialects.

<comment><USER4> Yes. Emojis are a pictorial representation. Even some scripts of early civilization used communicate via pictures. Plus emojis-like symbols are even used by autistic kids. There is an app in ipad with all pictures that they use to communicate what they want.

<comment><USER5> Limiting our vocabulary to that of cavemen or children with limited capabilities is not a step forward in evolution. At least not one I'm looking forward to.

<comment><USER6> Nobody is arguing for limiting our communication to only emoji, but augmenting it with emoji.

Sometimes I want to write an essay, other times I just want to text a poop emoji+sad face to a friend because he's being a shithead.

They can both exist happily in the same world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was exactly here yesterday after a discussion with a friend of mine about the meaning of "Face With Steam From Nose" [1].

I work in an academic institute with many nationalities and almost all people (of different cultural backgrounds) describe this emoticon as an emoticon showing anger and frustration. Yet the official description in Unicode 6.0 [2] is "face with look of triumph" . Was it simply bad design?

[1] [http://emojipedia.org/face-with-look-of- triumph/](http://emojipedia.org/face-with-look-of-triumph/) [2] [http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-6.0/U60-1F600.pdf](http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-6.0/U60-1F600.pdf)

I am curious, have you found other similar examples?

<comment><USER8> I don't have an answer, but emojis seem to have been inspired by the Japanese culture. Perhaps steam from the nose is a common Japanese representation of victory?

I get that emojis were first invented for use on Japanese phones, but I don't understand why they kept them Japanese oriented when merged into Unicode? There's ideographs [1], acronyms that are relevant only to JP [2] and fish on a pole [3]

Surely we could've made better use of the Unicode space to use a common set of symbol shared by all cultures.

1: [http://emojipedia.org/squared-cjk-unified- ideograph-7981/](http://emojipedia.org/squared-cjk-unified-ideograph-7981/)

2: [http://emojipedia.org/squared-ng/](http://emojipedia.org/squared-ng/)

3: [http://emojipedia.org/carp-streamer/](http://emojipedia.org/carp- streamer/)

<comment><USER9> > Surely we could've made better use of the Unicode space […]

There is plenty of space.

Keep in mind that one of the goals of Unicode is to be able to represent existing corpora of text by means of a global standard. Emoji were in widespread use in Japanese mobile phones long before smartphones existed; that alone legitimises their presence in the Unicode standard.

Like a dictionary, the Unicode standard is in a large part descriptive rather than prescriptive. It catalogues what is in use, not what ought to be used. However, recent emoji contributions do seem to have been made in the spirit of filling lacunae in the set.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you have a textbox on the internet, eventually some special snowflake will put emoji into it. And one day, you'll wake up to your backend systems on fire, because someone decided that their name was the smiling pile of poop emoji.[0] (Are your backend systems jealous that someone else is named that?)

I've recently needed to make some fields emoji-proof. This seems like a great resource for testing. Thanks for sharing.

[0] [http://emojipedia.org/pile-of-poo/](http://emojipedia.org/pile-of-poo/)

<comment><USER2> Reminds me of when I wrote an app to track and store tweets about a given hashtag. Worked fine in its first few months, then started throwing encoding errors right around the time Twitter enabled emoji support. I was using MySQL as a data store and was ignorant to the fact that UTF8 encoding in MySQL only uses 3 bytes. I was ignorant about encoding in general but thought that UTF8 always meant 4-bytes. Apparently so did many other MySQL users, and it was bad enough that MySQL questions on Stackoverflow are already filled with erroneous info about all kinds of encoding issues.

The search for the fix -- which is that MySQL has a utf8mb4 encoding for 4-bytes -- was probably the most frustrating debugging exercise in my career. Even worse was the eventual revelation that the MySQL devs were technically right -- the UTF8 spec says nothing about requiring 4 bytes, and 3 bytes probably seemed sensible enough in terms of efficiency at the time of MySQL 4.

<comment><USER5> From RFC-3629 [1] (the UTF8 spec), on page 4:

      In UTF-8, characters from the U+0000..U+10FFFF range (the UTF-16
      accessible range) are encoded using sequences of 1 to 4 octets.

It would be absurd for an encoding that's used by 88.9% of the web [2] to be implemented in a way that doesn't respect the standard.

[1] [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3629#page-5](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3629#page-5)

[2] [https://www.wikiwand.com/en/UTF-8](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/UTF-8)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't understand why emojis should be customizable with skin colors. And five of them nonetheless. If discriminating based on skin color is racist, why do we invent new ways to do it? I'd rather use a single color for everyone (don't care which) because I don't want to express "a black man smiling", I want to express "a man smiling".

<comment><USER11> > (don't care which)

> I don't want to express "a black man smiling"

Which is it?

<comment><USER12> Are you deliberately avoiding the rest of what he wrote? The point is that he doesn't care to involve color at all, having only one color would remove the "it's color X smiling" choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Emojimakers do not seem to understand that there is a difference between big smiles.

For example, this [1] big smile represents a totally different emotion than [2].

Now look at the "grinning face" set of emoticons [3], which represents a total grab-bag of emotions. You really can't reliably use emoticons these days.

[1] [https://img.myloview.es/fotomurales/gran-sonrisa-con- dientes...](https://img.myloview.es/fotomurales/gran-sonrisa-con- dientes-400-6831667.jpg)

[2] [http://www.clipartkid.com/images/101/smiley-face-clip-art- em...](http://www.clipartkid.com/images/101/smiley-face-clip-art-emotions- clipart-panda-free-clipart-images-S5COzM-clipart.jpeg)

[3] [http://emojipedia.org/grinning-face/](http://emojipedia.org/grinning- face/)

</comment><comment><USER14> Emojipedia is a great resource, I use it frequently to find emojis by name.

</comment><comment><USER15> Interesting insight into the emoji approval process (podcast): [https://food52.com/blog/19350-why-is-there-no-pie- emoji](https://food52.com/blog/19350-why-is-there-no-pie-emoji)

Also: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11958682](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11958682)

</comment><comment><USER16> Wow. I never thought all those emojis were implemented on so many different platforms.

Are there official specs? Who designed the original emojis everyone else copied?

<comment><USER17> They fall under the Unicode standard. Warning, this page is quite big!

[http://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji- list.html](http://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> can't believe it made it to hn front page. HackerNews works in mysterious ways.

</comment><comment><USER4> Are all emojis just unicode?

<comment><USER9> Depends on what you mean by emoji, but all of the emoji you can use on smartphones and in social media tend to be part of the Unicode standard. They are like any other Unicode character; i.e., they have their own codepoint assigned, and can be represented in a valid Unicode encoding such as UTF-8. Some can be modified with modifying characters (skin colour is a modifiable attribute these days), but this too is not a new feature (e.g., combining diacritic characters do this too, although mostly you would just use the composed variants (like é) instead).</comment></comment>